Focusing on Creationism

Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.

Why or what do I have to be worried about? It is just sounds like I am trying to recite things from one of the only sources that is reliable to have million or even billions of people believing.

Some time ago, millions, if not billions of people knew the world to be a flat plate =). Taking the number odds is a poor choice to make on just that alone.

Is English your first language?

Ok, well first off the story of Adam and Eve is largely known to be just a parable about humans needing to be baptized and containing original sin. Only very extreme sects of religions believe it to be true, and personally, I think if you believe that Adam and Eve and the story of the garden of Eden are real, you have more to worry about than this debate.

Why or what do I have to be worried about? It is just sounds like I am trying to recite things from one of the only sources that is reliable to have million or even billions of people believing.

The reason you should be worried is because no matter how you look at it, with the adam and eve story has lots and LOTS of incest. Seriously, every ones got some incest in their bloodline if they go back far enough. But if that story were true humanity would be severely inbred. I mean like, inbred to the point where we'd all have down syndrome or something.

Our sin has made mankind burdened with diseases; Back then sin had just started taking effect so they could marry each other and besides God Commanded them to

You have more to worry about because you're a fucking idiot if you think that a serpent told a girl and a man made from her rib to eat some fruit that made them know shame and an omnipotent deity showed itself from the sky and kicked them out of a garden.

Can you prove it didn't happen Holkeye?

Can you prove there isn't a dildo orbiting the earth? :/

Errr... give me a big telescope and lots of time and I may be able to 

You never know, a lady astronout may of got a bit... horny...

Technically you can't disprove a negative. We have no proof that unicorns ( and I'm not referring to the Egyptian ones ) aren't real, yet we don't believe in them. There's also a reason why I stopped believing in Santa Clause at four years of age, I assure you it wasn't because I could prove he didn't exist =).

When an idea becomes so implausible due to lack of evidence, it's not worth our energy entertaining.

Is English your first language?

Please don't attack my friend in that manner. It ticks me off when people are attacked for no real reason.

Also, I apologize for my mis-spelling of macroevolution, I'm human, I make mistakes. -_-

Final Note : I would say since everbody has already posted their view on the matter at hand, that in real life this debate would already be over. The point of a debate is not to try to "win" persay, but rather to share your arguement. If there is a winner it is chosen by the people (ex: the presidential debates).

God did not show himself directectly and even then It would have happened eventually no matter what happened

I have about as much evidence against it as you do in favor of it. And also, what would've happened eventually? Thats not a very good argument for anything.

I want to know what you could throw at me that contradicts the bible ing any way at all.

Science disproves all religion. Religion is just the root of all evil. (that, and money)

science has proved the bible so many times it is not funny. And how could you say religion is evil when it disapproves evil?

You can't use the bible as proof. Science has not "proven the bible to be true", it has found correlating evidence to major political events throughout the New Testament. The bible is called historical fiction. It takes place during real historical events, but it is still fiction. Just because a bunch of people decided to follow the writings in it does not make it a divine book of some sort. Its like millions of people following The Lord Of The Rings, and believing that all that stuff happened before the so called "Age of Man".
Now that I have shown my stance on the matter, I am through with this thread. I respect the fact that some of you had undying faith. I'm sure life is a little easier to live when you have something like that to be unquestionably devoted to. Its not that I'm not a spiriual person, like I said earlier. Its just that some beliefs can't be entertained after the evidence points the other way.

how has scienced proved the bible right?

science has proved the bible so many times it is not funny. And how could you say religion is evil when it disapproves evil?

« Last Edit: Today at 02:13:29 PM by Tsunokiette »

Well Tsuno, it may not be funny, but what you just said certainly is. The last time I checked Noah's ark was absolutely shown to be an impossibility... What parts of the bible have been "proven"..?

Science soposedly discovered jesus tomb, woops wrong it only helped that Jesus has risen from the dead. Bible mentions about a mine of copper ofr some other miniral, they went to  were the bible said it was found nothing but then they dug deeeper and found it full of the metal. In the bible it prophetised about and increase of earthquakes over the last 1000 years earthquakes have risin to high numbers of thousands of earthquakes just check the news or remember the tsuname about two or three years ago.

Noahs ark has been proven! Mt. ararat still exists today just I think it was renamed. It has been taken a picture of it under the ice. Science has also recorded that earth is more compacted during floods. they have found a great compaction whitch would have been the soil 5 thousand years ago

Evidence is often misleading.

Facts are the enemy of truth

That's very interesting, but even though you are talking about evidence you're off topic. As a matter of fact, I can't really blame you, as so far this whole page seems to have been...

It says on the first page you can't prove or disprove religion with science. That's true, as religion is a faith system. Faith is based solely on the individual, and cannot be disproven or proven.

That being said, let's get back on topic: the actual questions out of those first ten lines.

I would also like to say the bible ii itself is not a religion it is just a tool of the religion because it can be taken out of context and serve as a tool of deciet and lies when it was not originally attended to do so but rather correct your moral situation.

Yes...this was obvious. You can do this with any text or piece of factual evidence.

sorry I just noticed you where taking the bible and talking about religion