why are all terror activities carried out in the world are by people of muslim religion?Why cant muslims let peace be there in the world?Are people of only muslim origins terrorist?so trumps decision by banning muslim is 100% correct?
i think the terrorists only saying that they are muslims to gather more supports in muslims countries but as far as i know , terrorists are no muslims or no religion because , what are they fighting for is different in their beliefs .. terrorists is evil and evil has no religion ,,.. You are just pulling this straight out of your dark and warm place, aren't you? Of course the terrorists are Muslims. They are Jihadists, you little twit. |
|
|
|
I can`t understand, why the devs make *shitty 1MB* Why they did`t set it about 2MB or maybe 20MB? What are they target?
The idea is to "grow" the size with the "technology", to keep your blockchain on a portable device, to keep it "democratic" and "decentralized". The original idea was not for Bitcoin to replace Visa in transaction processing. If you make it 20MB, the limit will be reached in no time (by attacks or otherwise). And you'll be facing the same problem. Making it "unlimited" is doomed for failure. Positive feedback, really. You are not solving the underlying problem: how to control the growth. The algorithm should control the human behavior, i.e. how users use Bitcoin, not the other way around. You do not adjust the algorithm to accommodate user wants/wishes. Algorithm should dictate how the Bitcoin will grow or be used. The support for "unlimited" blocks is strong enough to fracture bitcoin into two currencies. That is fine. Just wait to see the "unlimited version" fail, naturally. I think the core developers got this right, very mature of them. They are not some yahoos who learned how to code in their parents basements. Not to worry, keep your chain/wallet on a portable device, offline, and you'll be fine. In worse case, you'll end up with two chains/wallets. After this is over, the price of bitcoin core will zoom to new heights. |
|
|
|
Who said I hate Muslims? I don't hate people.
I hate the Islamist ideology. I am all for freedom.
Freedom does not mean you allow the enemy to operate on your territory.
When you are at war, you need to protect your country and protect your borders. You do this to protect your freedoms, you little twit!!!
Firstly, there is no war. There are dumbass annoying twats blowing shit up - they are not part of an army. If there was an army, then there would be multiple attacks every day, and that's not the case. The war on terror is not a real war. It is a clash of ideologies of the west, and the individual extremist Islamists who choose to counter those ideologies. They are obviously tiny in number, as you are more likely to be killed by some furniture in the UK, than by a terrorist. They are pretty much all lone wolves. Secondly, protecting our borders will do absolutely no good, as the people that carry out these attacks are predominantly British citizens already. You are in denial. Go ahead, wait until you'll have multiple attacks every day. If you are non-Muslim go and live in Dearborn, MI. See how long you'll last. I think you are simply ill-informed and brainwashed. |
|
|
|
How is this woman still in office then? Oh wait... Sigh, Europe is fucked up now. Maybe they're waiting to be like the Philippines?
The situation in Europe is much worse than that in the Philippines. At least Duterte is doing whatever he can, to crush the Islamist terrorists. As long as he remains in power, the ISIS will fail to get a foothold there. On the other hand, the European politicians are trying to appease the ISIS members. I guess they have not learned anything from appeasing Hitler. It did not work then it will not work now. |
|
|
|
When you are schizophrenic or delusional you might never be able to cure yourself. You will remain delusional until you die. (True)
It does not matter that people are delusional when they do not cause harm to others or themselves. But unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to religious delusion. These people are dangerous, borderline insane. (False)
When people think they have the right to kill others because of their delusion, that is a problem. (True)
In the future, religions will be treated as a medical issue. We need to find the "religion" gene and eradicate it from the gene pool. (False)
Truth followed by falsehood. You af_newbie simply do not seem to understand religion. Since we are on a bitcoin forum let me frame this in the language of bitcoin maybe that will help you understand. What is bitcoin? Bitcoin is an overarching consensus system organized around the concept of sound money. Those voluntarily participating in this consensus are required to behave transparently and do work with the ultimate aim of ensuring all network participants abide by the greater consensus. Nodes who choose not to follow the protocol, miners who submit invalid proof of work, and users who try to spend bitcoins without verified private keys, are simply ignored by the greater consensus. Bitcoin is a form of group selection and group selection entails that group behavior be referenced to something outside the group. This something outside is the concept groups cohere and organize around. It is what they cooperate to promote. In the case of bitcoin the referenced object is the conceptual idea of a sound and ideal money. What is religion (specifically ethical monotheism)? Religion is also a form of group selection. It is the far more ambitious consensus that involves organizing humanity around the external concept of God. Once you understand this you understand the transformative nature of religion in both historic and modern human societies. In any network some actors behave badly. They seek to impose their vision through force rather then consensus. In bitcoin we see this with the threat of a miner instigated contentious hardfork and also in the threat of nodes forcing change with a UASF. In religion we see it with certain sects seeking converts by the sword. In all cases this behavior is unhelpful and it will cease and fade out gradually over time as it becomes clear to all that voluntary consensus and cooperation not force is the ultimate path forward. Religion is the proximate method of Group Selection in humans. Below is a nice article on this by Bruce Charlton if you are interested in reading more. http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.com/2015/11/religion-as-proximate-method-of-group.html?m=1As an aside this may also be why you will notice that the very religious on this forum often seem to be the most optimistic about bitcoin and confident in it's long term success. The religious have an innate affinity for consensus networks as they are already active members of one. You think I don't understand why the religions were invented? Or what positive benefits they brought? Primitive people needed common myths to co-operate with strangers. Our ancestors would never be able to wipe out Neanderthals if it was not for the common myths. We would be wiped out by the Neanderthals as they were stronger individuals, but their bands rarely exceeded 50 members. Religions allowed for larger groups of strangers to co-operate and this helped them survive. 50 Neanderthals did not stand a chance against 5000 horde of small, smart apes. Sapiens exterminated them. When agricultural revolution started,small cities formed, then larger cities etc. You needed a rule of law to manage larger groups of people. That is where religion was used. This invention helped us thrive to the days of scientific revolution. Now, religions are slowing down our progress. Science and secular legal and moral frameworks essentially replace religion. Religion is seen as a relic of the past. Today, there are many other reasons why strangers might want to co-operate peacefully. Religion is not one of them. Religions are what divides us as humans. Next step in human evolution, which will bring AI, cyborgs, colonization of other planets etc, will be done despite religions. Religions hold us back. The benefits it once had, are already achieved by other means. |
|
|
|
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.  It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality. I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple. I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter. Thanks for reading the cases, they really are, in my opinion, some of the strongest proof available. I am still waiting for a rebuttal for these cases, it must include an explanation that is simple and adequate, but to me it seems that survival is the most simple and adequate. I am still waiting for a rebuttal of the top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body. These observations strongly support the survival hypothesis. What do atheists and humanists have to say about the compelling evidence presented here? How could a rational atheist explain this evidence? There is not even one post of real discussion of the evidence by the pseudo-skeptics in this thread. The 'skeptics' in this thread are embarrassing themselves when they should be examining the ideas presented above. ''some of the strongest proof available.'' Give me a fucking break, they are all bullshit. There is no real testable evidence for any of them, they rely on eye witnesses. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550Everything is debunked there, many times. Don't post shit like this please. Eyewitnesses who are reliable are a good source of evidence. Medical records are an example of evidence from reliable eyewitnesses. So are historical records like the ones presented. eyewitnesses who are reliable?? What does that mean? For further questions you can read it all on the link: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22550literally every story is debunked there. I'm a bit shocked by how much the world's big movement of skeptics and atheists today is. The point is that the majority of people who live in faith is unshakable and it will be very difficult to convince them of something else and I do not understand why it will be necessary at all. When you are schizophrenic or delusional you might never be able to cure yourself. You will remain delusional until you die. It does not matter that people are delusional when they do not cause harm to others or themselves. But unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to religious delusion. These people are dangerous, borderline insane. When people think they have the right to kill others because of their delusion, that is a problem. In the future, religions will be treated as a medical issue. We need to find the "religion" gene and eradicate it from the gene pool. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? Actually, it is your religion that doesn't make any sense. What religion? I reject all religious claims. I have no religion. I don't need one. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? And what is to you, that there are people, who inherently understand, they arent mere animals living ultimately meaningless and finite life like you do? Is it that offensive, that indeed majority of humankind either via organized religion or on their own want to ascend to higher existence and find peace within themselves? You on your own accepted the role of pariah consumed by hatred of those not of poor soul like you. May God forgive you for your blind hate of fellow human beings. EDIT.: Your Superman did not create Universe, laws of physics or human soul, did he? Less talking and more thinking. Thank you. Of course living your life believing in nonsense is not offensive to me. It is your life. What is offensive when you say your ideas make any sense. Religious ideas offend my intelligence. That is what is offensive. When you say with straight face that your imaginary friend created this universe and will punish me for not believing in him. Or that I should die because I am non-believer, that is what is offensive. Ask yourself this question: "I am assuming that it makes you happy seeing your family not harmed in any way. Now imagine, your son will turn gay, when you and your son die, he goes to hell, you go to heaven. Would you be happy in heaven knowing that your son is in extreme pain for eternity? Would that be heaven to you?" The whole concept is ridiculous. That is what is offensive. |
|
|
|
I am thinking of voting labour for the free education ..
Because i don't think it's right to put a child in debt over an education..
Say my child doesn't get a job in the subject she chose in university and she gets a job over 21k even though it's not what she studied for my child still has to pay it back if she is on 21k..
I think that is so unfair ..
Vote for anti-Islamic politician, if you don't, your grandchildren will be Muslim. Reversing Islamization of the UK should be your ONLY priority. Your best bet is the Conservative Party and work on/join grassroots anti-Islamist movement (or UK Independence Party). Labour party will take to you to the cleaners. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? No it doesn't. What you are basically saying is that god programmed everything to look like it's evolution but it's not just to deceive us? Or what is it? Lots of things are imperfect, we are, animals are, God definitely didn't do a great job but it's better to believe that God did it instead of looking at the empirical evidence (overwhelming evidence) proving that evolution is in fact real. Every science that has to do with evolution is wrong, millions of scientists, now and many years ago are all wrong, they are all lying because they have some sort of agenda against God. The reality is different, evolution exists and it's used in applications in real life that also work. Creationism does not contribute to anything, show me something that we made based on creationism or God. Science works and you wouldn't be typing this retarded shit if science didnt. Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. The point is that programmed evolution does not fit the current descriptions of evolution. Cause and effect is science law, is upheld by Newton's 3rd law, is in evidence for everyone in his daily life, and cannot be refuted. Evolution is theory, not law. All evolution evidences can be assigned as being evidence of something else - natural protection agencies at work, or programming through cause and effect, etc. Because of these things - which scientists have all realized - evolution cannot exist as it known, and therefore, is a hoax being perpetrated on the unsuspecting populace of the world. Evolution ' Theory' is as real as ' Theory of Gravity' or 'General Theory of Relativity'. It is not to say there is any doubt about what these theories describe. The theories describe what has been validated by observations. The term 'theory' used in this context is not the same as a colloquial use of that term as in "That stuff is theoretical we need concrete evidence". All scientific theories start as hypothesis, then become theories that go through review, validation and re-validation countless times, some are accepted as fact, some are rejected. Evolution, gravity and relativity are facts today. Not some wild guesses. Every scientist in the world was trying to disprove the above theories (some are still trying), with no luck. |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible to the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. Except that all the evidence shows that the standard understanding of evolution doesn't consider cause and effect programming, which entirely eliminates evolution. There isn't any God hypothesis since there is proof for God. Since evolution is not known to exist, how can anyone say that God (Who has been proven to exist) programmed it? We can guess that evolution exists. Then we can further guess that God programmed it. But if we do this, then we would have to describe evolution anew, because the current descriptions of evolution don't fit something that has been programmed. And, you are right. I am not that stupid. I'm not even stupid enough to ask how stupid you are? You are smart, just not smart enough to understand why you are wrong. Religious brainwashing is clouding your reasoning. You want to defend your belief system because you don't want to be wrong. This behavior is no different from Flat Earther defending his 'proofs' of flat Earth, or a Muslim defending Islamism or Jihadism. You cannot objectively look at your predicament because you are too emotionally involved. Knowing that you could be wrong is a sign of intelligence. |
|
|
|
10 US cities have signed a petition to the Senate with the requirement to begin procedure of impeachment Trump. Of course the municipal authority has no authority for such a solution, but it may force legislators to consider it. Do you think the deck of cards Trump still trump?
Based on what? Because someone wants it? Well, I want "Les Baer 1911" for Christmas? We all want something. Let him do his job. You elected him. In less than 4 years, you'll have another chance to vote for someone else. |
|
|
|
My then maybe is a perfectly fine conclusion from cause and effect showing how easily you can come up with conclusions using cause and effect, nowhere does cause and effect show that God was the first cause, it only suggests that there was a first cause, sure, how do you know what it was? You dont.
Limiting words such as those used to ''debunk'' the theory of evolution? What are those exactly, show me a specific example of what I wrote that was limiting to you and we will discuss it.
Probably the simplest limiting word is the word "if." IF this, that, and the other were true, then evolution might be true. "Might," another limiting word. You can go back and find all of them if you want. But you need to go slowly so yo don't miss them. Using cause and effect in this thread is on-topic because it helps to show that evolution is a hoax. Using cause and effect to show God would probably be off topic. Does it tie in with evolution somehow? I mean, God isn't necessarily the only alternative to evolution, is He? Except all empirical (evolution in bacteria) and physical evidence points to evolution. All evidence confirms the same conclusion. With God hypothesis, you can't even define what it is you want to prove. Never mind proving that 'something' is responsible for the evolutionary changes we observe. What is next? You'll say that God 'programmed' evolution in his ultimate wisdom, but forgot to update the 'holy' books? C'mon, you cannot be that stupid. |
|
|
|
There you go again. All the time, all the time. Mere talk about rebuttal, without following through by showing any rebuttal that stands. Find a point in my links, and rebut it directly and scientifically with scientific rebuttal, if you can. I kinda think that you have barely looked at what the links say. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be proven. Try that to begin with. That is a false idea. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be suggested. Something that is proven means that all accurate rebuttal has ceased. Cause and effect - proven. Entropy - proven. Complex universe - proven. Existence of God - proven. You would be healthier to accept the proof for God, and then believe what He says. Fighting that which is real actually tears down the health. Cause and effect - observed in temporal space, not applicable to non-temporal space Entropy - another name for randomness or disorder in the system Complex universe - well, chaotic is a better term, with all the explosions and collisions going on all the time. Existence of God - Huh? First of all, what is God? Where is it? How can you proof something that is unknown and undefined? You don't even know what it is never mind if it exist. Another argument that nothing could have caused the Big Bang is that the time was not existent before the Big Bang, so cause and effect cannot be even applied to 'time' before Big Bang. There was no time to begin with. The fact that things exist, with a beginning somewhere in the distant past, and operates by cause and effect, show that something must have started this whole thing. The complexity involved in cause and effect activity show that the "something" was very knowledgeable and powerful. We don't have to "see" the "something" directly to determine a few things about it, by looking at the things it caused to happen. EDIT: Why haven't the proponents of big bang suggested that BB is alive? They know about cause and effect programming in the universe. Cause and effect could be just our mind playing tricks on us. Like a black cat crossing the road is the 'cause' of the car accidents. Or not going to church or praying is the 'cause' of cancer. Or the other way around, going to church and praying is the cause of cancer remission. Like I said, talking about cause of Big Bang is nonsense, there was no time for the cause to exist in. |
|
|
|
There you go again. All the time, all the time. Mere talk about rebuttal, without following through by showing any rebuttal that stands. Find a point in my links, and rebut it directly and scientifically with scientific rebuttal, if you can. I kinda think that you have barely looked at what the links say. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be proven. Try that to begin with. That is a false idea. For a point to be rebutted, it must first be suggested. Something that is proven means that all accurate rebuttal has ceased. Cause and effect - proven. Entropy - proven. Complex universe - proven. Existence of God - proven. You would be healthier to accept the proof for God, and then believe what He says. Fighting that which is real actually tears down the health. Cause and effect - observed in temporal space, not applicable to non-temporal space Entropy - another name for randomness or disorder in the system Complex universe - well, chaotic is a better term, with all the explosions and collisions going on all the time. Existence of God - Huh? First of all, what is God? Where is it? How can you proof something that is unknown and undefined? You don't even know what it is never mind if it exist. Another argument that nothing could have caused the Big Bang is that the time was not existent before the Big Bang, so cause and effect cannot be even applied to 'time' before Big Bang. There was no time to begin with. |
|
|
|
The entire world itself is a testimony that Good exists, Just as humans make things, isn't there enough evidence that the things in this world was made by a supreme being who I will call GOD.
To date, very subtle and very correctly go two concepts between those who believe in God and those who are looking for evidence, either its existence or absence. I think that in general on this note it is necessary to end the confrontation between believers and atheists Their is no conflict between believers and atheists. Why not? Because there aren't any atheists. There are only people who claim they are atheists. Why aren't there any atheists? Because nobody believes that God doesn't exist. Any people who say so, really know that God might exist somewhere they haven't examined. This makes them to not be atheists, because of the definition of atheism. You struggle with the definitions. All atheists reject the claim that there is a God. Some atheists have strong convictions that there is no God (myself included), some say they don't know whether there is God or not. But all atheists reject the claim that there is God. Period. As such they don't have to prove anything. They are not making any claims. They are rejecting Theist claims. Personally, I think there is maybe 1% chance that there is something that triggered the Big Bang, and 99% chance that it all has started by itself. The 5000+ Gods described in ancient books do not exist for sure, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You mean Allah, right? |
|
|
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
