It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
First, they will slam the source,

Second they will slam the messenger,

Third, they will slam me,


tick tock.............


Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists



The president of Answers in Genesis says the recent discovery of a dinosaur bone in Montana supports the biblical creationist theory of a young Earth. According to an article published in last month's Science magazine, in 2003 scientists found a Tyrannosaurus Rex thigh bone during an archaeological dig.

But what AiG scientists would say about the find, Ham observes, "is that it's totally consistent with the fact that these bones aren't that old and probably date back to the time of the flood just a few thousand years ago." However, he doubts evolutionists will give consideration to the possibility that the T-Rex bones are only thousands rather than millions of years old.

Ham is convinced proponents of the theory of evolution will not allow the Montana find to change their minds. Even though, he contends, the recent discovery supports the young Earth theory of origins, he believes evolutionists will say anything rather than admit that the biblical account of creation is true.

"The reason this is such startling news is because you just wouldn't expect soft tissue and cells like this in a bone supposedly 70 million years old,"




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
First, they will slam the source,

Who? Evolutionists? Many, heck most, peole who suport evolution are faithful and pious.


But what AiG scientists

The people at AIG are not scientists and AIG is not a scientific org. They require members to affirm creationism and only do stuff to support it. That is not scientific

would say about the find, Ham observes, "is that it's totally consistent with the fact that these bones aren't that old and probably date back to the time of the flood just a few thousand years ago."

Because of the non fossilized tissues? No, that does not support creationism. It could be consistend with it, but it doesn't confirm it.


However, he doubts evolutionists will give consideration to the possibility that the T-Rex bones are only thousands rather than millions of years old.

Because the evidence that its millions outweighs the strangeness of it having biomolecules preserved. Besides, is it really that strange for biomolecules to be preserved?


Ham is convinced proponents of the theory of evolution will not allow the Montana find to change their minds.

The hypocrisy is stunning, tho not unexpected.


Even though, he contends, the recent discovery supports the young Earth theory of origins,

A mucky nearly structureless mass of unfossilized biomolecules supports the idea that a big skydaddy made the earth in six literal days? Er, no.


"The reason this is such startling news is because you just wouldn't expect soft tissue and cells like this in a bone supposedly 70 million years old,"[/url]

Startling, yes, immposible, no.

Edsinger, there is no reason to not slam AIG or Ken Ham, they're incompetent hucksters and almost certainly liars deceivers and frauds! Why state that they aren't? At the least, the are intellectuall dishonest and disingenious.

Obviously, this is a more specific topic in this thread, but here are some other ATS threads about the find
Scientist find soft tissue of T-Rex (ATS)
Scientists Recover Soft Tissue from T. rex (ATSNN)



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Also, here is a usenet discussion thread about the subject that is very interesting:

Ai G on T Rex Flesh



This article is chock full of misstatements and blurred definitions such
that the article says it is impossible to find soft tissue after tens of
millions of years. And it poohoos the ostrich connection and overtly
states that Dinosaurs are reptiles. (not Therapods?) These are both
bogus statements. And there are more bogus things just not as blatant.
It clearly implies that reputable scientists lie.


In the News: Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists


As usual, [they] never do their own research. They wait for real scientists to uncover something new and then say, "This is new. You can't fully explain it yet. Therefore gawd did it."

I mean, that really sums it up in a way.

And here is another AIG article on it.

One quote from one of hte AIG articles

The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels

This is so false, that it can only be said to be a lie. I'm surprised, sometimes AIG prefers to make their distortions appear like mistakes, but this is glaringly wrong. I mean, either their completely incompetent, or outright lying.

One poster noted

When soaked in acid it revealed the structure of vessels and soft
tissue. It was not identical to actual tissue and it's not clear that
DNA will be recoverable.

But why be honest about the discovery, right?


Also, AIG suggests that the consensus was that this is immposible. THis is another lie. Mary Schweizter had already discovered other biomolecules. When that happened, AIG reported it as finding liquid blood, blood vessels, and blood cells, fresh in bone. Which, agian, was a lie (anyone detecting a pattern here?). Now they pretend that that never happened and paleo people are walking around with exclamation points above their heads?

Schweizter has, for years, been focusing on finding these sorts of things, because, everyonceinawhile, biomolecules are preserved and found by other paleos. She definitly hit the jackpocket on this, its an amazing find. Its not contrary to scientific possibilites.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   



But what AiG scientists would say about the find, Ham observes, "is that it's totally consistent with the fact that these bones aren't that old and probably date back to the time of the flood just a few thousand years ago." However, he doubts evolutionists will give consideration to the possibility that the T-Rex bones are only thousands rather than millions of years old.


So.........humm.............if the bones are from the time period of the great flood I wonder which flood the Sumerian or the bible and Noah?

So if this T-Rex bones were here as earliest as the flood......I am going to go with the bible flood of Noah, that means that we were food to the T-Rex?

So in the food chain who ate who we ate T-Rex or T-Rex ate us.


I mean humans living with the great dinosaurs that is going to be some major change in our relationship with them and earth.

Could it be that it was still some reminding T-Rex in the time of Noah's flood but he decided not to add them to the arc?

Hey, I am open to any theories, and who knows maybe it was still some of these great animals around when men was waking the earth Right?

Some swear that Nessy is real and still alive.


[edit on 15-4-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Plently of cave drawings of mammaths saber tooth tigers cave bears giant sloths bision and lions tigers and bears O my. So if you contend Dinos were still around up untill the great flood lets say 5,999 years agaio then why in the name (play on words) of all that is holy isent there cave paintings of dinos ???? After all its not like thed be hard to miss and we nknow there numbers were in the millions with the dino like trisartops.
Think cave man mite have noticed Millions of dinos steping on there feet?
Ps to note if earth is truly only 7,000 years old??? then EVERY animal that ever lived (lived with in this time . so taking the Millions of different animals alive today All of wich were around from the start according to you and all the animals no longer with us you would be talking a 100 billion different typs of animals all compating for the Same food sorce .
Talk about Wall to wall. standing room only.

Ps the same problem arises if you stick to the clame animals CANT evolve .
even given a billion year old earth this means EVERY animal that ever lifed was alive from the begining making for a VERY VERY crowded earth.
I mean realy come on how could a lion ever hope to compate with an ariziona rapter or t rex . Pss arizona rapter was descovered just after Drastice park the movie came out making the giant rapter that WAS made up a REALY animal . How cool is that?

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Simcity4Rushour]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I can use some help on this one,, I'm not sure how long a day was till God Made the Great light and the lesser light ( The greater light to Govern the Day and the lesser light to Govern the Night ). Then I think there were days as we know it and that was on the 4th Day !!!!!!
Then on the 5Th day he made all the Living Creatures that live in water and it the air THEN it go to the 6th day where he made all the Animals and made man in his own image and likeness and woman and it says that he told the animals and Man the all the seed bearing and the trees that has Fruit were to be used as food and it goes on and that every green Plant was to be used as food also and that was the end od the 6th Day and on the 7th day he rested....
SO Adam and Eve were made on the 8thDay ????? which I guess would be OK since Adam and Eve were the first in the blood line of the Jews and that starts the story on the OT..
I have also heard that man or animals only ate Fruit and and Green things till the time of the Flood and that is when Noah had to eat meat wile he was sailing around for 6 months and he could not order a salad because it was all under water....
So, under that LAW, Man and Dinosaur could have lived together at that time, I Think....


[edit on 02/20/2005 by jfdarby]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simcity4Rushour
Plently of cave drawings of mammaths saber tooth tigers cave bears giant sloths bision and lions tigers and bears O my. So if you contend Dinos were still around up untill the great flood lets say 5,999 years agaio then why in the name (play on words) of all that is holy isent there cave paintings of dinos ???? After all its not like thed be hard to miss and we nknow there numbers were in the millions with the dino like trisartops.
Think cave man mite have noticed Millions of dinos steping on there feet?
Ps to note if earth is truly only 7,000 years old??? then EVERY animal that ever lived (lived with in this time . so taking the Millions of different animals alive today All of wich were around from the start according to you and all the animals no longer with us you would be talking a 100 billion different typs of animals all compating for the Same food sorce .
Talk about Wall to wall. standing room only.



Ummm. Take a look here billknell.tripod.com... also if you take a look in the Smithsonian there are two vases that contain the images of Dino's and men.

www.angelfire.com...
www.internetezy.com.au...
www.parentcompany.com...

Something to think about.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
debunked in one paragraph...

even if the t rex bone was from right before the last ice age, it doesent disprove evolution. there was still only aquatic life @ one point in time on earth, then lungfish, then land organisms. the theory doesent state that all forms of life evolve at the same rate. look at sharks, turtles, and crocodiles. then look at insects we can watch evolve becasue their lifespan is so short. cool find tho, i heard they were gonna clone that bad boy, im sure thats discussed in another thread.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Okay, there are repetitive problems I have with your responses Nygdan. Not only the tone, but the lack of meat...


Originally posted by Nygdan




This article is chock full of misstatements and blurred definitions such
that the article says it is impossible to find soft tissue after tens of
millions of years. And it poohoos the ostrich connection and overtly
states that Dinosaurs are reptiles. (not Therapods?) These are both
bogus statements. And there are more bogus things just not as blatant.
It clearly implies that reputable scientists lie.



Exactly where is anything that means something in this? You've quoted some unknown person, with an obvious opinion, from where - and what exactly does it mean to us? Is there some weight to this person's opinion, say, over anyone else that has an opposite opinion?


Originally posted by Nygdan
In the News: Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists


As usual, [they] never do their own research. They wait for real scientists to uncover something new and then say, "This is new. You can't fully explain it yet. Therefore gawd did it."


I mean, that really sums it up in a way.


It sums what up? Your bias? Exactly what does this person's opinion sum up in this discussion? Would you like me to go find a few people who are equally opinionated in the opposite direction? Would that then "level the playing field"? Probably not, since that would require you giving equal ground.

And here is another AIG article on it.


Originally posted by Nygdan


One quote from one of hte AIG articles

The research team had to break the bone in pieces in order to fit it into a helicopter, and when they did so, they discovered the fossil contained well-preserved soft tissues, including blood vessels


This is so false, that it can only be said to be a lie. I'm surprised, sometimes AIG prefers to make their distortions appear like mistakes, but this is glaringly wrong. I mean, either their completely incompetent, or outright lying.


And we are to accept that you have decided this is "so false it can only be said to be a lie"? You've taken the time to boldly state this allegation, why didn't you take five more seconds to prove it?


Originally posted by Nygdan
One poster noted

When soaked in acid it revealed the structure of vessels and soft
tissue. It was not identical to actual tissue and it's not clear that
DNA will be recoverable.

But why be honest about the discovery, right?


And this poster is...a scientist? a housewife? a janitor? Is there a link that can persuade us to give an ever-lovin care about what "this poster" said?

Please - irrespective of how important your own personal dismissal of certain evidence may be in your mind, at least give the rest of us the respect to back it up with evidence.

[edit on 4-15-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, there are repetitive problems I have with your responses Nygdan. Not only the tone, but the lack of meat...


Okay, Nygdan tore down Ed's house, then you tore down his, but I'm curious in what "house" you reside on this one Valhall.
You too Ed.

As I've seen you both make statements of belief and evidence that could be considered contrary to Young Earth Creationism.

Honestly I've never seen a good argument for YEC (this article included) and it's not from lack of looking. "Science is wrong" or "here's a hole in your theory" is not a solid foundation to advance support for Genesis "theory" or any other.

All the "have faith" and "God deceives" arguments in the world are just fine, but expecting a "non-believer" to have to rise to the challenge to disprove unproven dogma every time a new sermon on the mounting evidence against creationism comes out, well, it's silly.

So's this.


First, they will slam the source,

Second they will slam the messenger,

Third, they will slam me,


tick tock.............


What's that supposed to mean Ed? Oh the heavy burden of martrydom. If only the evolutionists wouldn't respond.


Like you don't love it.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I think ed is a prophet ha,ha,ha,

Now I have no problem with discovering the truth about life, even when I have my own version of it, and creationist bible style is not one of them, evolution Darwin style is not a choice either.

Rather a combination of both makes more sense and for a God creating human, how about some higher beings that tampered with our DNA using them on a lesser species in earth and there you got "human kind" born.

OK, I will really want to know if we could have been sharing earth with the dinosaurs that will be something very interesting to know.

And for vases with pictures of animals that could have been dinosaurs, well........since the humble beginnings of the human species a lot of other animal species has gone extincted, so is possible.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And for vases with pictures of animals that could have been dinosaurs, well........since the humble beginnings of the human species a lot of other animal species has gone extincted, so is possible.


Yes, much is lost to history. For example my extensive research has uncovered a portrayal of man living along side hobbit, elf and dwarf as recently as 2001.

But it was so long ago, who really knows? All we can say is that there are more holes in today's scientific theories as a result of LOTR.





posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ummm. Take a look here billknell.tripod.com... also if you take a look in the Smithsonian there are two vases that contain the images of Dino's and men.

www.angelfire.com...
www.internetezy.com.au...
www.parentcompany.com...

The Ica stones have been frequently debunked -- I'm surprised you'd use them. It's amusing to note how they follow whatever the current textbook model is of dinos (so you see "brontosaurus with a big humped back", which we now know it never looked like) and that they also completely goof up the clothing designs and proportions of the humans.

Furthermore, the family manufacturing them has come forward and admitted they are frauds. Here's a photo of one of them at work: viewzone.com...

I don't see a link to the Babylonian material or I'd look at it -- but I'll state that if it WAS of real dinosaurs, that the archaeologists and paleontologists would have been all over it like white on rice decades ago. In case you don't remember, Darwin's theory didn't preclude humans and dinos coexisting and the romantic notion that they did would have had every museum putting up displays of this to bring people in

The "humans walking with dinos" here in Glen Rose has been debunked to the point where the only person supporting it is someone who owns a Creation Science museum in the area and desperately needs people to come and pay him money to see his exhibits.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
"If common sense were a bat I would beat it into everyone of your heads." Jane Lane from Daria

Anyways, scienctists or bronze age people who had to clean their pants whenever a earthquake happened..... Wonder who would know better.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


and one I will add, since I think without 0 you can have no 1.

0- You are so stupid when the priest rapes you and says he blessed you, you believe him.

Anyways, gee, they found mammoths frozen in ice over 10,000 years ago and had Mammoth Steaks, in fact in Alaska, Siberia, Northern Canada, the people would often find Mammoths, thaw them out, and eat them cause well, that's alot of steak. But wait, 10,000 years old? Poof, bible wrong,
!AGAIN!

I swear, and where is Dwayne Gish? Figured he would have jumped on this one. I mean, this guy got flat earth, center, creation, and that the flood created the Grand Canyon/dinosaur bones planted by satan taught as science in science classes in public schools in Georgia before the courts stepped in and told them they couldn't teach ignorance as fact, but reality.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And here is another AIG article on it.

It does mention the findings and so forth, but then bends over backwards to come to some conclusions.

For instance (from that link):
[quoteBut this study and report by Schweitzer and co-workers are lacking in merit even by evolutionary standards. While the report of yet another dinosaur fossil with evidence of soft tissue is interesting in itself, why did the authors choose to compare the histology (microscopic anatomy) of this bone to an unidentified bone from a bird—and why an ostrich? Why not compare the histology of the dinosaur bone to that of some living reptile? After all, dinosaurs are reptiles.
That makes a "complete miss" on the part of AIG. This particular group of dinos is actually the group from which birds arise.
www.infoplease.com...

So the discovery CONFIRMS the evolutionary process.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ummm. Take a look here billknell.tripod.com...


Weak.

Admited Frauds.

Are you joking?


Whale head.

Swimming elephnat with just trunk and top of head above water. Obviously there is disagreement over that, not like the above stuff.


www.angelfire.com...

nothing not in the above

www.internetezy.com.au...

A page of unsupported stories.

www.parentcompany.com...

Bible quotes that only vaguley resemble dinosaurs, and probably refute them as being dinosaurs given more 'stringent' translations.

Below is one of my favourite 'its a dino' pics



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ValhallIs there some weight to this person's opinion, say, over anyone else that has an opposite opinion?

Nope. Its just an opinion. Is there any way to weigh AIG's statements as anything other than opinion? Espeically considering that they require members to affirm faith in creationism and work to support it?

It sums what up?

Its another opinion, its sums up the whole situation wrt AIG nicely. They are generally unqualified, tho some members are. They are admitedly, and as a matter of policy, biased, and in effect are little more than propaganda really.

Would you like me to go find a few people who are equally opinionated in the opposite direction?

Thats what the opening post is tho no?

Probably not, since that would require you giving equal ground

I am not trying to be unfair, if I have, then I apologize. The opening post is nothing more than opinions, why not present other opinions from other sources, to illustrate that not everyone agrees with AIG?

And we are to accept that you have decided this is "so false it can only be said to be a lie"

Yes, because the specimin was not cracked open on a truck and found to have tissue in it. Dr. Schweitzer had to but the bone through a series of chemical processes in the lab, and onyl did it because she herself was interested in that specific line of enquiry. AIG should know this.

And this poster is...a scientist? a housewife? a janitor? Is there a link that can persuade us to give an ever-lovin care about what "this poster" said?

I do not have a link to Schweitzer's paper, unfortunately. I don't have pdf access to the journal Science. However, i was at the SVP meeting where Schweitzer first announced this discovery last october, and that is the methodology she described. That poster apparently was also aware of it.

irrespective of how important your own personal dismissal

It is my personal dismissal, however it is a considered and rational dismissal. If I make too much of a case against AIG, well, imo they are frauds and liars, so why go easy on them no?

at least give the rest of us the respect to back it up with evidence

Lets also consider here that AIG has presented no evidence to back up their bogus claims, which amount to litlte more than 'we are surprised that biological material can be recovered from fossils' and that therefore the fossil must be very young.
Fact is, biomolecules can be preserved in fossil materials. They don't have to rot. THis find is spectacular, because instead of just proteins and whatnot, its more like tissue, with some structure. But even this stuff is not well preservd tissue. Its degraded, reduced to something like bio-much, with hints of structure in it.


marg
evolution Darwin style is not a choice either

Why?

Rather a combination of both makes more sense

Not to be disrespectful marg, (or anyone else), but that doesn't make sense. Creationism and Evolution are anti-thetical. Many evolutionists are pious and faithful christians. Science cannot address the concerns of religion. Creationism is explicitly saying that the bible is the truth, and, given that, all understanding of nature and evidence has to support it (or at least not refute it). Therefore, creationism is not science, and creationism can't be combined with evolution. One can be a beleiver, and an evolutionist tho, but thats a different sort of thing. Evoltuion doesn't say 'there was no creator', evolution says 'we cannot detect evidence of a creator, nor would we expect to'.


byrd
it is someone who owns a Creation Science museum in the area

Have you been to baughs 'museum'? Any photos?


jamesthelesser
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

What is the point of that post? It contributes nothing to the converstation, is off topic, and broadly insulting.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Just to show how hypocritical religous people are. Also to show how ignorant they are. Willing to believe someone rolling on the floor yelling in tounges knows more than every scienctist/person who's head isn't up his ass.

Anyways, still sad people who sacrificed people because of an earthquake are more "believeable" then people who know/explain why earth quakes happen. Sad that people give paychecks to people who on the down time rape little boys/help cover it up. Sad that people who seem smart think some all mighty powerful invisable person who lives in the clouds is gonna spank them for eating meat on a friday. Sad that people who went to school still think that science is wrong, a book written by people who wanted to control the masses(the church, not James or Paul or whoever the church says wrote the bible, for that is BS, the bible wrote it to help control the masses) is right, and anyone who disagrees is to go to hell, a place most of them don't believe in.

Anyways, I post that in any religous topic I am in because it pretty much kills any arguement religous people have. "Well, I am sooooo stupid I think earth is 6,000 years old." This proves anything that comes from you is wrong, now go away and let Father McGrady bless you all over your face.(to christians, not you Nygdan) I mean, it is sad these people think they are right when the real world/facts/science proves them to be wrong. People who thought rain was god pissing on them and a meteor was him taking a dump, or science..... what makes more sense? People who say earth flat/center or science..... People who think a world flood happened or science........ What makes more sense?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I mean, it is sad these people think they are right when the real world/facts/science proves them to be wrong.


How old are you?


Tell me mr well educated, well versed scientist. What is the difference between a scientific assumption and blind faith?

Are you saying that all science and scientific theories are correct or only that of evolution?

Are you saying that evolution science has always been correct?

Are you saying that science at this point in time is 100% correct and we will not see any changes in scientific thought or theories ever again?

Are you saying that the consequences of science has not killed millions of people and animals?

Possibly the reason why people stop replying to your posts is because you portray a fanaticism to the extent of being abusive simply because you do not have the intelligence to add anything of value to the thread.
:bash:

Im interested in hearing what you have to say about these questions regarding science as it appears you possess a very high IQ


[edit on 16-4-2005 by shmick25]



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Difference between science and blind faith is science is real. Faith is "Give me a blow job or I send you to hell!!!! Give me money or I send you to hell!!!!! Worship our god or you go to hell!!!!! All evidence points to me being full of #, so you go to HELL!!!!!" In other words, science is real, faith is not.

Sooooo..... earth is flat? Nope, science wins.

Earth is center? Nope, science wins.

Adam and Eve? Nope, inbreeding would have killed us, science wins.

Noah flood? Nope, not enough water on the planet, science wins.

Earth 6,000 years old? Nope, written history itself is older, not to mention oil, fossils, dating, science wins.

When was the last time a bunch of scientists got together and raped a bunch of little boys and then covered it up? Never, but the church been doing that for past 40 years that we know of.

So far it is 6 and 0 for science, religon is 0 and 6. Hmmmm, all mighty people in clouds? Nope.

Zombies, giants, 900 years old, nope, nope, nope.

Now 10 and 0 for science.

Lets see, what else? Oh yeah, the "miracles" Penn and Tellar, David Copperfield, David Blaine, all done those so called "miracles"

Plagues? Science again explains it. Also, back in old days people didn't know about micro organisms, viruses, germs, so forth.

Soooo, science wins every round so far. Religon has old perverts raping boys, science has people who don't shove their heads up their ass and see how long they can stay that way.

Edit. BTW, my life is complete now, I have reached 50,000 points. That is all.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by James the Lesser]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join