God vs. Science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ran

Not sure how old your sources are, but here are some pics of archaelogical finds from within the Red Sea. A turned over Chariot and some wheels. More include human bones and other pieces of clothing, armor, ect...

There was actually a special on this on the Discovery or History Channel a while back.

---

yeah... being that the whole red sea parting thing supposedly happened thousands of years BC, i doubt it would still be around. It would definately be degraded by now. That thing looks like it has been in the ocean for less than 200 years.

It seems that most of the 'proof' supporting stories from biblical text doesn't really support them at all, but people like to read into things. If you really want to believe, you will find away to justify it no matter how rediculous it sounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sledlude

If you really want to believe, you will find away to justify it no matter how rediculous it sounds.

---

And if you really don't want to believe, you will find a way to justify your non-belief just as easily.....;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

And if you really don't want to believe, you will find a way to justify your non-belief just as easily.....;)

---

Its not too hard to not believe in something there's no evidence of - not to mention by deciding that if you really want to make a logical argument for supernatural origins to the universe, you'll never prove its your conceptualization of "god".

^ what he said. you don't have to 'justify' non-belief with evidence; if there is no evidence, thats justification enough. and a wheel found in the ocean covered in coral doesnt cut it.

^ what she said. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Möjito

Faith to me is this...

Something you already know will happen and or wish wouldn't happen. For example.

I have faith that I'll get my pay check every Friday. I have faith that my girl friend won't cheat on me. I have faith that I know I won't die tomorrow. Faith to me, is something I know will or will not happen. Understand where im coming from with all this? Faith in something you have never seen, seems childish to me. Because it's usually children who walk around proudly about their faith. Faith that there is a tooth fairy, faith that Santa will bring them presents on Christmas, faith that the Easter bunny will place eggs on the ground even though we all know grown ups put them there... That's faith in my opinion.

And as for the physical evidence on the spliting of the Red Sea. I would love to see the evidence first hand. Like, is there microscopic evidence of magic particles around the shore or on the sea floor? Seriously, I would believe it if they crossed a small creek, but a sea? No way. LOL it's just not possible. But again, like you said previously. It all has to do with faith, and people with the wrong faith, will believe it.

---

HOLY SH*T who are you!!!!???? It's like.... you have a brain or something that you are like... USING. Crazy sh*t.

Sounds a whole lot like:

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...8&postcount=26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABY J

HOLY SH*T who are you!!!!???? It's like.... you have a brain or something that you are like... USING. Crazy sh*t.

Sounds a whole lot like:

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums...58&postcount=26

---

Uhh thanks?

And about your post, ummm yeah. It's a little too long for my taste, im sure it's very educational if you compared my post with yours. Personally I think a nice short and sweet post is all it takes to get the point across.

90% of his argument was based on semantics. he must've been an A+ english/literature student, good for him.

See posts like this make it obvious that you had your mind made up way before you asked anyone's opinion. If you wanted to see what people of any faith believed, wouldn't you go to a respected leader of the faith? Or if you wanted to see how science explains the hard questions, wouldn't you go to a professor or a scientist? But to pose the question on here when none of us are the Pope or Hawking, the obvious point of it is just to argue.

all your answers and great sources and points from all sides, rip this thread
http://kallistos.biz/superliber/images/godDelusion.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

See posts like this make it obvious that you had your mind made up way before you asked anyone's opinion. If you wanted to see what people of any faith believed, wouldn't you go to a respected leader of the faith? Or if you wanted to see how science explains the hard questions, wouldn't you go to a professor or a scientist? But to pose the question on here when none of us are the Pope or Hawking, the obvious point of it is just to argue.

---

whats makes a preacher or pope know more about god than any of the rest of us? Same goes for theoligian's..... they go on belief in the unknow and blind faith in the unknow, along with "teachings" and "scipture" passed down.
Scientist on the other hand work with actual "facts" and "evidence" and can prove things........ big differnce, saying go to the head of a church or pope or anything to get the right "idea" or the decision on god or "religion" is complete bull****, they have no more knowledge or say so than a "religious" person walking downt he side walk, ****,teacher,bum, or construction worker, makes no difference.... please try to argue and differ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul

whats makes a preacher or pope know more about god than any of the rest of us? Same goes for theoligian's..... they go on belief in the unknow and blind faith in the unknow, along with "teachings" and "scipture" passed down.
Scientist on the other hand work with actual "facts" and "evidence" and can prove things........ big differnce, saying go to the head of a church or pope or anything to get the right "idea" or the decision on god or "religion" is complete bull****, they have no more knowledge or say so than a "religious" person walking downt he side walk, ****,teacher,bum, or construction worker, makes no difference.... please try to argue and differ

---

Well I do think that non-theologians(?) can know those things just as much as the head of a church or synagogue or whatever, but you are definitely going to find more people that are educated in that field in a place of that nature than on here. The vast majority of the people I meet that call themselves "religious" don't in fact have any clue what they really believe. They just take someone else's word for it because they were raised that way or are comfortable there or just going through the motions, etc. And btw, I don't mean that to say anything against anyone on here.
But for instance if you had a question about something specific, someone like that would probably have a better chance of knowing where to find scripture that would back it up. But for instance I am a Christian, so if I have a question about something I don't understand, I will go ask a minister at my church. It seems like a lot of people write off religion as not having the answers when they haven't really looked. That was my main point. Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.

(cont.)
Also, there is just as much faith based in believing in evolution as there is in religion. I'm not talking about micro-evolution(sp?) because that is pretty obviously in existence. It is just pretty much adapting to one's environment. I'm talking about macro-evolution, where you have huge species jumps over millions of years. With all the species that become extinct each day, what's to say that wasn't a "missing link" that we were looking for but a species that lived and died off just like millions of others? Or if only one copy of that particular missing link is found, how do you know it's not just a mutation, a fluke? I think on both sides of the fence people force what they claim to believe into a tiny little box to serve the agenda they had all along. But if you go into it with an open and humble mind, you can take away much more from both science and religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

Well I do think that non-theologians(?) can know those things just as much as the head of a church or synagogue or whatever, but you are definitely going to find more people that are educated in that field in a place of that nature than on here. The vast majority of the people I meet that call themselves "religious" don't in fact have any clue what they really believe. They just take someone else's word for it because they were raised that way or are comfortable there or just going through the motions, etc. And btw, I don't mean that to say anything against anyone on here.
But for instance if you had a question about something specific, someone like that would probably have a better chance of knowing where to find scripture that would back it up. But for instance I am a Christian, so if I have a question about something I don't understand, I will go ask a minister at my church. It seems like a lot of people write off religion as not having the answers when they haven't really looked. That was my main point. Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.

---

obsolutely, i dont care what people believe or what religion its fine with me, its ignorance from people towards relgions or people who are religious ignorance towards others belief, all icare about no matter what you claim or practice, is the greater good of man ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul

obsolutely, i dont care what people believe or what religion its fine with me, its ignorance from people towards relgions or people who are religious ignorance towards others belief, all icare about no matter what you claim or practice, is the greater good of man ;)

---

Ha well said. If my rep was worth a dam I'd give you some.:goodjob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

Is before you judge someone else's belief system and give a public opinion on it, I think you should have a pretty good knowledge of it first.

---

If that person has no knowledge, they can still post up their opinions on the subject. No crime in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocco

If that person has no knowledge, they can still post up their opinions on the subject. No crime in that.

---

Well fine but no one will or should respect someone who voices opinions on something they know nothing about

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

(cont.)
Also, there is just as much faith based in believing in evolution as there is in religion. I'm not talking about micro-evolution(sp?) because that is pretty obviously in existence. It is just pretty much adapting to one's environment. I'm talking about macro-evolution, where you have huge species jumps over millions of years. With all the species that become extinct each day, what's to say that wasn't a "missing link" that we were looking for but a species that lived and died off just like millions of others? Or if only one copy of that particular missing link is found, how do you know it's not just a mutation, a fluke? I think on both sides of the fence people force what they claim to believe into a tiny little box to serve the agenda they had all along. But if you go into it with an open and humble mind, you can take away much more from both science and religion.

---

Nobody (rational) contests the fundamental science behind the chemistry which creates medicine or the anatomical knowledge behind life saving medical procedures, the operations of various types of power plants which light and heat their homes or the various complex hardware and software systems which are enabling you to read this right now.

But as soon as science (paleontoleogy, geology, dating techniques, evolutionary biology, etc) appears to be contradictary to their religious beliefs, everybody thinks that all scientists in the respective field are quacks, that they're wrong, that science is a complementary explanation to the workings of the universe in the occassional absence of god and that the contested article(s) is/are "just a theory" (without knowing what a theory is in a scientific context~) etc.

Its mass idiocy, and if you subscribe to it, you're an idiot too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The12lber

Nobody (rational) contests the fundamental science behind the chemistry which creates medicine or the anatomical knowledge behind life saving medical procedures, the operations of various types of power plants which light and heat their homes or the various complex hardware and software systems which are enabling you to read this right now.

But as soon as science (paleontoleogy, geology, dating techniques, evolutionary biology, etc) appears to be contradictary to their religious beliefs, everybody thinks that all scientists in the respective field are quacks, that they're wrong, that science is a complementary explanation to the workings of the universe in the occassional absence of god and that the contested article(s) is/are "just a theory" (without knowing what a theory is in a scientific context~) etc.

Its mass idiocy, and if you subscribe to it, you're an idiot too.

---

Well actually there is a reason why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"...? It is classified as a theory. And you are very good at making your sentences sound nice and intricate and whatever. But to think that the science that studies all of the fields you mentioned above are in any way related to the study of evolution is a far better example of idiocy. Now I didn't insult anyone else for their beliefs and I would expect the same from you. You do realize that the last time they did a national survey, only something like 10-20% (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm almost positive it was 15%) believes in atheistic evolution. I don't completely throw out the idea of the possibility of it actually working, but at least when I looked at it, I found macro-evolution to be a stretch. Not to say it was way off or all scientists who buy into it are a quack. All I'm saying is that there is faith applied to that belief system too. There are still holes in the theory and I can't explain everything that happens based on my faith. You put your faith where you want, and I'll put mine where I see fit.

even darwin himself, didnt fully believe his own thoery, i mean come on lol

Right now one of the current mainstream origin theories is that "we" (all life on earth) is actually alien, the result of biomaterial deposited by a comet strike.

There are several billion galaxies visible from earth. There are more than 10,000 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph and that's one tiny little portion of the sky. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars.

The first time I really looked at this picture, I literally couldn't breathe. Seen from the ground, this photo represents an area of the night sky that looks almost empty and is one-tenth the size of the diameter of the full moon. It's like looking "through the end of an 8' soda straw at the night sky."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...deep_field.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABY J

Right now one of the current mainstream origin theories is that "we" (all life on earth) is actually alien, the result of biomaterial deposited by a comet strike.

There are several billion galaxies visible from earth. There are more than 10,000 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph and that's one tiny little portion of the sky. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars.

The first time I really looked at this picture, I literally couldn't breathe. Seen from the ground, this photo represents an area of the night sky that looks almost empty and is one-tenth the size of the diameter of the full moon. It's like looking "through the end of an 8' soda straw at the night sky."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...deep_field.jpg

---

this kinda covered in the book i posted, ill kinda qoute it.

"Assume thats theres the possiblity for life to grow and thrive on a planet is 1 in a billion, well you take that ratio apply it the universe and you still get roughly about 1billion!!!!!!!!! planets that can bear life."

think about that and twist it around your noggins

That's some brain twisting shiite. Wouldn't it have left a dent though? Seriously? I haven't read the book obviously but I'll have to check it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

That's some brain twisting shiite. Wouldn't it have left a dent though? Seriously? I haven't read the book obviously but I'll have to check it out.

---

its worth it trust me, great book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

Well actually there is a reason why they call it the "Theory of Evolution"...? It is classified as a theory. And you are very good at making your sentences sound nice and intricate and whatever. But to think that the science that studies all of the fields you mentioned above are in any way related to the study of evolution is a far better example of idiocy. Now I didn't insult anyone else for their beliefs and I would expect the same from you. You do realize that the last time they did a national survey, only something like 10-20% (I don't remember the exact number, but I'm almost positive it was 15%) believes in atheistic evolution. I don't completely throw out the idea of the possibility of it actually working, but at least when I looked at it, I found macro-evolution to be a stretch. Not to say it was way off or all scientists who buy into it are a quack. All I'm saying is that there is faith applied to that belief system too. There are still holes in the theory and I can't explain everything that happens based on my faith. You put your faith where you want, and I'll put mine where I see fit.

---

The celestial bodies in our solar system orbiting around the sun and the peridiocity of elements? Yeah, those are theories too, but I don't see widespread dissent among the general population about phosphorous' status as a nonmetal or too many geocentrists around. General relativity? Yeah, there's another one. Lots of well accepted scientific "facts" are actually encompassed within theories.

"Theory - a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

Science isn't faith. Science is facts. If science was faith, you wouldn't be able to read this now. Your home would be unlit, without internet access and that computer you're reading this on right now wouldn't exist. But clearly, you are. There are a lot of scientific theories that allow for the existence of all these things, but clearly it is just faith because none of it works/is provabable(lol).

If you don't like science that contradicts the bible, you should start taking on astronomy, geology, paleontology and archaeology as well as evolution/biology.

In short, you are dumb.

And as a side note, I was using all of those other things as an example of how well developed science goes uncontested until it starts stepping on religious idiots' toes. I wasn't saying that the existence of coal power plants is direct evidence that evolutionary biology is correct or something equally insane.. The best part is, you thought I was and said I was an idiot for it. More reading comprehension next time.

As another side note, I can't believe you would incorporate statistics into your argument. Not only are statistics quite often bull**** but opinion polls don't mean **** about the validity of something. George Bush was elected to the office of president twice - one time he even got enough votes to win by a popular majority - The Backstreet Boys, N'Sync and Brittney Spears are all best-selling "artists/artistic groups" and most Americans probably think that Muslim babies are baptised in the blood of freshly beheaded westerners. People are dumb and are wrong all the time.

To wrap this up so I don't need to make another reply

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[5][6] Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religious groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[7] .When discussing the topic, creationists use "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution.[1] Macroevolution, by their definition, cannot be attained. Any observed evolutionary change is described by them as being "just microevolution""

Basically, you can contest it, but the science isn't "inconclusive" by any means. Its also worth saying that from a logical standpoint, when one accepts "micro-evolution", you are allowing for the existence of "macro-evolution". Saying that a species can evolve slightly but that one species cannot evolve into another is a logical fallacy. What do you think evolution is? IT IS A PERIOD OF SMALL CHANGES OVER A LONG LONG TIME - WHEN PUT ON A LONG ENOUGH TIME LINE, SOME OF THE FISH GET LUNGS AND THEIR FINS BECOME LEGS. Why do you think chickens have latent genetic information that allows for the growth of tails and teeth? God damn some people are dense.

"god only exsist because science has not proven his non existence.... yet"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soul

"god only exsist because science has not proven his non existence.... yet"

---

I don't think you can explicitly disprove the existence of something "transcendent".

Feel better? I have not a single problem with reading comprehension as I have not a single problem with science as a whole. My problem comes from smug little pseudo-intellectuals who want to attack what I want to believe when I have no problem letting you believe what you will. Read what you just wrote. You in no way proved the existence of evolution, but merely quoted what someone else had to say about those pesky Christian and their naive arguments. Go ahead and look for your evidence all you want. There is nothing concrete whatsoever to ever back up evolution as a completely irrefutable fact. They merely find fossils and quote someone else who quotes someone else and so on and so forth until it goes back to Darwin's original notes. And even he didn't completely buy into it. He called it merely a theory as well. And for every scientist who says he has "proved" atheistic evolution there are as many who say they have proved him wrong. So believe what you want and I'll believe what I will. I'm not going to spend hours looking up ways to disprove evolution and bring it back to you because frankly I don't care enough. You're way too arrogant to ever listen to anything I have to say anyways. So, how about this, prove me wrong. I dare you if you are so dam smart. Actually find evidence. Not a fossil related to another one because that could just as easily be another species. Not some scientist coming up with a very compelling argument. I am talking about irrefutable, scientifically stable, undeniable evidence. And I promise you I will be waiting a while. As far as your micro vs. macro cop out, ever heard of checks and balances? Adaptation? If I move to Northern Canada, my body and face will grow more hair. Does that mean that my great great great great great grandchildren will look like Chewbacca? No! That's absurd! It's all theories and it all takes faith. If you are actually interested in finding the truth of the matter rather than arguing and making an ass of yourself then go read these books and prove them wrong: "The Case for the Creator" by Lee Strobel (former atheist trying to disprove the possibility of creation), "The Collapse of Evolution" by Scott M. Huse, and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry. Like I said I'm not gonna sit here all night and pull facts out for you because I just don't care enough, but if you are so set on your anti-religion vendetta to open the naive and ignorant world's eyes, then by all means, prove your point and I'll be right behind you.

I actually didn't say anything anti-religious. Not surprisingly, you are just displaying reactionary behavior towards anything that might undermine your beliefs however slightly. It is not my fault you are a moron who only contests science accepted when they don't like it's implications.

The only people who don't accept evolution as fact are religious nuts, not scientists. You're not going to find any real biologists who share your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Shockingly, you're not going to find a section labeled "Scientific criticism of the theory of evolution" or the like.

Like I said before, there are plenty of other discoveries in the field of paleontology, archaeology, geology and astronomy that are contradictory to the "facts" set forth in the bible. Better start working on shooting down the existence of dinosaurs etc while you are out looking to discredit evolution.

But I suppose those dinosaur bones or their scientifically determined age have a perfectly rational Christian explanation, like being placed in the ground already fossilized by the devil to erode your faith. Afterall, the bones just being there isn't rock solid proof of their existence.

SNOOZE. YOU ARE PAINFULLY DUMB.

I am going to bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The12lber

I actually didn't say anything anti-religious. Not surprisingly, you are just displaying reactionary behavior towards anything that might undermine your beliefs however slightly. It is not my fault you are a moron who only contests science accepted when they don't like it's implications.

The only people who don't accept evolution as fact are religious nuts, not scientists. You're not going to find any real biologists who share your opinion.

Like I said before, there are plenty of other discoveries in the field of paleontology, archaeology, geology and astronomy that are contradictory to the "facts" set forth in the bible. Better start working on shooting down the existence of dinosaurs etc while you are out looking to discredit evolution.

---

Actually dinosaurs are mentioned twice in the Old Testament in the book of Job, one called the Leviathon which was probably a Liopleurodon or something like it, and one is a land-going plant eater called the Behemoth, which was probably a Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus. But nice try. Is that the best you got?

And for the record, you are the only one I have ever met that sees it solely as Science vs. Religion. I can and do believe in both. But keep going because you are clearly showing your ignorance in both fields. I really don't have to say anything, I just thought I would make it apparent to you because I have developed a strong distaste to you. You came in here, insulted me, then called me defensive when I fired back. You're digging your own hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

Actually dinosaurs are mentioned twice in the Old Testament in the book of Job, one called the Leviathon which was probably a Liopleurodon or something like it, and one is a land-going plant eater called the Behemoth, which was probably a Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus. But nice try. Is that the best you got?

---

I think you mean "Leviathan" which is referred to as a giant sea monster that had multiple heads and breathed fire.

Clearly, a well documented dinosaur species.

And wikipedia? Seriously?! Anybody can go in there and make changes to what anything says so that is nowhere near a reliable source. Besides, I read what THE THEORY of evolution was in like what the sixth grade? And that was out of a real encyclopedia, Einstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

And for the record, you are the only one I have ever met that sees it solely as Science vs. Religion. I can and do believe in both. But keep going because you are clearly showing your ignorance in both fields. I really don't have to say anything, I just thought I would make it apparent to you because I have developed a strong distaste to you. You came in here, insulted me, then called me defensive when I fired back. You're digging your own hole.

---

I don't see it as science vs religion. They're totally different things. That's why its idiotic to come in here and go.

EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ITS RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS.

If you don't think evolution is true, fine, write evolutionary science off as the deceptive work of the devil. But don't come in here and say its because it isn't well accepted by science as fact. Because that's pretty clearly bull****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The12lber

I think you mean "Leviathan" which is referred to as a giant sea monster that had multiple heads and breathed fire.

Clearly, a well documented dinosaur species.

---

Have you read the passage? Nothing about multiple heads and breathing fire, I just read it. Maybe you were thinking of a hydra? Wrong belief system. That would be Greek mythology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

And wikipedia? Seriously?! Anybody can go in there and make changes to what anything says so that is nowhere near a reliable source. Besides, I read what THE THEORY of evolution was in like what the sixth grade? And that was out of a real encyclopedia, Einstein.

---

Wikipedia is actually extremely reputable and well maintained. Seriously, go in there and try to make some bull**** changes. They'll be deleted quite quickly and you'll be banned from editing. If only you understood the internet.

As a side note, you clearly didn't understand anything I said early about the orbit of the planets in the solar system, elemental periodicity or general relativity also being "theories".

Theory
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

IF ONLY YOU UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE.

God damn you are dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The12lber

I don't see it as science vs religion. They're totally different things. That's why its idiotic to come in here and go.

EVOLUTION IS A FALLACY BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ITS RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS.

If you don't think evolution is true, fine, write evolutionary science off as the deceptive work of the devil. But don't come in here and say its because it isn't well accepted by science as fact. Because that's pretty clearly bull****.

---

No what I said is that I do believe in micro-evolution and that evolution as a whole is just a theory. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be true. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension. The only thing I will openly say I think is bull is the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from primordial goo. I think humans were there in the beginning and the book of Job, which was written well before any fossils of dinosaurs were found, documents us and them living side by side. Do I know that as complete and total fact? Nope, wasn't there. But then how did they know about these creatures? And how come almost all societies have some mythical creature that resembles a dinosaur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

Have you read the passage? Nothing about multiple heads and breathing fire, I just read it. Maybe you were thinking of a hydra? Wrong belief system. That would be Greek mythology.

---

"Like the Leviathan, the Nile crocodile is aquatic, scaly, and possesses fierce teeth. Job 41:18 states that Leviathan's eyes "are like the eyelids of the morning". Some have compared this verse to a crocodile's eyes, which rise out of the water before the rest of its head, invoking the image of the sun rising over the horizon. Major difficulties of this view are that in Job chapter 41 Leviathan is described as breathing fire like a dragon, and that the crocodile does not seem to fit the descriptions of Leviathan given in other Bible passages, such as in the book of Psalms, e.g. it does not have multiple heads."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The12lber

Wikipedia is actually extremely reputable and well maintained. Seriously, go in there and try to make some bull**** changes. They'll be deleted quite quickly and you'll be banned from editing. If only you understood the internet.

As a side note, you clearly didn't understand anything I said early about the orbit of the planets in the solar system, elemental periodicity or general relativity also being "theories".

Theory
"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity."

IF ONLY YOU UNDERSTOOD SCIENCE.

God damn you are dumb.

---

And how do any of those other theories have anything to do with what we are talking about? Look at the thread you are in dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmoLTW

No what I said is that I do believe in micro-evolution and that evolution as a whole is just a theory. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be true. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on your reading comprehension. The only thing I will openly say I think is bull is the big bang theory and the idea that we all came from primordial goo. I think humans were there in the beginning and the book of Job, which was written well before any fossils of dinosaurs were found, documents us and them living side by side. Do I know that as complete and total fact? Nope, wasn't there. But then how did they know about these creatures? And how come almost all societies have some mythical creature that resembles a dinosaur?

---

Yes, like the Chinese belief in dragons, flying snake like creatures which breathe fire. There's actually not a whole lot of mythical creatures which are similar to dinosaurs in anything but the vaguest way.

I'm sorry, but I think if Humans and dinosaurs lived side by side they would get more than one unverifiable mention in the book of job.


.