Why People Need to Stop Using Religion as an Excuse for Ignorance

[Waffles731]

I've seen a lot of people use religion as an excuse for ignorance and that BUGS THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

Now I'm just going to go down the list.

Lets start with evolution.

So the whole young earth creationism shit.

So let me first point out that early Christians didn't interpret the bible literally, that only started in the 1800s

So now lets talk about evolution, Evolution is pretty much fact. Now when you use the bible to point to something that early Christians didn't do. Now lets get to the REALLY juicy part.

Now, God is supposed to be omnipotent correct, so that means he can do whatever the fuck he wants including creating the world and humanity. So therefore by insisting against fact that he did it a certain way is essentially denying gods power, which by your own religion is

That's right, by denying science and proven fact you are essentially committing a huge sin. You are holding back both science and religion and I'm sick and tired of it. I'm spiritual but not religious and I do believe in a deity but you are just morons.

So to sum it up, science deniers:

[helloitsmethere]

Thank you... it gives religion a bad name...

[SlightlyCrazy]

Damn right !

[Borginborg]

Gotta disagree on a few point.
1. Evolution and creation are bothy unproven theories.
2. It isn't religion vs science it is religion and science. Just that religion has been so skewered by humankind that it no longer exists in its pure form. Science just came into public favor so fast due to most major scientific breakthroughs happening in a relatively short amount of time given the how long humanoids have walked the earth. Even the Pope declared that evolution probably did occur and should be believed and evolution does work along with biblical teachings. People say that 'God created the earth and man in 6 days' okay here is my thoughts.
So the earth started whatever, then the big bang (created the heaven and the earth) an uneven water magnet flung through space and it was sucking the water off the other planets as it whizzed by along with building blocks (amenities acids and such) of what now make up different dna strands (without form and void), volcanic eruptions started in the core due to the intense magnification and the pressure from the water liquidating it (and he made dry land appear out of the water). This caused the blob of water to take the form of the planet, liquidating most of the water so that the planet was surrounded by a heavy mist (biblically there was no rain as we know it at all until Noah's ark), slime balls started crawling out of the water and depending on their mixture of DNA became the different creatures when theat dna strands came in contact with various forms of 'solid earth' (clay, sand, pumice, rock) it was the final building block needed. Now a day and night now take 24 hours, back then it could have been thousands or millions of what we consider years. It wasn't until the meteor hit, the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, that the earth came to its present orbit. due to the traumatic shock of moving threw space the earths flora changed thus obliterating the dinosaurs food chains. The meteor also caused the earth to take its present orbit but it was still slow as molasses due to the need to right itself by its new poles yet again and stabilize itself. By that time we were just getting ready to walk on two feet consistently and we survived (as well as some of the creatures) due to our ability to adapt. So in conclusion I believe pure science and pure religion are both equals heading in the same direction. (Hope that makes sense I am not rereading it)

[Waffles731]

Your answers are always so well thought out.

[Waffles731]

I mean that in a good way.
Good answer

[AssJacket]

Evolution is very much a proven theory. Creationism has not been proven, nor is it a theory in a scientific sense. They are in no way, shape or form equal. However, I do agree that they aren't at odds.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket maybe you should go back study you ancient Hebrew. God didn't create it CAUSED. It swung the first ball that started this infernal motion machine we call existence. The big bang. The big bang could have happened due to the 'birth' of God or his existence in this realm/dimension/reality as it now is. The important link that had the blueprints for all the dna's that formed.
You better check your history because most of the Bible has been proven by science and archeology. Josephus was alive around the same time as Jesus or somewhere around there and science accepts his writings as truth. Can't pick and chose what parts of science you want to believe and what parts you don't. It's an all or nothing thing. That's what happened to pure religion. People began picking and choosing what they wanted to believe. Keep science pure and just follow what it proves. Just because it not prove, does not mean it doesn't exist. Who knows what that collider is going to find before it is done.

[AssJacket]

I didn't say anything about the Bible or whatever - I said Creationism has not been proven whereas Evolution has. For that reason, Evolution is a scientific theory whereas Creationism isn't. Your response addresses none of that.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket creationism is a biblical teaching

[AssJacket]

@Borginborg Yes, Creationism is a Biblical teaching. Not a scientific theory.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket enough of the Bible has been proven (specifically referring to Genesis) that it makes the remainder of it probable. No science can't prove it but it can't disprove it either and proof of one thing doesn't disprove another. Both could be fact.

[AssJacket]

Yeah, that's not really the way science works. The fact that some portion of something is true doesn't make the remainder any more or less probable of being true. Also, there are a few things that put the Bible in direct conflict with proven scientific fact, if taken literally. So, taken as a whole, no they can't both be fact.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket 100 years ago modern medicine didn't exist and scientifically mold couldn't be used to make penecillin, 200 years ago the world was scientifically flat. Newton's law was a scientific laughingstock. Don't tell me what science hasn't proven can not be the reality

[AssJacket]

Well... Isaac Newton's laws appeared for the first time in the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which was immediately thought of my the majority of the scientific community to be one of the best works of scientific thought ever created, and remained so for decades. Also, nobody - and I mean nobody - that was scientifically literate 200 years ago thought the Earth was flat.

And... I never said that what science hasn't proven can't be reality. We have thoroughly disproven a lot of the content in the Bible - particularly Genesis - and that's what puts it in conflict with science.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket show me where Genesis was disproven. Take into consideration my personal interpretation of it.

[AssJacket]

I guess the main thing with Genesis is we know the order of events couldn't have happened that way - whales coming before insects, the Earth before the Sun, etc. I guess most of the other conflicts are scattered throughout the Bible and aren't limited to just Genesis.

[Borginborg]

@AssJacket who says what we know as whales were what were whales back then. No pictures exist. And even by evolution the water life would have existed first. Second it doesn't say anywhere in the bible the earth came before the sun.

[Borginborg]

We aren't talking about other conflicts we are talking about creationism and evolution

[goaded]

"it doesn't say anywhere in the bible the earth came before the sun. "

So, it was there, part of the heavens, just not switched on yet?

[Borginborg]

@goaded the big bang... isn't that how everything that exists originally started according to peoples beloved science? The sudden existence of everything from absolutly nothing. Like a finger snap without the fingers

[goaded]

That's pretty much what it looks like, yes.

Bear in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a conclusion reached from evidence, not something that has to be proved to justify the evidence.

People thought the earth was a few thousand years old, before they noticed strange things like fossils of sea creatures at the tops of mountains, geologists put pieces of the jigsaw together and realised the earth must be millions of years old, at least. Astronomers like Hubble noticed that the further away stars were, the faster they were travelling away from us, and worked out that the universe was expanding and older than anyone had thought possible.

The expanding universe observations lead to the conclusion that at some stage everything must have started expanding, the Big Bang.

The theory predicted that the heat from around the time of the BB should still be visible as microwave radiation, which was experimentally detected, bolstering the theory.

(All from memory, so details may be wrong.)

[Borginborg]

@goaded i am not arguing about anything i agree. I believe that something caused the big bang though, you dont get something from nothing. If you change the wording of genesis from created to caused and take into consideration the fact that a day and a night could have taken millions of our years then the potential of both creationism and evelution being true is a possibility.

[JenSCDC]

@Borginborg- if "day" doesn't mean an actual day, then how can we rely on anything Genesis says?

[Borginborg]

@JenSCDC it did mean a day, light and dark it didn't say how many hours

[JenSCDC]

You didn't answer my question of how we can rely on Genesis for anything if we're free - just as you're doing- to interpret it in any way we want to.

[Borginborg]

@JenSCDC i never claimed to be a bible thumper. I was just making a point to closed minded people

[Brokenheartedx]

I grew up with a very catholic gran who'd threaten me as a young kid if be going to the *bad fire* if I stepped out of line..

My dads side are all Catholics and my mums mum was a Catholic who raised her daughter with no religion as my gran was beaten by nuns with a cane for being late for chapel at school... that's what they did back then her back was terribly scarred.. my dad didn't want me going to a catholic school because he wasn't religious even though he went to one himself and all my cousins are Catholic.. but I was raised an atheist which makes me see all religions and all their faults.. to me religion is the cause of all troubles in this world.. growing up it was Catholics v Protestants and still fights in way of football bigotry, you're either an orange bastard or a Fenian bastard even if u don't care for religion..

Religion is ignorance, religion should be a personal belief not a status symbol... now we have Muslims coming over to stir it up with their full face covered and Muslims areas that's taken a country to slightly curb sectarian Hatred backwards to when it was Catholics v Protestants..

that's why I'm glad I'm an atheist I don't need this crap

[AskNaz]

Evolution is a theory. It's not a fact, and definitely not a proven fact at that. Sounds like the only ignorant one here is you.

Secondly, It's not a matter of what method God used to create the universe, but rather whether it was from his hands.

Christians don't believe in evolution, because it implies that everything was made out of nothingness.

You think that we're perfectly distanced from the sun by accident? That the universe somehow "accidentally" made us at the optimal distance so we don't burn or freeze?
That the universe "accidentally" made a day and night cycle that perfectly aligns with our need to sleep and recover. Trees to produce oxygen; what our bodies need. Rain to water the plants. Soil to grow food.
That it made our complicated minds with capabilities to create amazing things. With our hands to do things and our legs to walk. Our mouths to eat and communicate. Our eyes to see.

Earth looks beautiful. The animals and humans don't look deformed. Each body part plays a complicated role to our survival and being. If all of this was an accident, wouldn't we see more flaws with all of this?

We're TOO perfect to just appear out of nowhere.
Do you know what the chances of our existence even is if the Big Bang was true? Essentially nothing. One simple variable off out of thousands and our existence wouldn't be.

[PrincessofNohr]

Correction: we wouldn't exist as we are now. Theoretically, billions upon billions of physical configurations could lead to life in different forms. We just happen to be one configuration that works on this little rock.

[Waffles731]

@PrincessofNohr
The catholic church has never opposed evolution and has promoted it since around the 20s

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Life by itself has the tiniest chance. It doesn't matter what configuration. The chance of sustainable life is incredibly incredibly slim, even more so the way it is now. Our "configuration" would be INCREDIBLY low chance.

Just look at the little tiniest details that keeps our life life.
Like bees for example, they're a just an extra "configuration" of life right? Of our life. Well actually they're a VERY important to the survival of our "little rock". Just imagine without bees, a single "configuration" among us would not allow us to survive and the earth would be dead.

This was one mere example. The list goes on and on.
We can barely comprehend the complexity of our existence.

[PrincessofNohr]

The thing is, it's perfect for us and the life we see. Who says that we are the only way life could possibly exist? We can only observe an infinitessimally small chunk of the universe, so who is to say there isn't a planet out there with life of a different configiration altogether?

Additionally, going on the idea that our set of conditions is incredibly small in chance: what about that means that it has to be of supernatural origin? The universe is so vastly large in scope and scale, that something so precise actually has a good chance of occurring at some point or another. For example, if you attempt to roll the one roll yahtzee ten billion times, there is a very good chance it will occur in there at some point. The same goes for our "perfect" conditions occurring in at least one of the innumerable planets out there.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

What you overlook are the details. Everything works. Everything has a reason, has a role.
You look in a microscope and you find why this does that. Why this little tiny spec does this.
How can we be so lucky? How can nothing bring something so complicated, something so overwhelmingly right.; so beautiful.

Just imagine it's not only the fact that the puzzle pieces (our existence) fell together, but it's like taking one hundred puzzle sets, mixing all of them, then dropping them from a roof and having that one puzzle set (our earth) not only fall together but perfectly fall into their place to form their puzzle set.
The probability of that ever happening is so very close to impossible.
I don't care if you through those puzzles a trillion times, you won't get that result.

You're telling me this incredible overwhelming luck that came out of literally NOTHINGNESS makes more sense than God being a higher power who created science itself and the perfect universe?

[PrincessofNohr]

That's exactly what i'm saying. Your argument assumes that our world holds some kind of inherently special value, but in reality, what we see as extraordinary is ordinary in the eyes of the universe. We can apply the same chance principles to a tomato stain on the shirt. For those atoms to be in that configuration on your shirt, they had to be in the exact placement for the tomato plant to absorb them, end up in a particular tomato out of many, go to a particular packing plant, end up in a specific jar, end up on a specific plate for a specific meal, and be dropped in just the right way to form that particular stain on your shirt. The chances of that stain occurring in that precise way are infinitesimally small, but we don't consider it supernatural if it occurs because we don't think a tomato stain is exceptional. We only think our existence is so "perfect" because we think we matter more than any other bit of matter, when in reality, we aren't.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Why wouldn't our world hold any value? Our existence is built with careful attention. How you dismiss this world so easily is beyond me.

Once you actually start appreciating nature and spend some time in it and actually pay attention, you'll see that our world was certainly not made out nothing and by accident.

Why did that tomato exist in the first place? Why did it have seeds in it?

The tomato was juicy, because it wanted me to eat it. It's bright color and flavor drew me towards it. It was built that way to attract attention from me to both satisfy my hunger and go through me to later get replanted.

These subtle, but incredible details our world has (even as simple as a tomato) are simply too complicated for an accident.

What decided that there should be such a thing as life? And in the form it is now.
Life this complicated didn't just come from a bunch of random variables that somehow came out of nothing.

[PrincessofNohr]

You do realize the tomato we have today is the result of centuries of domestication, right? Wild tomatoes were small and yellow, and the varieties we have today come from selective breeding. It's the same as Ray Comfort's famous (debunked) banana argument.

As for my view of the world, it is irrelevant when it comes to the science, as is your view. The scientific truth is only concerned with facts and evidence, and the moment we begin conflating it with philosophy, the argument falls apart.

And as to answer the question of my personal view: I have taken in the world around me and find more wonder in the fact that there is no master plan, and we are simply a manifestation of some rules and chance. It makes me realize that there is much more for us to learn and to always be curious.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

What did I say about the tomato that has to do with domestication? My point still stands. Wild tomatoes are even more delicious Lol

[PrincessofNohr]

What you said has everything to do with domestication. Your argument is that the tomato was purposefully designed to be appealing to humans. In reality, the first "tomatoes" before human intervention were small, yellow, and thought to be highly poisonous by the conquistadors because they resembled a member of the deadly nightshade family. They only began breeding them into the more desirable form we have today because they saw the Mesoamericans eating them. So that "wild tomato" wasn't always so appealing.

And if we're sticking to the "designed to be perfect for humans" argument, why do things like Y. pestis and Ebola virus? They're quite perfectly designed to kill us, so was that created too?

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Well it depends on the variety.
I guess a strawberry is a better example.

Lions aren't necessarily perfect for humans either, but it's they're there to create balance.
Part of life.

[JenSCDC]

It appears that you're the ignorant one because you don't even know what a scientific theory is.

[goaded]

I've enjoyed reading this opinion and its responses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC
Except the original post claims that the theory was a proven fact. That's what I was referring to.

[goaded]

It is proven. It has been proved (tested) over and over for a century and a half, and every new technology that comes along to prove it (DNA sequencing, for example) has concurred with the original theory of Natural Selection, not disproved it.

@Waffles731's exact words were: "Evolution is pretty much fact.", and he's right.

[PrincessofNohr]

@goaded What people usually think of as a "theory" is a hypothesis, the educated guess. Science definition of theory is a hypothesis well supported by evidence.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

An educated prediction is still not a proven fact.
Proven fact =/= Hypothesis

[PrincessofNohr]

Of course they aren't the same. In fact, theories are often built on facts, the small tidbits of proven information that meld together to build a theory. For example, gravity. We know for a fact that objects with mass are drawn towards each other at a force proportionate to their relative masses. Tests show this over and over, so this is the fact. This fact is extended to the theory of gravity, and further into special relativity as hypothesis are tested and the correct ones become the facts that make up the theory.

This is why evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis. We have thousands upon thousands of hypothesis that are tested true, making up the facts that become the theory of evolution.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Meant to reply to the other person.

[goaded]

"Evolution is pretty much fact" doesn't say evolution is a fact, it says that it's about as close as any theory will ever get to one. It's at least as much of a fact as Gravity.

It has been tested for 150 years without ever being disproved, and new techniques like DNA sequencing would have been as unthinkable to Darwin and Wallace as space based devices five million kilometres on a side* to detect gravitational waves would have been to Newton or Einstein.

And yet, the theory held.

*Three spacecraft connected by laser light.

[AskNaz]

@goaded

There are facts that disprove the theory. Look it up.
Gravity is different than knowing the genesis of earth.

The genesis is far more complex and the theory is much less "proven" than gravity.

[PrincessofNohr]

Why should we have to look them up? You're the one trying to "disprove" it, so you show us the facts.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Because there are multiple sources, if you really care then it's one simple search.
If you don't care to type in a few words, I doubt you'd care to read the facts.

[PrincessofNohr]

I'd absolutely love to see any valid counterpoints, but I truly don't believe there are any. Sorry to say, but the burden of proof is on YOU for this one. You are the one attempting to make a valid point against evolution and abiogenisis, so it is on YOU to show me these supposed valid, researched arguments. The fact that you have not made one argument I have not been able to counter with basic research and the fact that you are cannot show me any of these supposed counterarguments makes me believe that they don't really exist.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Can't link since I'm not level two :)

[goaded]

Put spaces in the link, and it will probably come through.

[AskNaz]

@goaded think it's easier for us both if you just google "Evolution proven wrong" and clicked the first few links

[JenSCDC]

Let's see... I did that search, clicked on the very first link, and lo and behold! That site made assertions without even trying to back them up with evidence. Would you mind pointing us to a site that makes even a token effort?

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

https://www.
dcclothesline
. com/2014/01/09/44-reasons-evolution-just-fairy-tale-adults/

[JenSCDC]

The first claim is absurdly false- no transitional fossils? Here's one link: www.livescience.com/...al-truth-darwin-theory.html

Does your website make any effort to show why all these examples _aren't_ actually transitional fossils? No, which means that it's just another site that doesn't make any effort to provide evidence for its claims.

Let's try this another way since I don't feel like wasting my time visiting BS sites. You go to the site of your choice and pick an example that actually gives evidence. Next, search for evidence that refutes the claim. Now, and only now, a) give us the claim b) provide supporting evidence and c) tell us why the evidence that claims to refute your given claim is invalid.

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

Why am I not surprised you couldn't get past the first point.

[JenSCDC]

That I stopped at the first point isn't the main issue, it's why I stopped, namely because they offered no evidence to support their claim. If you think the claim that there are no transitional fossils, then give us your evidence. I made the effort of finding evidence that refutes the claim; why can't you make an effort to find evidence to support it?

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

https://www. icr. org/fossils-stasis

https://answersingenesis. org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/

[JenSCDC]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The AIG page gave quotes from people who had no evidence of transitional fossils, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be transitional fossils that they didn't know about. And guess what? People have found tons of fossils that give every indication of being "transitional". So why doesn't AIG give any evidence that all those fossils are not transitional?

[JenSCDC]

Here's evidence refuting ICR's claim about trilobites: https://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm

[goaded]

First number between 1 and 44 out of a random number generator: 11

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.” ("Sudden Origins", 1999).

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
"This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation."

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/.../speciation.php
en.wikipedia.org/.../Observed_speciation
atheism.about.com/.../ObservedEvolution.htm

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC
What's funny is the "evidence" is not clear cut.
It's not obvious evidence.

Gravity, for example, has very obvious evidence. No one's conflicting with the theory.

If evolution was really true, we'd be seeing evident fossils all over the place confirming so and there'd be no need for a small article that provide 5-10 "possible" transitional fossils.
There's no SOLID evidence.
Evolutionists themselves admitted this.

Also, there's no evidence happening in the present. I don't see any new animals forming with half an organ, do you?

Consider this about DNA:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

[AskNaz]

Also amusing how people who believe in evolution are so scientifically driven, yet find it so easy to have faith in the idea that out of nothing a whole complex universe became.

[JenSCDC]

Please define what you mean by "code" and "language".

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

DNA's a code? Don't you know this?

[JenSCDC]

"Code" has many meanings, so I wanted to find out exactly what you meant.

[JenSCDC]

Duh- I should have thought of this at first- RNA. Although IIRC there are a few things left to fill everything out, there's strong evidence that RNA can self assemble from precursor building blocks.

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

Not quite. Both DNA and RNA are essentially the same in regards to the question, just different structures, functions, etc.

I could replace DNA with RNA in the question and it'd stand the same.

[PrincessofNohr]

You're falsely conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution only deals with the adaption of species over time through natural selection. It has nothing to do or say about how life came to be from non-living materials. That is another completely different area of science with a completely different set of arguments.

Also, I've seen the point about there being "chemical evolution", "stellar evolution", etc. These are also unrelated to biological evolution and act by a totally independent set of rules.

[PrincessofNohr]

No, DNA and RNA are not the same. Similar, yes, but the same, absolutely not. They have a different set of bases (DNA = AGCT, RNA = AGCU), and the sugar making up their backbone is different (hence the names). Additionally, their functions are wildly different. DNA acts as the template for RNA, and RNA is the messanger as well as carrier for amino acids and a component of ribosomes. In science, similar =/= identical.

[PrincessofNohr]

I also want to address the whole thing that makes these arguments for a designer faulty to begin with - they are acting completely in the reverse of what make science, science. True science takes observations, tests them, and then derives a theory from those observations. These theories hold up when they show they have good predictive power (i. e. we expect to see certain fossils, and we find them). Darwin didn't just come up with evolution because he thought it sounded cool; he based it on the observations he made in nature, like with his famous sparrows.

Creation and intelligent design do the opposite - they assume an explanation, and attempt to fit observations into that mold. That is literally counter to what science is. It is literally, anti-science.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Exactly. So how does it answer the question if DNA is the template for RNA?
RNA is a messenger then, not a code nor a language.

DNA and RNA work together.

[AskNaz]

This wasn't a question about the similarities between DNA and RNA.

And actually, when Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true.

[JenSCDC]

RNA conveys information, just like DNA, so if you're going to call DNA a code that makes RNA a code.

[JenSCDC]

There are also bee dances, which are undoubted a code.

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

And that was my original point! Lol

If both are considered codes, they are essentially the same IN REGARDS TO THE QUESTION. Because I can use both and the question remains the same.

You see my point? Me swapping out DNA and RNA in question still keeps the question the same.

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC
Bee dances is like speaking for humans. It's a form of communication.

[PrincessofNohr]

Okay, I'll play. Just because we see order, why do we have to assume that there MUST be intention in it? Snowflakes are extremely precise, but they are formed by natural conditions, not intention. What makes DNA so different? As for a "code", this a human construct. We see it as a code; to nature, it's just a set of molecules that fit together. Perhaps consider that this, over time, proved to be the best way to consistently and accurately transfer genetic information?

As for Darwin and evolution and no evidence, DID I NOT MENTION HIS SPARROWS? He saw these birds isolated on the islands, yet possessing many different functions to fill different niches. That was HIS evidence. And the DNA you so lovingly endorse as proof of creation is strong evidence for evolution, since it provides a mechanism for which evolution can occur - random mutations over time that are selected for by natural conditions.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Yes I am aware of Darwin's story.

That's survival of the fittest. You have a strong beak? You can hunt better, you'll survive longer. Then your baby birds will have strong beaks as well, until eventually all the weak beaked birds die away and only the ones that have the right genes (a strong beak) survive.
That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is an ape evolving into a human.

Putting a suit on an ape and placing him in a office or home won't make him "adapt" into a human. Even more so when there was no cities a long time ago.

And what makes a code different is that codes need to be written.
Codes need to precisely determined to work.

A computer couldn't program itself, a code has to be written by a programmer.

[goaded]

"What doesn't make sense is an ape evolving into a human."

You misunderstand evolution.

You are descended from your great-great-great grandparents, right? They're not still around, but there's a good chance you have fourth or fifth cousins also descended from the same couple. They probably don't look as much like you as your siblings do.

Now, try imagining your 50th cousins, descended from a couple who lived in about the year 1000, you wouldn't recognise them as family.

Your 500th cousins would have had a common ancestor living about 9000 years BC and be spread all over the world.

Keep going back, and imagine your 5000th cousins, or your 50000th cousins. Some of them might be quite a bit hairier than you and live in trees.

The common ancestors and their peers have long ago turned to dust but their descendants, who all looked very much like their parents, now look very different from their distant ancestors and very different to each other.

[AskNaz]

@goaded

Lol I'm sure my ancestors look nothing like me, but I'm even more sure they weren't apes.

Ever wonder why we don't see anymore apes evolving to humans?
Not even a cross between the two, not even halfway.
There's apes and then there's Humans. Separate and completely different.

[JenSCDC]

"Ever wonder why we don't see anymore apes evolving to humans?" Where did you get the idea that apes evolved into humans? They never did- apes and humans just share common ancestors.

[JenSCDC]

"If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one." Which I did when I gave the example of RNA.

[PrincessofNohr]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. I can't wrap my head around the idea of advanced quantum physics, but just because I don't understand doesn't invalidate it. The same goes for evolution. Just because you don't think it make sense doesn't make it false.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

Not understanding and seeing something as illogical is different.
What would you say if I told you the reason you don't believe in creationism is because you don't understand it?
I understand the theory, I just don't believe it's true.

Anyways, I grow tired of this back and forth.
Perhaps someday you'll be a little more open minded towards creationism.
Take care for now.

[AskNaz]

@JenSCDC

Must I explain this again?
RNA is not a valid answer, because it's tied to DNA.

[PrincessofNohr]

It isn't illogical; it's all there in the DNA, frankly. You quite clearly deliberately refuse to see it, and no, I will not ever be "open" to a falsehood like creationism. If you don't want to see what's in front of your nose, that's on you, not me.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr
You don't understand the question...
Reread it a couple times.
I'm asking how DNA got coded. (RNA IS TIED WITH THAT, I don't understand how you think this could even be an answer when RNA is coded with the same nature as DNA) There must be coder for DNA to be coded.

You simply dismiss or ignore any good arguments I make with a "That's just the way it is". Never giving me a clear answer.

Back to the riddle...
The question I gave is a riddle by Perry Marshall.
https://cosmicfingerprints. com/read-prove-god-exists/

Perhaps if you read it from there you'll understand the question...

[PrincessofNohr]

Here, want your answer? Here it is:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

[PrincessofNohr]

And that article is a load of bollocks when it claims "random mutation always destroys information". Genetic information isn't a measurable unit like a meter or a gram is measured. If that were the case, we'd say amoebas have more genetic information than humans, because they have more DNA than we do per base pair. And the below study clearly indicates random mutation combined with selection does lead to new functions, like the utilization of citrate in E. coli.

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

The point is completely flying over your head and what you're arguing is completely irrelevant with the point.

[PrincessofNohr]

It is completely relevant. I showed you a thorough article on the history of DNA that didn't need it coded? You ignore it. I show you an extensive experiment PROVING MUTATION AND SELECTION WORKING TOGETHER TO SHOW EVOLUTION, you ignore it. And your "code" isn't a code, because a code is human idea. Just because we see it as being similar to something we create with intention does not mean it was actually created with intention. See the above video about seeing intention where it is not.

I'm officially done. You have dodged my points, blatantly ignored valid evidence I have presented, and literally said that you simply refuse to accept the science because you don't like it. Nothing I say or do will make you go outside your little box. Have a nice life in it.

[AskNaz]

@PrincessofNohr

You refer to earth and everything in it as if it's only a perception that we made up.
That it means only as little as we think of it.

What you sent me simply answers why DNA is DNA. It doesn't answer my question.
Like I said, you never clearly answered many of my questions and points, just masked it with more distractions and irrelevance.

[JenSCDC]

"If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one." While it may not qualify as "natural", there is indisputable evidence that a DNA like "code" does not need to be created by a conscious mind- genetic algorithms.

[goaded]

"Lol I'm sure my ancestors look nothing like me, but I'm even more sure they weren't apes."
Read it again, your ancestors were not chimps and gorillas, chimps and gorillas are your far distant cousins. We share a group of common ancestors.

"Ever wonder why we don't see anymore apes evolving to humans?"
No, because I understand what I wrote earlier.

[skeptic002]

have fun believing a lie bro

GENESIS 6:4
There were GIANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them

surbrook.devermore.net/.../giant-skeleton_02.jpg

ENOCH CHAPTER 6
And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...f4d542332c.jpg

www.sott.net/.../giant_mound_builder.jpg

calmcrash.files.wordpress.com/.../...feet-tall.jpg

[Waffles731]

you're the one whose evidence is a couple of photographs, an egyptian hyroglyph and a sketchy newspaper article from nearly 100 years ago.

[skeptic002]

and your evidence is zero have fun bro

[Waffles731]

my evidence is all the scientific evidence to back my claims up, oh wait you don't believe in science

[skeptic002]

THIS YOU BELIEVE THIS RACIST IDIOT DARWIN
godfatherpolitics.com/.../...Origin-of-species.jpg

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION WAFFLE
rvpetsafety.com/.../group-of-dogs-1-1170x488.jpg

WHO IS MORE EVOLVED
armonietenor.weebly.com/.../909502005.jpg

ROMANS 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator

[Waffles731]

and by races he meant species,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

[Waffles731]

and quote the bible all you want, its not a credible scientific source

[skeptic002]

of course during a time when slavery was okay and people where very racist

so tell who is more evolved?
cause trust me if im more evolved my job is to kill you
rape and force the females in your family to have my kids
and if I want kill the women afterwards

have to produce a stronger race it's okay for a greater cause you know life doesn't matter
the struggle of favored races is what matters
image.slidesharecdn.com/.../...-of-evil-14-638.jpg

[Waffles731]

'have to produce a stronger race it's okay for a greater cause you know life doesn't matter
the struggle of favored races is what matters '
That's social darwinism, something Darwin actually HATED social darwinism
Darwin's views on social and political issues reflected his time and social position. He grew up in a family of Whig reformers who, like his uncle Josiah Wedgwood, supported electoral reform and the emancipation of slaves. Darwin was passionately opposed to slavery, while seeing no problem with the working conditions of English factory workers or servants. His taxidermy lessons in 1826 from the freed slave John Edmonstone, who he long recalled as "a very pleasant and intelligent man", reinforced his belief that black people shared the same feelings, and could be as intelligent as people of other races. He took the same attitude to native people he met on the Beagle voyage.[186]

[skeptic002]

I don't believe you
his book never even talks about the origins
its nothing but racist remarks in the book as for what others said about him I don't care
it's obvious he was racist from what i read he wasn't always like that, but eventually he became like that

plus man my BIBLE tells the whole truth with all the physical evidence out now its 100% accurate
so evolution nothing new invented by the Annunaki 5000 to 6000 years ago
who are the sons of god from genesis 6

and like ever generation there's a group of people that believe it like idiots so you are a fool

[Dimmu]

Evolutionist: religions is silly cause they say things just happen

Evolution: life just happened and them evolved
Me : lol

So now lets talk about evolution, Evolution is pretty much fact

That's against science principal , science is a refining process , so it's always incomplete and partially or totally wrong , that's why it's always keep improving
I didn't find a scientist say :OK that's topic is finished we know everything about it as a FACT

There's always something a theory can't explain , when you treat something as fact then you don't mean science

by the way we used Newton model to get on the moon , then he was wrong
It's getting funny

[skeptic002]

dude he is a fail don't listen to him

[Dimmu]

@skeptic002 lol I know

[goaded]

Evolution is one of the most verified scientific theories of all time.

Science doesn't say it knows everything about how it works, but in 150 years of looking, they haven't found anything that shows it to be wrong, and any details that aren't understood are unlikely to do anything more than refine small aspects of the theory.

Exactly like Newton's laws. They were close enough to being right that nobody noticed the differences from reality for hundreds of years. Einstein's theories predicted slight differences from Newton's laws, in cases of extremely high speeds or powerful gravitational fields. Experimentation (e. g. observing gravitational lensing during a solar eclipse) showed Einstein's theory to be an even better fit to reality.

That's what science is about; not finding an absolute truth, but getting closer and closer to understanding reality (and discarding ideas that don't match reality on the way).

[skeptic002]

@goaded

show me a monkey becoming a human?
ohh wait you can't

it's a belief based on blind faith

[Dimmu]

@goaded partially or totally wrong not slight inaccurate

But I think we agree that science is a tool not away to figure out the absolute truth

[Dimmu]

@skeptic002 even proving it scientifically doesn't mean it's true, it means it's useful theory now
Cause many things was proven to be right- with real evidence and application- turned out to be wrong

[Dimmu]

What's funny is how evolutionists mock religion for something, and then do the very same thing

[skeptic002]

ughh I'll stick to my bible has enough science in it

[Dimmu]

@skeptic002 i dont like to compare both things

[skeptic002]

I love comparing the 2 makes evolution look like a joke

[goaded]

@skeptic002 You misunderstand evolution.

You are descended from your great-great-great grandparents, right? They're not still around, but there's a good chance you have fourth or fifth cousins also descended from the same couple. They probably don't look as much like you as your siblings do.

Now, try imagining your 50th cousins, descended from a couple who lived in about the year 1000 (I could be one of them!), you wouldn't recognise them as family.

Your 500th cousins would have had a common ancestor living about 9000 years BC and be spread all over the world.

Keep going back, and imagine your 5000th cousins, or your 50000th cousins. Some of them might be quite a bit hairier than you and live in trees.

The common ancestors and their peers have long ago turned to dust, or (very rarely) fossils, but their descendants, who all looked very much like their parents, now look very different from their distant ancestors and very different to each other.

[goaded]

"partially or totally wrong not slight inaccurate"

I don't know what you mean by that.

"But I think we agree that science is a tool not a[ ]way to figure out the absolute truth "
It is more successful at getting to the truth than believing books written thousands of years ago.

[skeptic002]

@goaded

we are all of one blood
where ALL FAMILY

and you are assuming the people of the past where dumb
(might be quite a bit hairier than you and live in trees)
which they where not

example pyramid of giza
no one on this earth can rebuild Giza even with everything we have today and the machines we can't get the same material and rebuild like they did

they where smarter then us they knew stuff we didn't
so no I don't believe they where dumb

and the pyramid was built a little after the flood
or before the flood

and as for looking different i wouldn't be surprised there genetics where better
they had stronger bones and lived longer so not a surprise

are genetics are so messed up ever generation gets worse
we are getting dumber, we have a hard time even trusting are own eyes

[skeptic002]

@goaded

and no i want absolute truth i don't go off guesses

[goaded]

@skeptic002 Pyramid builders were our 500th cousins (give or take a hundred), recognisably humans. I was talking about 100 times further back than that, or a 1000, or more, but at some stage chimps and humans had common ancestors (who would have been hairy and lived in trees).

Each generation looked like their parents, but the small variations make huge differences over thousands or millions of generations.

Of course we could build a pyramid today (but it would be ludicrously expensive, as they must have been back then). Could they have built a skyscraper?

[goaded]

@skeptic002 "and no i want absolute truth i don't go off guesses"

Please re-read the Take. You're being a wonderful example.

Look, scientific theories not "guesses", they're conclusions based on evidence that are checked for correctness.

If it's the middle of winter and you can see snow out of the window, are you just guessing it's cold outside?

[skeptic002]

@goaded

THERE'S ONLY 5000 TO 6000 YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY
so millions of years is a joke and speculation no way to prove it no matter how much carbon or other forms of dating they use

now as for the dates we have there all wrong

example
supposedly the Greek mythology is
800-600 BC so that's only 2800 years back
now the stories are,,
the gods came down and mated with the women that's including zeus

now the bible writings are 5000 to 6000 years
and in genesis it talks about the sons of god coming down and mating with the women
but that's only about 600 to 700 years after creation

Norse mythology talks about the same thing with the Jotun being giants
we have thor, loki, odin as the gods that came down and mated with the women
200AD
some time between the 5th century BC and 1st century AD

all of these stories are the same which means they happened around the same time common sense
the bible is the oldest date

let me finish

[skeptic002]

@goaded

now they call them gods in other texts
the bible says there fallen angels
they disobey GOD and wanna kill us

now on top of that the fallen angels are the inventors of evolution
it was made up around the sumerian time when the annunaki came down
and that's 5000 to 6000 years ago and they taught it to men

so evolution is a joke to me it was made up by angels that hate GOD
im no gonna listen to it

[goaded]

@skeptic002 History started when people invented writing, before that was pre-history, and there was plenty of that.

[skeptic002]

@goaded

that's right some how randomly
the writings and the different languages
just came out of no where does that make sense
when are DNA is getting weaker ever generation

what you are saying is there is before 5000 to 6000 years
and the only writing that i know of is Egyptian and there calender and dating method is all out of wack people even say it doesn't make sense
the most i could give this earth is 10,000 years max

but now with the new information out
i can't even go past 6000
the evidence is to strong the earth is 5000 to 6000 years
no other way around it

[goaded]

@skeptic002 Nice, you've got a new user name. I'm going to stop now.

[Dimmu]

@goaded science is not closest to the truth
Cause what's proven to be right now may be get proven to be wrong tomorrow , and that already happened in science a lot

So science can be powerful tool , even if it's wrong

But saying science is the truth or closest is against science nature

[goaded]

"Cause what's proven to be right now may be get proven to be wrong tomorrow , and that already happened in science a lot "

You don't seem to get that proving a theory wrong usually consists of finding an inconsistency with the observed universe and coming up with a better theory that handles the inconsistency as well as all the evidence that lead to the original theory.

Proving Newton's theory of gravity wrong didn't mean that we could suddenly jump over the moon. All the evidence that lead to his theory still stands, and any replacement theory has to encompass all the existing data to be accepted.

Creation myths fail to take in any of the existing data that lead to theories that contradict them, so can be dismissed.

www.theonion.com/.../sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl-2879

[Dimmu]

@goaded so what you are saying is :
when theory (analysis) is wrong, the equations are still practical

thats why i say science is tool not a fact

when newton model found to be wrong, that doesn't mean gravity disappear, but it means there are other observations that couldnt be explained with his model, now can be explained with a new model

unfortunately that new model also can't explain all the observations, so when new model come out it may say well the previous model was totally wrong , then it will be a new fact
then a new model, the "new fact " will be wrong with another "new fact" which eventually will be wrong

so being wrong and incomplete are nature of science

about creationists
i said it before
Evolutionist: religions is silly cause they say things just happen

Evolution: life just happened and then evolved

evolutionists do exactly what they make fun of

[goaded]

"@goaded so what you are saying is : when theory (analysis) is wrong, the equations are still practical"
No, I'm saying that the observations that led to the original theory haven't gone away.

You might like to read this article written for The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, by Isaac Asimov: chem.tufts.edu/.../RelativityofWrong.htm

In it he explains that things that aren't completely right aren't necessarily wrong.

"when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[Dimmu]

@goaded actually you assumed how i think
i said partially or totally wrong
and may

[Dimmu]

and what i am talking about is wrong and right
not degrees of being wrong
little wrong is wrong when we are talking about the truth
in practical science little wrong can be considered right , but not when we mean the truth

[skeptic002]

@goaded
YOU KEEP SAYING UNIVERSE AS IF IT'S SUPER BIG NOOOOO!!!
IT'S TINY
WE ARE NOT IN AN ENDLESS SPACE
THERE IS A DOME OVER THE EARTH ALL THE VISUAL EVIDENCE POINTS IN THAT DIRECTION

THE SUN IS TINY SO IS THE MOON

AND AS FOR THE SUMERIAN TEXT YOU PUT
LET ME SHOW YOU

this is when GOD questions job
JOB 38:7
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof
while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

the angels where there when GOD was making the earth

the Annunaki
when they rebelled they came down and raped the women told the same story
but instead GOD they said we are GOD

Isaiah 14:12
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast SAID IN THINE HEART, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

[skeptic002]

@goaded

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I WILL BE LIKE THE MOST HIGH.

15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit

[skeptic002]

@goaded

the devil is a cocky arrogant dumbass who is trying to be GOD
and when the time comes I'm gonna punch him in his face there's a long list of others in line

[JenSCDC]

@skeptic002 "show me a monkey becoming a human? Ohh wait you can't. it's a belief based on blind faith" No one has ever claimed that a monkey became a human. What happened was that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

[JenSCDC]

@skeptic002 Are you aware that the Bible was a) written by humans and b) a good deal (I can't remember how much, but the beginning is included in this part) of Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally? It was compiled out of J and E in order two unite two separate peoples. The creation story has always just been a story, nothing more.

[skeptic002]

@JenSCDC

flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/.../img_0039-1.jpeg

Genesis 1
And God said, Let there be a FIRMAMENT in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the FIRMAMENT, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the FIRMAMENT and it was so. And God called the FIRMAMENT Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a MOLTEN LOOKING GLASS

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a TENT to dwell in:

[JenSCDC]

Anyone else here think @skeptic002 is @relaxrelax under a new username?

[skeptic002]

@JenSCDC
i think you are on too something lol

[skeptic002]

@JenSCDC

and divided the waters which were under the firmamentm
from the WATERS which were ABOVE the FIRMAMENT

why do you think the sky is blue?
oceandrive.com/.../...Friendly-Constructions-4.jpg

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a MOLTEN LOOKING GLASS

[Dimmu]

@JenSCDC although I didn't argue evolution evidences , my point was about treating science as absolute fact
But many scientists say that evolution is false
So science community is devided now

[goaded]

@JenSCDC "Anyone else here think @skeptic002 is @relaxrelax under a new username?"

No offence, but, well... DUH! :)

[goaded]

"although I didn't argue evolution evidences , my point was about treating science as absolute fact" Although the myTake author specifically said "pretty much" fact.

"But many scientists say that evolution is false"
No they don't. Name six scientists in biology or related disciplines who say that evolution is false. (Arguments about details of the mechanism do not count.)

"So science community is devided now"
It's really not.

[Dimmu]

@goaded
www.evolutionnews.org/.../...proclaim_t001981.html

www.discovery.org/.../filesDB-download.php

500 scientist

[skeptic002]

HOW I FEEL ABOUT EVOLUTIONIST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDDVE2l0sPw

[goaded]

Firstly, the list is headed: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

There's a difference between being sceptical and having saying it's false. Without anything else, it's just argument from personal incredulity.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Level_of_support_for_evolution

1399 scientists called Steve signed this list. People called Steve (including Stephanie, etc.) make up about 1% of the population, so by extrapolation about 139900 scientists would sign the list if it wasn't restricted to Steves.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence..."

[Dimmu]

@goaded you said 6 scientist
, I showed 500

My point is clear , what science believe it's true today may be totally wrong tomorrow , so stick to evolution but don't have heart attack when science develop and someone prove that current theory is wrong as always happens

[goaded]

If you read Asimov's article, you'd realise that what science believe it's true today WILL NOT be totally wrong tomorrow, because it is a steady march towards the truth. The theories match the evidence available at the time, and any new theories will also have to explain the same evidence, as well as any contradicting evidence.

If it happens all the time, you should be able to give some examples, right? How many can you find in the last 100 years?

I asked for six scientists in biology or related disciplines who say that evolution is false.
The list of 500 you linked to only agree with a "relatively mild [statement] that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution." (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends).

[Dimmu]

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Superseded_scientific_theories

[goaded]

Biology: One 19th century theory refuted mid 20th century (Out of Asia theory, got replaced by Out of Africa), all the rest were superseded in the 19th century.

Chemistry: One theory modified in the early 20th C., maybe in the last 100 years, maybe not: Two of five parts of Dalton's (early 19th century) theory were superseded by the discovery of isotopes (not all atoms of the same element weigh the same) and splitting the atom (he thought they couldn't be).

Not massive changes and certainly not proving them totally wrong without coming up with a better explanation that agrees with the evidence that led to the original theories.

[Library]

Religion shouldn't be an excuse for anything besides taking off from work or school.

[Waffles731]

Not even taking off of work all the time.
Buzz Aldrin took Communion on the moon

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Nothing intelligent to say from me, but I gotta get my boy Stephen a

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LoJtwYSLeMw

[Dred1614returns]

Was this inspired by the moron who thinks that the world is flat? He makes us religious folks look bad.

[Waffles731]

Yep it was

[JenSCDC]

@relaxrelax makes humanity as a whole look bad.

[Dred1614returns]

@JenSCDC yup

[JenSCDC]

People also need to stop using religion as an excuse for hatred and bigotry.

[Belgie]

What you dont get, is that for them, that the Bible is inerrant is a matter of faith.

If Genesis is a parable, then why not the resurrection? Why not the whole thing?

[Ahersheykiss]

Thanks for the Take! I totally agree, too! How about this... in Genesis, the earth, night, and day each take a day to form. The word, day, however, can refer to any span of time, like, an eon.

[JenSCDC]

So, if we don't have to take "day" literally, while do we have to take anything in Genesis literally?

[Anonymous]

Religion shouldn't be an excuse for anything. So tired of religion controlling everything.

[Paris13]

Jesus Christ is the Answer.
Subject closed.

[Paris13]

lol God told me to Press "No Anon."xxoo

[Waffles731]

I keep meaning to disallow anons but I always forget

[Paris13]

lol Aw, c'mon, I allow Anons with any of my questions, and even people I Know, Everyone has a right to their own opinion. xx

[Waffles731]

Yeah, I'm being stalked by a couple of anons, I recently had to set my profile to private

[Paris13]

Oh, wow, no, I am not one to stalk, I just like to talk and join in, even if I am pink sometimes. xx

[JenSCDC]

No, 42 is the answer:)

[Paris13]

@JenSCDC hugs, hun.:)) xxoo

[Adigelunar]

. Good post