Lesson in genetics

  • http://www.facebook.com/guy.sisemore Guy Sisemore

    If I were to give creationists a lesson in genetics this wouldn’t be it.

  • Davenr

    Unfortunately (for Guy Sisemore et al), it says nothing at all that is pertinent to the argument that there had to be a personal Creator in order for Nature and the Cosmos to have come into being. Refer to my previous comments on Science vs Creationism and Can you Prove the Bible is False? to find out why. I’d very much like to hear Guy’s lesson on Genetics, though I doubt if it would be worth my time to read it.

    • Mikey

      You cannot prove the bible is false. Just as you cannot prove that the earth isn’t flat. You can only prove that it is round. It is not logical to ask that someone prove the negative. You have the burden of proof. Since there is no physical evidence of a god I can logically conclude that no god is present. This is logic.

    • http://www.facebook.com/guy.sisemore Guy Sisemore

      The argument in the pic is crap, pretty much the point of my initial post.
      It may be true but in its present form it as a huge leap in logic.
      I have no doubt you’d view my lesson as a waste of time regardless of what was in it,
      which makes it a waste of my time to make it.

  • Davenr

    Re two of the points made above, it is a fact that the present population of the world could easily have risen to such a figure within 6,000 years, as is quite readibly shown by statistical analysis. As for the said number of 6,000 diseases, this also can be shown to be perfectly feasible as having developed within the same period.

    • Mikey

      Your rhetoric has caught you again. Again, by applying logic to your first point… It is never a “fact” that a particular event “could” have occurred. A fact is is concrete. Never debatable. The passage never states that it is a fact the humans have been around longer than 6000. It only states that all scientific knowledge on the subject concludes that it is so. That is the standard of proof being suggested and it is enough for me.

  • Davenr

    Er, I meant “readily” in my last comment — finger slipped on keyboard !

  • John Jacob Jingleheimer Smith

    Creationists aren’t the brightest and using this kind of logic on them just makes them pound their fists on their chest, bellow loud noises about jesus and america and how scientists are demon worshipers and will burn in hell for publishing research for stuff that actually exists. Don’t worry though, they didn’t come from no monkeys. You need to be able to make it so a 12 year old could understand and maybe, just maybe they will listen. This science shit though, since they can’t wrap their heads around it, it makes it magic and creationists just aren’t the superstitious type.

    On a serious note though, as an atheist, I gotta say that this suggestion is lack luster. Any creationist with a sub par IQ could just claim god created those diseases, they already claim god made HIV to kill gays. We all know we’re not talking to the brightest of people because hell, those people already understand whats going on.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/VW3KXXRUTQY4XQSBT3H5NXKBCQ Steve

      The best answer to the obsolescent “HIV is Gawd’s punishment for sodomy!” argument is that God must really like lesbians. Exclusively homosexual women contract STDs less frequently than heterosexual women.

  • Davenr

    not that bright” – really?

    Here are names
    and academic credentials of just a few of the highly-qualified modern
    scientists who accept the biblical account of creation, out of a list I have to
    hand of over 250 contemporary highly-qualified scientists (in fact, there are
    many more and the list keeps growing, as all the facts becoming available through
    scientific discovery are found
    to synchronise perfectly with the biblical account)……

    Dr. John
    Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in
    supercomputer modelling of plate tectonics / Dr Stuart Cripps, Nuclear Physicist, Technical
    Manager of a team of over 100 physicists in the nuclear power industry (Whilst he was at university, Stuart
    proved to his own satisfaction that an all-powerful God must exist. Using the second law of thermodynamics and
    Einstein’s theory of relativity, Stuart explains that the theory of evolution
    is not supported by scientific evidence and that a designer and creator of the
    universe must exist outside our perceived limits of time and space) / Dr.
    William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics / Dr
    Jonathan Sarfati, (who received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D.
    (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He
    has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals including one on
    high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22 years old. In
    1988, the International Chess Federation awarded him the title of F.I.D.E.
    Master (FM). He drew in a contest with Boris Spassky, the world chess champion).

    The list of
    renowned scientists of the past who were bible-believing Christians, who fully believed
    in the God of creation is also long. Here are just a few of them….

    Pascal – mathematician, who developed Hydrostatics and the barometer / Robert
    Boyle – pioneer of Chemistry and Gas Dynamics / Isaac Newton, pioneer of Dynamics;
    Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more
    about the Bible than science and emphatically affirmed a Creator / Johathan Edwards,
    Physics, Meteorology / Humphrey Davy – Thermokinetics, invented safety lamp / Michael
    Faraday – Electro-magnetics, Field theory, invented electric generator / Samuel
    F.B. Morse — invented telegraph / James Simpson — Gynaecology, Anaesthesiology
    / Gregor Mendel – Genetics

    Einstein recognized
    the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says
    of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in
    “Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.”
    This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young
    physicist: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested
    in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to
    know His thoughts, the rest are details.”

    Whilst I
    wouldn’t think of classing myself amongst such men intellectually, I am
    reasonably able, I believe, having regularly taken IQ tests, including MENSA,
    that show me to have an IQ in the order of 150 and I have an engineering degree.
    The allegation by some in this discussion forum that Creationists are not that
    bright and haven’t thought things through comes therefore as a bit irritating,
    if not laughable. I have already explained under other subject headings on this
    site (e.g. Science vs Creationism and Can You Prove the Bible is False (the
    latter apparently now having been removed) my reasons for believing what I do
    and why I think that the Bible’s account is the most reasonable explanation for
    everything, but I will do so again, if need be. So far though, I have never yet
    had a well-reasoned account from anyone as to why either atheism or macro-evolutionary
    theory is a better explanation, when the facts tell me otherwise.

    • Pablo

      Why would an all powerful being create humans, and every other animal with excess organs or bones? Seems a bit strange. If you were to make a whale you wouldn’t stick bones that serve NO PURPOSE, to make a human you could just leave out the appendix or you would probably wire the eye so its not backwards. I mean creationists HAVE to believe god was just like “ah F*** it, ill just place these here to mess with their heads”. Things that serve no purpose wouldn’t be “created” in the first place. Provide the facts that explain these remnants in a creationist view, please.

    • wrlitzr

      First I have to say it’s interesting to see that you think your IQ is “in the order of 150″. It seems like it might be possible for someone of your gratuitous “genius” to understand the basic logic of English grammar. Second, congrats on combing all of history to find a large handful of people that claimed they believed the biblical account of creation (likely they actually didn’t or did it to not be burned as heathens because we’ve seen how logical and unbiased those witch burning, culture killing, knowledge hating bible thumpers can be). However you may check your facts in the CURRENT collaboration of scientific minds. As it stands today 95% of scientists reject the creationist theory because they can see testable and logical evidence of why it couldn’t possibly happen anything like the bible says it did.
      http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god Also, (and honestly this is the only one of your examples I took the time of looking into for you) Einstein in no way said that creationism had any credibility. Look here my friend and educate yourself:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein He has even said that a deity of any kind is “unlikely” or “childish”. You may want to re-check your “facts” before posting them mister-IQ. I’ll tell you the same thing I tell every idiot: just because you make a positive assertion doesn’t mean it’s true! Look at facts, and check them in multiple places if possible because what you just posted there makes you look like an uneducated buffoon. I hope you’re happy knowing that you made an idiot of yourself to all the actually intelligent people who might stumble to this post as I have.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Cook/100000688609374 John Cook

      If I might provide the name of a qualified scientist, a Ph.D in behavioral psychology, who can offer something of substance regarding creationism–or reality as far as any, religion is concerned. This is not to seem argumentative, however it will become that to any religious person who is attempting to “prove” his or her religion by taking a one sided stand for religion.

      I am Dr. John Cook, and this has been my study for over 50 years now and I know that arguing the validity of any religion is folly, for religion is personal belief, not something provable in any logical or physical sense. Any religion where faith is a requirement, a virtue, and a demand of the religion, demonstrates that actual proof is unavailable. If that were not the case, there would be no need for faith as the reality that made that religion so solidly factual would be easily apparent to anyone without question.

      The very requirement of faith means that something can easily be questioned. So easily in fact, that faith is a major requirement of that religion, and without faith, the religion could not exist.

      Religions are “belief systems” whereby the members of that sect or religion are required to uphold the faith and never may they question the existence of that particular God. Any member of that sect or religion that does so is said to face punishment of such extreme horror that questioning their God becomes unthinkable. So ridiculous dogmatic statements are made available to cover all possibilities, and each member then provides cover for their God where logic and reality cannot exist. .

      No factual or empirical evidence of any kind exists to prove the existence of any God or Gods. Only scripts, books, ancient recordings, and tales and fables passed through the ages, but no solid repeatable evidence worthy of proof of a magical, God capable of all the attributes he is worshiped for.

      No person of that religion can or will look closely enough at the actual God in study of his actual existence, because the implanted fears carry to great a penalty.

      Considering this brief focus on reality, anyone who wishes to substantiate their own religion is not permitted to do so for fear of eternal torture. So no one can study their own religion in reality. Sadly, anyone who does would find that there is no God.

      While this is easy for any atheist to comprehend, a religious person cannot because they fear the torture. Those fears are what cement all religions together. Without fear, religion cannot exist.

      If you are religious, you might attempt it. Study your God without fear–closely, introspectively, seeking fact and reality. If you do this your religion will vanish because without the fears you received from your parents in your formative years, you soon realize that that God you are placing so much hope in is little more than an attempt to escape the terror of the endless torture of hell over the promise of heaven.

      Press any of it to reality and the smoke screen it is made of will vanish like the magical bubble that was Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy. God is only backed by a Bronze Age myth, no more substantial in the light of reality than the soap bubbles we blew in the wind as laughing children.

      Sincerely, do you not think it time to grow up and escape the fears of a magical land of fire and torture as well as that false promise of a paradise that when studied is no more real that that soap bubble? Perhaps those were suitable methods of keeping a people under control in the Bronze Ages, but in the age of technology you seem extremely foolish.

  • lol

    it’s pretty stupid to even dignify the idea that someone was ‘made’ from another persons’ rib a response….

  • NDJS

    to be fair, if god could create a whole new person from just the rib of another, he can sure switch up the DNA a little. He’d have to, in fact, otherwise he really would’ve ended up with adam & steve (or even just adam and adam the second)

    Though why he even needed the rib in the first place is beyond me. As much as they seem to love their little stories, christians really don’t seem to care to make them at least self-consistent…

  • Davenr

    My reason
    for stating my intelligence quotient (145, as officially rated by MENSA,
    following an invited, invigilated test, taken after an earlier, timed
    submission, which was rated by them at 155) was not to say what a clever boy I
    am or think I am. Personally, I don’t think IQ tests say a great deal about a
    person’s true intelligence and tend to be somewhat subjective, although they
    may indicate a measure of some acuity. They could simply be proof that someone
    is merely good or otherwise at taking such tests. However, the suggestion had
    been made by another commenter that Christians who accept verbatim the claims and
    statements of the Bible are less well-endowed intellectually than the average
    person, which is why I also said there are very many very highly educated scientists
    of the present and many renowned ones of the past who, as I, believe (and believed
    and had a life-long faith in Him) that the God of the Bible is the creator of all
    the world, the universe and all living things. It was also suggested Christians
    have not thought through all of the arguments and counter-arguments sufficiently,
    in the light of all of the scientific evidence, but this is clearly not so. If
    you look at my previous comments, by clicking on my name and viewing them under
    “Activity”, you will be able to see my reasons for my beliefs.

    It is true
    that Einstein did not come to faith in a personal god, but he is known for very
    many quotes on the subject, two of which are as follow:-

    “I want to
    know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that
    phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his
    thoughts. The rest are details.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton
    University Press, 2000 p.202 and Encyclopaedia Britannica).

    “What I see
    in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very
    imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
    “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to
    do with mysticism.”

    The fact that
    Einstein recognised the awesome order of the Creation he studied must indicate
    that it had to have an originator, since order cannot ensue from disorder and
    chaos. Christians know this originator as the God of the Bible, although they
    may have different opinions as to the precise time He took to do so. You may
    not yet feel you can share in their views, but I hope you can appreciate how,
    from the reasons I have given, why I and very many other thinking people are so
    persuaded, even if you cannot agree with them.

    If this is a
    science debating forum worthy of the name, then differing opinions should be able
    to be freely expressed without unpleasantness. So far, however, I have not seen
    here any well-reasoned arguments as to why I should change my views and

    • musicby

      so many good thoughts have already been put out there and I’ll try and add my own. While they (in your face christians) I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for them. They were raised this way and probably did their best as adults to make excuses for the bits that don’t seem to make sense. It’s been said so many times in the past, that a person’s choice of religion is almost completely based on their geographic location and parent’s beliefs. I would be extremely surprised to find an adult who on their own chose an organized religion to “believe in”.

      Beyond that, they are never, ever, ever going to give in no matter how persuading the argument. Although I strongly believe the arguments will always need to continue.



    • http://www.facebook.com/TheScourgeOfEverySea Kyle Thompson

      I don’t know who first said it because it’s been some time now, but one can argue that smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs to themselves that they hold irrationally. Also, to say that order cannot ensue from disorder is blatantly untrue and easily refuted with the simple evidence of rock candy. It’s hard to imagine something more orderly than a crystal, and a liquid solution is certainly more chaotic. Another example would be the formation of planets through accretion. The belief that order from disorder is impossible comes from an impartial understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and what they apply to.

  • jimmyjim

    Who the fuck designed this thing?

  • Davenr

    It is disingenuous
    and uninformed to say that Christians accept what they are taught without
    question and haven’t examined all the facts. This is not so. In fact, many have
    come to believe the biblical account of creation simply because they have
    examined the facts and decided that they make best sense in the light of what
    the Bible says. One might add that those who accept macro-evolutionary
    explanations for origins believe what they do, simply because that is how they
    have been brought up and taught. Indeed, it is true that belief in the theory
    of macro-evolutionary development from nothing actually requires far greater faith
    than does the Christian view.

    According to
    Cambridge Professor Fred Hoyle, who carried out a specific mathematical analysis of the subject, the probability of
    cellular life’s having evolved is about one in 10 to the power of 40.000 – in other
    words, zilch, nil, zero.

    He said, “The
    chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to
    the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing
    747 from the materials therein”, which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:-

    “Life as we
    know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes.
    How could the blind forces of the ‘primal sea’ manage to put together the
    correct chemical elements to build these enzymes?”

    considering what he thought of was an extremely remote probability of Earth-based
    abiogenesis, he concluded:

    “If one
    proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected
    by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion
    that biomaterials, with their amazing measure or order, must be the outcome of
    intelligent design. There is no other possibility I have been able to think

    notion that not only the biopolymer, but the operating program of a living cell,
    could be arrived at by chance from a primordial, organic soup, here on the
    Earth, is evidently nonsense of a high order.”

    However, I
    believe that Hoyle’s graphic image of the scrapyard and the assembled 747, though
    well making the point, is well short on conveying the real extent of the
    comparison he was making. In order to better portray the point, the comparison he
    might have used is that of a sandy beach on a windy day, when some sand is
    whipped up to form a fully operating computer chip. An amoeba, the simplest living
    organism, is actually very complex. It may only contain basic elements such as
    hydrogen and carbon, but the DNA is highly complex, The internal structure and
    machinery that enables it to move, repair and replicate is far from simple. It clearly
    cannot have come about by chance. Again,
    the structure of a cell of a complex being, such as a human, is indeed very
    much more complex than an amoeba, yet the amoeba still contains thousands of
    complex parts and elements of information.

    Hoyle’s 1 in 10 to the power of 40.000 chance actually somehow did miraculously
    occur, through the haphazard coming together of chemicals (Ignoring for the
    moment where the atoms which form the required chemicals themselves came into
    existence), and thus a
    simple cell was formed and all other life forms subsequently developed from it
    into the hundred-times more complex living structures of the present and recent
    times, the question why there are
    absolutely no fossils to be found which indicate the required gradual
    progression upwards from such a basic organism,
    must be answered. Logically, the strata of the earth should be full of all
    manner of grotesque, cellular life forms and structures, giving the evidence that
    such a progression actually did take place. However, fossils which are found
    invariably show the finished article (e.g. fully-formed leaves, fully-formed
    animal bones, etc.) and never any intermediate stage ones.

    • Unindoctrin8ed

      There is a name for people who have examined Christianity critically . Atheists.

    • http://www.facebook.com/guy.sisemore Guy Sisemore

      You can’t calculate odds like this without precedent or a whole slew of information that doesn’t exist. Congratulation, you’ve just accepted an specious argument without critical examination because it confirmed what you’ve already chosen to believe. And then regurgitated it for an audience that knows better. You’ve just confirmed that no matter how smart a theist may seem or claim to be they’re just biased and full of shit! (Not to mention the dubious argument from authority that Christians make ad nauseum)

    • http://www.facebook.com/eric.turnbull.31 Eric Turnbull

      To the matter of statistics of accidental life on earth, know that if the sun were the size of a white blood cell, the galaxy would be the size of the US. That offers a lot opportunities for accidents to happen, and that is only one galaxy worth of space.

  • Jay

    The world according to the Bible is 5772 years plus 6 days. Using the law/theory of relativity those 6 days could be 15 billion years. Therefore it is possible to have 6000 genetic diseases in that time span.

  • Davenr

    Cambridge University don, C. S. Lewis, had this answer to those who believe we
    are merely accidents:

    “If the
    solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance
    of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of
    Man was an accident, too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere
    accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms, and this holds
    for the materialists’, astronomers’ and for everyone else’s. But, if their
    thoughts — i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental
    by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for
    believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the
    other accidents.”

    I believe
    that the human body exhibits conclusive evidence of design and most certainly not
    of mere haphazard accident. Here is a list of some randomly selected facts,
    which scientists have learned about the human body and which demonstrate a
    degree of design which makes a computer microchip or a Voyager space ship look
    like a child’s wooden play-brick. As you examine the list, ask yourself this
    question: “Can I rationally believe that the incredible complexity of my body
    is the result of mindless, random forces or does it not rather indicate marvellous

    The average
    human body has, for example —

    (three trillion) nerve cells, all co-ordinated by the brain.

    (thirty billion) working sections in the brain.

    photo-receptors in the eyes.

    hair-like cells in the inner ear, which react to sound and convert it to nerve

    intestine, having a surface area of 970,000 square feet.

    A heart which
    beats 100,000 times and circulates 2,000 gallons of blood daily.

    A liver which
    manufactures more than 1,000 different enzymes, each in the right quantity and each
    controlling a different chemical reaction.

    60,000 miles
    of blood vessels.

    gland cells in the stomach, allowing it to break down food, without digesting

    having 40 miles of tubing, which clean 500 gallons of blood daily.

    (one million million) bits of data in each cell. (That is as much information
    as 10,000 encyclopaedia-sized books.)

    639 muscles,
    which must each work together.

    Joints which
    must move at least 25,000,000 times in a lifetime, without wearing out.

    (thirty million million) cells in total, having 10,000 separate functions.

    This is but
    part of the complete list of truly astounding components and functions of the
    human body, all of which are strategically placed in the body. As the Bible
    says, “We have been fearfully and wonderfully made”.

    Far from
    being someone who tries to align their faith with the facts, I re-assert what I
    have said before – i.e. that the facts are best explained by my faith. There
    simply is no other valid explanation.

    • davenrisafucktard

      oh davenr.. you are pathetic. you are just so insecure and argumentative. get off this thread! Jesus! You think that you are just so smart, and you try to make yourself appear non ego-statistical, but you don’t fool anyone. It gets you off trying to sound smarter then everyone else doesn’t it? Just shut the fuck up already. Christ al-god damn mighty, please kill ol davenr for us will ya? You are a fucktard, nothing else.

  • Davenr

    The above
    postulation on the subject of genetics and disease, like all of the introductions
    to other questions on this discussion forum, is actually quite easily answered.

    According to
    a WHO report of 1996, “During the past 20 years, at least 30 new diseases have
    emerged, for many of which there is no treatment, cure or vaccine, or the
    possibility of effective prevention or control.”

    This means 1.5
    new diseases every year. Assuming this rate or a similar rate has occurred over
    the centuries, clearly it is perfectly feasible that 6,000 diseases could have
    arisen within 6000 years.

    • http://www.facebook.com/guy.sisemore Guy Sisemore

      I’m not sure why you make so many posts on this one pic.
      Your argument is as much shit as the one above and ignores the actually argument even though it’s a shitty one. It explicitly states genetic diseases, meaning genetic malfunction due to mutation. You’re not referencing mutations but diseases of all kinds, apples and oranges. Or an equivocation fallacy to put it in different terms.
      Not to mention the drastic increase of people available to mutate new diseases.

  • Davenr

    The number
    of harmful mutations is actually an argument for creation and a young world.

    The genetic
    community now accepts that there are at least 100 new genetic (not somatic)
    mutations in each new-born human.

    Of course,
    most of these are only slightly deleterious, hence transparent to selection,
    but the combined effect is huge and heading us rapidly toward error
    catastrophe, which would have occurred long ago, if humanity were 100,000 years

    If 1 billion
    babies had been born over the last five years, between them they would have
    suffered a total of over one trillion mutations. Of course, these are not one
    trillion separate types of mutations, since there would be repetition of the
    same error frequently. The same would occur for specific disease-causing mutations.
    So, of all the mutations that arise in human beings continually, having only 5
    or 6,000 that cause recognizable inherited disease syndromes is a trivial
    number to account for. In fact, it is embarrassingly low, and one would have to
    assume that the same types of disease-causing mutations happen repeatedly.

  • Davenr

    The number
    of harmful mutations is actually an argument for creation and a young world.

    The genetic
    community now accepts that there are at least 100 new genetic (not somatic)
    mutations in each new-born human.

    Of course,
    most of these are only slightly deleterious, hence transparent to selection,
    but the combined effect is huge and heading us rapidly toward error
    catastrophe, which would have occurred long ago, if humanity were 100,000 years

    If 1 billion
    babies had been born over the last five years, between them they would have
    suffered a total of over one trillion mutations. Of course, these are not one
    trillion separate types of mutations, since there would be repetition of the
    same error frequently. The same would occur for specific disease-causing mutations.
    So, of all the mutations that arise in human beings continually, having only 5
    or 6 thousand that cause recognizable inherited disease syndromes is a trivial
    number to account for. In fact, it is embarrassingly low, and one would have to
    assume that the same types of disease-causing mutations happen repeatedly.

  • Davenr

    Over the years, I’ve had a number of accidents in my car, only one or two of which were my own fault, although they were only minor. Funny thing is, none of them did my car any good — and my car had well designed and built.

  • Davenr

    Sorry,missed out the word “been” — before someone draws my attention to it

  • Victor

    I agree but you have to include the possibility that all scientific knowledge is wrong

  • Davenr

    Whilst scientific knowledge about verifiable scientfic facts is always correct (e.g. the atom contains a nucleus, plus orbiting electrons — as has been proved), postulations made by some scientists (certainly not all) that the incredible complexity of organic life and order that exists in the world, which we all can see, somehow just happened through chance combinations of basic elements (the origins of which scientific logic cannot explain) remain in the realm of belief, not science.

  • Elizabeth

    Come on now, it’s 2012 – why are we even humoring these fools? The burden of proof isn’t upon the Scientific Intellectual/Atheist shoulders, it’s upon the crazy fundamentalists that claim this tripe. If I were to run around saying “I met God last night and I know for a fact he’s real!” it isn’t everyone else’s duty to try to disprove me, it’s mine to try to prove that my claim isn’t fanciful.

    So sick of these crazy people setting back the human race hundreds of years because of their “gut feelings” – I say ship them off onto an island somewhere and let them live in their dream world away from the rest of us, where they can’t harm human/scientific development.

  • yup

    So here’s the deal, every Christian I know realizes that bible stories are metaphorical. Believing that a whole group of people is stupid because of a few extremists is a stereotype, and those just aren’t cool. And another thing, impossible doesn’t exist in science.

  • Noel Scarlett

    there is more SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the BIBLE than the nonsense of this post!

    I like how FINITE HUMANS try to define an INFINITE GOD. BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. SO how can a scientist really believe he knows how this world was hung? all science can do is guess.. if you believe the guys who pontificate endlessly about how science is the answer… GOT NEWS FOR YOU.. GOD CREATED THAT TOO!

    • Werd of Gawd

      Except you are using the Bible as a source of information. All that book has in it is mind control (and sadly on the greatest levels).