Volfan76
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,016
- Likes
- 7,019
Everybody on this board should watch this with a truly open mind. I think Bill Nye destroys Ham's arguments. However, I don't think he disproves creationism. You just can't go into it with a literal interpretation of the Bible. To think that the world is just several thousand years old is asinine and just plain ignoring facts. And with that brings into question what in the Bible actually can be interpreted literally..
It's astounding that a book that has survived thousands of years, never been proved false, give details (cities, times, kings, ect.), is outdated and useless compared to our modern thinking. Many modern thought processes have come and gone in the past 2000 years, and the Bible has remained. Long after your life it will still remain. Today's culture won't change that either. Rulers couldn't during the reformation.
Man ruins everything it touches. Even the Greeks understood this. Some of our world wonders were slavery, marginalizing women, and abortion. The answer to lives questions are not in our mental capacity. The smartest man on this board has no control over his intelligence, strength, or future. Just the facts.
I'm sure the openly gay teens bullied to the point of suicide or murdered because of their sexual orientation went through the hell they did because it was trendy. Or the ones who came out to their families knowing everyone they loved would abandon them. Sounds pretty trendy to me.
Only difference is their texts have been proven incorrect. No need to get hung up on the details though.
I hardly call the use of punnett squares as empirical mathematical evidence for this argument. I'm not saying that people can or can not be born gay, but to assume that such a gene is merely a Mendelian trait is a poor way to argue your point.
Well-there's the whole issue with the carbon dating of fossils that prove Earth is older than 6500 years old.
I also have not run into a snake that was able to use the spoken word.
Any person who has read on carbon dating knows that anything over 4,000 years old is unreliable and not considered fact because there aren't many samples to hold it up against.
No I have never ran into a snake that could talk, but I also fail to see in the Bible where God said snakes would speak with us.
I hardly call the use of punnett squares as empirical mathematical evidence for this argument. I'm not saying that people can or can not be born gay, but to assume that such a gene is merely a Mendelian trait is a poor way to argue your point.
Any person who has read on carbon dating knows that anything over 4,000 years old is unreliable and not considered fact because there aren't many samples to hold it up against.
No I have never ran into a snake that could talk, but I also fail to see in the Bible where God said snakes would speak with us.
I have read the first one and I don't see the contradiction. I am not saying that as a jerk. Just asking. I could have very easily misunderstood it.
Let me post what I posted in response to SDV on the NCAA forum about this same question:
Assuming you're not just joking, let me answer that question. We live in a society where you're considered heterosexual by default. It's not like you have to go around parading your heterosexuality (although many still do) to feel accepted or to fit in. For gays, their sexuality is obviously a fundamental part of their being, just as your heterosexuality is to you. Difference is, you don't live in a society where your heterosexuality is considered a problem. Of course it's not political for you. It doesn't have to be. But for gays on the other hand...