babyemollama wrote

wishfuls wrote

bab3) Religion is not violent...yemollama wrote

Definition of ignorant: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

Obviously I'm ignorant in the category of religion because I never read the bible, but it doesn't take a genius to understand magic isn't real. So you are ignorant in the category of COMMON SENSE?
Here are some ways the bible is misleading...
1) Science proves that a magical human being didn't make the earth in 6 days.
2) No physical evidence for a world wide flood.
3) Religion is not violent...religious wars began with overt hostilities in 1562 and lasted until the Edict of Nantes in 1598, and is still happening today with
[EGYPT] Ten Dead Over Religious Clashes in Cairo.

4) What the bible states about atheists "There is no one who does good!", "They are corrupt, their deeds are vile." Than why is it there are wars over religion and yet there are only 0.09% which supplies less than 1% of atheists in jail. And the rest have to be religous. There have been more people killed in the name of jesus. And yet Democritus,Diagoras of Melos, and my favorite George Carlin. helped the world by contributing and inventing things today that christians haven't.


So who is the ignorant one here? The one who's only resource of information to prove everybody wrong is their belief in god and the bible, or the one who uses science to disaprove the deficient christian. All it takes is a dose of science and common sense to kill off gods. People believe that the sun was a god and everything was a god that they came into contact with but later no one believes that god because science has evolved over time. Christianity will be one of those religions to die off with time. So basically you started the argument by quoting me about why it is misleading i stated a point, it offended you and you lost the argument. Since when was it bad to form your own opinion? Now, I'm going to stop talking on the subject if you continue to be ignorant...? Thank you.

Let me educate you in the area of science really quick child.

There is no physical evidence of a world wide flood ( laughed when you posted this )

Evidence #1Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Evidence #2 Rapid burial of plants and animals.
We find extensive fossil graveyards and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Evidence #3Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continentseven between continentsand physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Evidence #4 Sediment transported long distances.
We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for 300 million years water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.

Evidence #5Rapid or no erosion between strata.
We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any missing millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyonthe Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Evidence #6 Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over 480 million years, while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

The big bang theory is just really really really bad science, yet some people still believe in it (you have to have FAITH in this theory)
Let me ask you a few questions abou the creation accidental explosion of the universe that you submit to.
Since you like asking questions and such
~If new stars form as the result of exploding stars compressing nebulae, then how did the first stars form if there were no stars to compress the gases?
~If it is true that when we look at objects nearly 11 billion light years away we are seeing them as they appeared 11 billion years ago, why are the galaxies that we see at great distances fully formed (mature) when the big bang model predicts they should be less organized at that early stage?
~How is the big bang a scientific theory if it is based on the existence of evidence that has not been observed?
~If the universe was created by the energy from the big bang then there would have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created as the universe cooled. Have scientists been able to find any antimatter? How much has been found?
~What caused the inflationary period in the big bang?
~What evidence is there to support the inflationary period of the big bang?
~Is the big bang the only way to explain the expansion of the universe?
~Why is the big bang, which cannot be observed, considered scientific while supernatural creation is rejected as unscientific?
~How did the natural laws of the universe come from the random big bang?

You see the big bang model is more fiction, than real science, it is just the worlds way of trying to make it seem the universe could not be created by God.
Please do not call me ignorant, when I am far more educated than you.

Religious: The Crusades

Non-religious:

The American Revolution

The French Revolution

The US Civil War

World War I

World War II( Pearl harbor was non-religious)

These are just a few.
Wars are results of disagreements, greed and a variety of other things, if it wasn't religion it would be easily something else

What is wrong with wars in your worldview anyway, it is just one chemical accident killing another chemical accident, why should we be mad? Do we get mad at vinegar for reacting with baking soda? Evolution cannot account for moral standards

Oh and about Psalm 14:1 (which was terribly quoted)

The fool says in his heart, There is no God. But apparently I did not know the meaning of this verse by heart. Actually the two words, there is are not in the Hebrew text. The verse should more accurately be translated: The fool says in his heart, No God. Its not that the fool does not believe in Gods existence but that for him/her God is unnecessary. As Lawson writes,

The term is a synonym for sinner, and it describes everyone who has no place for God in his or her life. The fools problem is that his heart refuses the knowledge of God. To be sure, he is not an intellectual atheist, denying the existence of God, but a practical atheist, living as if there were no God (Pss. 53:1; 74:18,22; Isa. 32:6).

How long did it take you to find the information on the internet and form it into one big answer? If you really want to continue an argument not even worth discussing because of our separate viewpoints then go ahead, because both of us aren't going to find the answer to the subject anytime soon. Since you are all knowing about every subject, can you even answer or tell me what the nebular theory is? Hmmm...it really isn't that hard. See if you can find the answer by typing Emanuel Swedenborg on the google search bar and tell me? I might not know a whole lot about science other than what I've studied and what I've learned with 8 years of school but copying everything out from the internet and claiming you are more educated is a bit immature right? The only thing I can believe that you wrote is Psalm
14:1 which I couldn't care less about. Once you provide proof god is real than you can say he is real. And no one said anything about the big bang being real, since you are stereotypical you probably think my life is revolved around the BIG BANG. There are some evidence to support the theory like pockets of radiation in the universe but if you haven't kept up with science lately as I have you would know that scientist have trapped Antimatter for amazingly 16 minutes. Also you might want to look into Endeavor as it seems they transported a Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a device designed to catch high-energy cosmic rays and space particles that will help scientists understand the origins and makeup of the universe. Which could also help support other theories about the origin of the universe-HINT HINT <-----That might be the answer to the question I asked you?

I do know all of what I typed, that is why it is inserted into the post. Does it matter where the information came from. No. What the information proves or disproves is the real meat of the situation. The nebular theory I know of is the theory that the solar system was formed by a cooled gas cloud that left the sun in the center. Am I correct? I am not sure what you are saying about the Theory. And what about the fact that scientist captured antimatter for a 16 minutes? If the universe was created by The big bang then we should see equal amounts of antimatter and matter, and it is a good thing we dont because, I dont know if you know this but when anti matter and matter meet they violently destroy each other. If this was the case ( and there were equal amounts of anti and regular matter) life would not be possible. And what have they found with this AMS?

This argument isn't really going anywhere so im done arguing. Have a nice day

gus this is not just a gameing website ok

INCEST!!!!!

202020

Yeah. I understand exactly what you mean.

Adam and Eve aren't real

its misleading because it tricks you into becoming a christian.

umm you know adam and eve represent man and woman right?
well they symbolise not just 1 man and 1 woman, but many and infact a whole race.

adam and eve had many children cain and abel r just the well know ones

Bible is a load of **** lol