A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Creationsm
embed
share
previous next
 
Post comment Comments
Ten10dix
Ten10dix Aug 20 2012, 8:06pm says:

Indeed, history proves it. As Religion began to have less and less power, we began to improve more and more.

Lets hope we continue on the right direction. I really and honestly hope I will live long enough to see at least half of the people on Earth throw Religion out. However, Religion is like drugs. The more you take, the harder it is to let go of... *sighs*

Anyway, rant over. xD.

+5 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 20 2012, 11:14pm says:

I disagree, christianity doesn't go against new knowledge. I never understood why people bled people when they were sick, I mean they should have just read the bible. It says clearly that the life of the flesh is in the blood. Also I could make the same poster with 'this is what evolution being taught in schools does.' and put things like; 'aborted, suicide, murdered' and those that would be alive would look like monkeys since that's what they would be taught. both worldveiws should be taugh, however evolution cannot claim that they have science backing them up. Because inventing creatures like Lucy is not science:)

-1 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Aug 21 2012, 4:08am replied:

Christianity doesn't just go against new knowledge, it dogmitaically teaches *wrong* information.

Oh and, Evolution is proven science, get over it already.

+8 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 4:45am replied:

Both of your points are opinions without some short of source/evidence:)

-1 votes     reply to comment
Velancious
Velancious Aug 21 2012, 5:01am replied:

It's funny because you did the exact same thing you claim him to be doing. He doesn't need to prove it because maybe someone like you should be reading books on this stuff. Get educated, seriously.

+8 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 6:41am replied:

I usally support my claims/opinions. So your saying I'm uneducated? Even though you have yet to prove to me that the bible has contradictions. And many of my points were never debated back, (were they really that good?) Sorry if I sound arrogant it's about 5am...

-3 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165
Admiral-165 Aug 21 2012, 10:36am replied:

"Both of your points are opinions without some short of source/evidence:)"

"I usally support my claims/opinions."

---

"I disagree, christianity doesn't go against new knowledge (EVIDENCE?). I never understood why people bled people when they were sick, I mean they should have just read the bible. It says clearly that the life of the flesh is in the blood (EVIDENCE?). Also I could make the same poster with 'this is what evolution being taught in schools does.' and put things like; 'aborted, suicide, murdered' (EVIDENCE? How does the theory of evolution cause that? I'm pretty sure that existed long before evolution...)) and those that would be alive would look like monkeys since that's what they would be taught (EVIDENCe?). both worldveiws should be taugh (haha), however evolution cannot claim that they have science backing them up (EVIDENCE?). Because inventing creatures like Lucy is not science:) (But the skeleton was real... What do you mean made up?)"

Nothing you said was backed up D:

+7 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 5:49pm replied:

For my first point, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, etc were all Christians! They discovered very interesting things. So they found new knowledge and they were not agianst it:)
Now my second point. I though everyone knew about the leaching ideas that they used before modern medicine? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting now For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11 KJV) it never made sense why they used bloodletting when they "knew" the bible:)
3rd point. I can't find any US statistics that have more then the past 10 years on them but I I could get statistics with the past 100 years I could show it to you.
4th point. http://www.humortimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rainbow-spiked-hair1.jpg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip_piercing a God fearing person would not destroy the temple of God like that. Which would also keep people from doing ober harmful stuff like, drugs, drinking, sleeping around, etc. the bible is very much against a lot of the things people are doing today.
5th point. The Skelton was faked, all they found was a bunch of bones without the hands, or feet, those were added later. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts evolution has not been proven, not on the scale that evolutionists claim.

-1 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 21 2012, 5:59pm replied:

"Now my second point. I though everyone knew about the leaching ideas that they used before modern medicine? "En.m.wikipedia.org now For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11 KJV) it never made sense why they used bloodletting when they "knew" the bible:)"

sry I have to oppose this statement there, I am sure they were aware that blood was the life of flesh, but, bloodletting was to get rid of the contagions in the blood to keep it "pure". It is an awful way to solve the problem of disease I know, but It does not mean they were not aware of the blood being life. Since they were not letting ALL the blood out. So according to your logic we must not touch the blood regardless of the diseases inside because it is all life? Despite blood samples etc?
Obviously no, but I cannot see how this "blood-letting" despite scripture content argument can be used as support, because thir goal was not to drain ALL the blood. Even today, people undergo leech therapy to remove toxins etc. Which is technically a form of "blood letting". It is a null argument, so I suggest using a different topic than that because it is fairly irrelevant. Yes, blood is life. There. One piece of evidence, but the blood-letting part is fairly flawed. Just some advice ;)

-2 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 7:35pm replied:

Okay, thanks for the correction:) anyways I was just asking why they did such things. And why they "killed" some people that way.

-1 votes     reply to comment
Velancious
Velancious Aug 24 2012, 10:51pm replied:

First of all, Einstein wasn't a Christian. He was what you'd call a PANTHEIST. He didn't believe in the Biblical God; he believed the universe is God essentially. Newton was a Christian, but none of the stuff he discovered was direct proof against the existence of the Biblical God. IDK about Copernicus (and other long-time ago Christians) but judging by his name, he lived a long time ago.

Telling us these people believed in the Biblical God even though it was so long ago is ridiculous. New information came out in the past century and even in the past decade that makes the Bible out to be less and less real. Why? Because it isn't real, and people are just starting to figure it out.

Oh and the Bible is full of contradictions; not just within it's text but it goes against modern science, which has mounds of proof supporting it. Saying **** like the world is 6000 years old, when there is so much proof against it, and no proof to support it, is ridiculous. The same goes for man being made from dirt, women being made from man's rib, and a talking serpent playing the downfall of man is also ridiculous.

But alas, the Christians and other religious people will reject whatever science contradicts their faith so it's useless. The only thing we can manage to do is shut them up when they do act like they know it all.

+3 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 25 2012, 2:24am replied:

What proof do you want? I'm planning on running an expiriment to petrifying some wood. Mostly so that I could make my hidden gun without having to melt metal and yet have it as strong as a rock:) anyways its still just an expiriment in the planning phase, so until I run it I cannot draw conclusions, but should it work I'm posting the steps on the science group:D

I would strongly argue that the earth CANNOT be more then 10000 years. If you want to hear all the reasons why I do not believe in the old earth theory, just ask, I'll gladly share what I know. But if your just tired of me then say so too.

-1 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 26 2012, 1:19pm replied:

It does not say the world is blinking 6000 years old. I hate having to point this out to every bloomin' fundamentalist atheist nowadays. And even when I do, they are still to listless to read the scripture properly.
MAn coming from dirt is credible, because dirt is composed of each element that is also in the human body. We also rerturn to the dirt (the carbon cycle) Genesis is symbolic, but there are no incorrect symbolisms
By golly do some research of the scripture before you make these claims.
Rib, well, stem cells? Heard of them? I say no more.

0 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Aug 28 2012, 7:24am replied:

Einstein certainly wasn't a Christian. He was a deist or pantheist.

+3 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 21 2012, 4:50pm replied:

Elffriend you are not making this any better :/

+1 vote     reply to comment
Velancious
Velancious Aug 21 2012, 4:58am replied:

You gotta be kidding me? Have you read about how the Bible told people to cure leprosy and other diseases?! It had all these ridiculous cures that didn't work.

+8 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 6:37am replied:

Except the cures were simple and they work, sort of, and in most cases. Anyways the bible is not agianst medical research. So the arguement that we would be in the dark ages because to the bible is blasphemy:)

-4 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Aug 21 2012, 9:29am replied:

Exept they don't work. At all.

+7 votes     reply to comment
Admiral-165
Admiral-165 Aug 21 2012, 10:31am replied:

Leviticus 14:

49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:

51 And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:

53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.

---

Mind you this cure only works if your HOUSE has leprosy, i dont think it works on people. What? You didn't know the walls of houses could get Leprosy? Didn't you read the bible?

+7 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 21 2012, 4:44pm replied:

I am sorry Admiral, but someone like you I expect would figure that the general term of Leprosy in hebrew is like the word "germs" in our vocab. It is general. And in this case, it is clear that these infections of the house refer to mould. Hvae you heard of mildew growth on walls etc? Yes! your house can contract diseases! Moulds! such fungus growths may develop in their walls, and in such cases destruction of the house and its materials is a sanitary necessity.
Their spores can attack the occupant of that household as well, so their concern is not qustionable
It could be the mould of Merulius lacrimans or even the efflorescence of calcium nitrate, which forms fiocculent masses when decomposing nitrogenous material is in contact with lime. I do not know, but conclusion is that the infections of houses is not ludicrous as you may percieve it in the slightest. So do not refer to these verses as silliness, because in fact they are very reasonable.

0 votes     reply to comment
Velancious
Velancious Aug 24 2012, 10:54pm replied:

Well, go ahead and test what the Bible says then if you're so sure of it.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Aug 21 2012, 11:38am replied:

actually the bible is against medicine, you suppose to pray for a cure or die.

medicine is the devils work...
no more medicine for you, just prayer

+6 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum Aug 21 2012, 4:33pm replied:

sry but please give your sources before you emit spontaneous claims from your brain. Cite one verse in the Bible that says "All medicine is false!"

The disease is thought to be a zymotic affection produced by a microbe

-1 votes     reply to comment
ElfFriend
ElfFriend Aug 21 2012, 7:20pm buried:

(buried)

You got to cite your sources friend.

-5 votes     reply to comment
Sarge_Rho
Sarge_Rho Sep 7 2012, 3:56am replied:

And so do you.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Description

This is what would happen if we taught creationism in schools

Image Details
Type
Demonstration
Date
Aug 20th, 2012
Size
365×500
Options
URL
Embed (big)
Embed
Share
Report Abuse
Report media
Add Media
Members only