Science and Religion

[jts963]

All hail our tentacled old one overlords!

May they reign long and eternal in their ancient slumber!

^_~

Bah! Illyria can wipe them all out with one mind blast.

:lol

 

[Mash]

No cookies for you but perhaps a whole range of psychotropic medication and a psycologist to deal with your hatred and intolerance and your undeserved feeling of self importance.

To the contrary, she's one of the most tolerant people I know; she talks with me on a day to day basis, after all. She also doesn't hate things. She might hold ignorance and stupidity in low regards...but I doubt that she hates you for them.

As for an undeserved feeling of self-importance...she's going for a Masters Degree in Astrophysics. Are you going to say that Galileo and Albert Einstein shouldn't feel important either?

Now, feel free to be condescending to me, you can get away with that, but for the sake of your ego and your will to live, don't act like that towards someone so intellectually superior to yourself. =)

 

[desk]

tHE ATHEIST view is getting the crap beat out of them in this forum... Admit defeat losers!

 

[Mash]

tHE ATHEIST view is getting the crap beat out of them in this forum... Admit defeat losers!

Oooh. Baseless assertions and name-calling. That doesn't seem like a winner's attitude to me, bud.

 

[likeasong1]

1. Science is about honesty. If you can provide proof that the big bang theory is wrong, or evolution is a lie, or that god is real - guess what? Science would support you. The keyword, though, is If. The scientific community would have it's way with you first, tearing at every fiber of your idea. Not out of spite, but to make sure that it's true.

You're still going by the assumption here that God is subject to the laws of science, which simply isn't true. If God exists outside/beyond our space-time continuum, then the laws of science simply have no hold on Him.

What is the purpose of scientific gain? To benefit humanity.

Maybe, but I think it's more elementary than that. The purpose of scientific gain is to simply understand the way the world works. The main problem with that statement though, is that it is ambiguous in its definition of "benefit" as it once again places something as being good or bad, which science by itself does not do.

2. You're just making excuses to stick by your emotionally biased pre-conceived notion that your "is a force for good in the world". If you guys are right by god, why are you hiding behind the 5th amendment? Transparency is a MUST for charities, otherwise you've no idea if the money is going where you intended it to go.

No, it is not a must. Not unless you've got a warrant (indicating probably cause) of illegal obtaining of funds. If all you've got is wild suspicion, then you've got nothing. People who choose to give anonymously and wish their donations to remain so should have that right respected.

3. Unless she was a licensed medical practitioner, she had no right "caring" for people.

Well, every mother who cares for a sick kid will be glad to know that.

That's where I slipped up, I should have put quotations around the word "care", because giving people a cot to suffer and die in without medical attention is not care. Do not use ridiculous strawman arguments against me.

It's not ridiculous. She brought attention to a major problem in the world.

4. Who are you to deem what is and what is not important in the eyes of a being that you imagine is beyond human comprehension? It's not as if there's any disclaimers in the bible you think it's responsible for. Can you explain where there should be hundreds of denominations of christianity? Why are there even separate religions if christianity is the "right" one?

Other than it says "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"? And the passages in Revelation referring to washing robes in the blood of the Lamb, and whose names were found in the Book of Life? The number of denominations would be explained both by Pentecost and by the spiritual gifts. While some denominations are easily found worldwide, the high concentrations that can be found for each one tells me that each denomination tends to best serve a geographical region and a need for where they are, as apportioned by the Spirit. As far as separate religions, it is because there are those who've rejected Christ in favor of another way, a false way.

 

[likeasong1]

I don't push them away. I tell them that their religion has been proven completely wrong time and again, and they typically just get tired of having their faith smacked about. You can have faith and not be a whackjob...if you believe in something that doesn't classify you as a whackjob.

So I'm a whackjob simply because I'm a Christian? I find that utterly absurd.

He has the power to make us all good. Sociopaths are incapable of moral decisions. That is a mental defect. It is not their choice to do 'wrong', they just don't understand the difference between wrong and right, and never will.

No, but they do have the understanding that other people consider certain things wrong and right, and they understand the concepts of legal and illegal.

The God in the Bible is depicted as an evil, despicable character who will smite you for so much as looking at him wrong. Considering the lives taken in Noah's flood, he must have killed somewhere in the range of 30 million people. Satan killed only ten, and that was with God's permission.

The God in the Bible isn't good. He has sinned on a level above human comprehension if anything in the Bible actually occurred, which I am certain is not the case.

The God in the Bible is the God who took a loooooooonnnnggg time to get angry enough to flood the world, but the history until then is covered in a relatively condensed span of text. What God did was the carrying out of justice, justice on a level above human comprehension. And the fact that Satan could only kill with God's permission should be pretty telling of His power and authority.

 

[Mash]

So I'm a whackjob simply because I'm a Christian? I find that utterly absurd.

No, but they do have the understanding that other people consider certain things wrong and right, and they understand the concepts of legal and illegal.

The God in the Bible is the God who took a loooooooonnnnggg time to get angry enough to flood the world, but the history until then is covered in a relatively condensed span of text. What God did was the carrying out of justice, justice on a level above human comprehension. And the fact that Satan could only kill with God's permission should be pretty telling of His power and authority.

I dunno. If the beliefs of Christianity are outlandish and impossible enough...then I wouldn't find it all that absurd.

They have the understanding on major things, obvious things; murder, arson, general destruction, etc. However, it's the smaller things that they only understand the difference in over time, and through experience. Also, it's not like that they can discern why these things are right and wrong, they just have to force themselves to abide by these rules that don't make any sense to them.

The fact of the matter is still that the God of the Bible is a petty man who gets angry over human incompetency. 'Justice' is a matter of perspective. He killed innocent people. If the slaughter of millions of innocents is 'Justice' in the eyes of God and Christianity, then I just found one more reason why I'm happy to be an Atheist.
I wasn't questioning his power or authority. I was questioning his motives, and his moral compass, which seems to be completely backwards.

 

[PurpleStyle]

No cookies for you but perhaps a whole range of psychotropic medication and a psycologist to deal with your hatred and intolerance and your undeserved feeling of self importance.

You've said absolutely nothing of merit to back up your statement. Very nice of you to dodge the issue entirely and prove that you're the one full of hatred, intolerance, and undeserved feeling of self importance.

Science is not the Saviour of Mankind, it is not about common good or betterment of anything, it is about description. The only thing it has resembling ethics is about adherence to the rules of
academic debate, period. Projecting morality into it brings you to Lysenkoism. What actually helps mankind is technology, what is an unintended side-product of science , and only matters in service of
Human Intent. Siding with it does not makes you a good person.

The real reason of your scientism is because you believe the magical qualities you project into science becomes yours by virtue of chosen identity.
A false sense of self as a front for your intellectual narcissisim, that spares you from realizing that you don't understand what religion is about.

This entire thread is nothing but a festival of moral posturing.

English is not my first language.

Your statement's probably the silliest non-religious thing I've ever read, and I'll tell you why. Lysenkoism revolves around distorting the scientific process to reach a pre-determined idea. Nobody with a conscience would do such a thing. Do you understand yet?

If not, we can move on to your other statement that science only exists neutrally. Would you argue that medical research isn't done for the common good, or carries no benefit to our civilization? Of course not, because the whole purpose of medicine is to heal people. The whole purpose of science itself is to better humanity; whether it's physically, intellectually, or culturally. What else can we do besides serve human intent with the knowledge we discover?

You want to talk about intellectual narcissism? Your arrogance that derives from an obvious lack of understanding of what you're talking about is far more narcissistic than anything I could ever say.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Maybe, but I think it's more elementary than that. The purpose of scientific gain is to simply understand the way the world works. The main problem with that statement though, is that it is ambiguous in its definition of "benefit" as it once again places something as being good or bad, which science by itself does not do.

I would argue that gaining new insight into how the universe works (large or small scale) is always a benefit.

No, it is not a must. Not unless you've got a warrant (indicating probably cause) of illegal obtaining of funds. If all you've got is wild suspicion, then you've got nothing. People who choose to give anonymously and wish their donations to remain so should have that right respected.

I never said that their rights shouldn't be respected. I also never said I wanted to know who was donating. I just want to know what they're doing with their money. That doesn't merit you going off on a wild sanctimonious tirade about how morally objectionable I am because you think I'm implying that the constitution should be violated to serve my personal queries. Just as they have the right to hide like the bigoted thieves that they are, I have the right to call them bigoted thieves. The first amendment works both ways. 😀

Well, every mother who cares for a sick kid will be glad to know that.

Strawman argument, once again. You'd make a fantastic lawyer with the way you quibble over semantics. 😉 You know that I specifically implied people who were dying or had a serious condition. Hell, are you going to sit here and tell me that you'd want your unlicensed mother treating your appendicitis, instead of a skilled surgeon? Of course not, because I presume that you're not insane. and yet.. you say things like..

Other than it says "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"? And the passages in Revelation referring to washing robes in the blood of the Lamb, and whose names were found in the Book of Life? The number of denominations would be explained both by Pentecost and by the spiritual gifts. While some denominations are easily found worldwide, the high concentrations that can be found for each one tells me that each denomination tends to best serve a geographical region and a need for where they are, as apportioned by the Spirit. As far as separate religions, it is because there are those who've rejected Christ in favor of another way, a false way.

Who are you to say that you know non-Abrahamic religion is false, when it's as legitimate as yours? You yourself just said:

You're still going by the assumption here that God is subject to the laws of science, which simply isn't true. If God exists outside/beyond our space-time continuum, then the laws of science simply have no hold on Him.

which implies that you have no metric for making such a claim. For all we know, Scientology could be the "correct" religion. :lol

tHE ATHEIST view is getting the crap beat out of them in this forum... Admit defeat losers!

Sure, as soon as we atheists stop being right.

 

[Mash]

Purple, when dealing with the religious, you have to remember that they only believe; they do not know, as there is no scientific/mathematic evidence to support any of their claims. They believe that their religion is the correct one, but if we use their own argument against them, they themselves point out that it's all about faith, and not evidence. That being said, any religious organization/individual that discredits ANY other belief is a complete and total hypocrite, considering that you can't discredit faith with faith.

I'll be the first to admit that there is no scientific evidence that supports atheism; however, unlike almost any other belief, there also isn't any evidence that contradicts it.

 

[likeasong1]

I never said that their rights shouldn't be respected. I also never said I wanted to know who was donating. I just want to know what they're doing with their money. That doesn't merit you going off on a wild sanctimonious tirade about how morally objectionable I am because you think I'm implying that the constitution should be violated to serve my personal queries. Just as they have the right to hide like the bigoted thieves that they are, I have the right to call them bigoted thieves. The first amendment works both ways. 😀

Except the First Amendment doesn't cover slander/libel, which you are doing by calling them thieves. You have no proof, and you have no warrant. And it's still McCarthyistic logic to assume those who aren't transparent must have something to hide. Anything can be twisted/distorted to mean whatever you want it to mean. If I skipped breakfast, you could twist it to mean any number of things from anorexia to crash dieting to flat earth society ritual that believes breakfast is evil. Equally, any expenditure on the part of the SA could be construed any number of ways. Your case against them is built on unreasonable suspicion and innuendo. And I still disagree with your definition of "bigoted", though I do not condone with what they did.

Strawman argument, once again. You'd make a fantastic lawyer with the way you quibble over semantics. 😉 You know that I specifically implied people who were dying or had a serious condition. Hell, are you going to sit here and tell me that you'd want your unlicensed mother treating your appendicitis, instead of a skilled surgeon? Of course not, because I presume that you're not insane. and yet.. you say things like..

Oh come on, you're gonna deny me the few giggles this thread provides? But honestly, you act like there's something evil about providing a cot for those who are about to die. She tried to make them comfortable, because that's all she could really do about the situation. And again, you ignore the foundation she started which has since additionally built up schools, soup kitchens, clinics, etc. You're going to give her absolutely no credit for that?

Who are you to say that you know non-Abrahamic religion is false, when it's as legitimate as yours? You yourself just said:


which implies that you have no metric for making such a claim. For all we know, Scientology could be the "correct" religion. :lol

Mash is partially correct. It is a matter of faith. We can't know for 100% certainty, but really, neither does science. Science is not 100% either. The trust in science is actually the trust in humanity's ability to decipher all science, which is both a statement of faith in itself, and another reason why believing in God makes more sense to me. You'd be asking me if it's easier to believe in God or humanity, and working in radio has convinced me that humanity left to its own devices will self-destruct.

However, Mash does make one interesting statement. Since science is not 100%, the belief in it is also a faith, and its atheism also a religion. Therefore, by his own logic, he is also a complete and total hypocrite.

 

[Mash]

However, Mash does make one interesting statement. Since science is not 100%, the belief in it is also a faith, and its atheism also a religion. Therefore, by his own logic, he is also a complete and total hypocrite.

Alright, first off, Science isn't a belief. Let's get that right out in the open. Science is not a belief; we do not believe in science. Belief is defined as "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". Science is not belief because it is proven, and not up to interpretation.

We believe in Atheism.

You seem to be mixing the two up. Atheism tends to go along with Science because Atheism is a belief that science doesn't slap around with blatant contradictions.

Science has not shown us 100% of what there is to know, that is true. The difference between Science and Theism however, is that science always backs up it's ideas with, hold on to your hats here, factual evidence.

Atheism is also not a religion. Religion is defined as "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". Atheism is the belief that there is no supernatural power.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Except the First Amendment doesn't cover slander/libel, which you are doing by calling them thieves. You have no proof, and you have no warrant. And it's still McCarthyistic logic to assume those who aren't transparent must have something to hide. Anything can be twisted/distorted to mean whatever you want it to mean. If I skipped breakfast, you could twist it to mean any number of things from anorexia to crash dieting to flat earth society ritual that believes breakfast is evil. Equally, any expenditure on the part of the SA could be construed any number of ways. Your case against them is built on unreasonable suspicion and innuendo. And I still disagree with your definition of "bigoted", though I do not condone with what they did.

Therein lies the problem; it's only slander/libel if you can prove it. Since they're not willing to show the government where their money goes, nor you or I can prove anything. So, just as you are free to call me "McCarthyistic", I am free correct your errors. 🙂 I'll stop calling them thieves when they fill out a Form 990 and prove that they're not conniving bastards.

Oh come on, you're gonna deny me the few giggles this thread provides? But honestly, you act like there's something evil about providing a cot for those who are about to die. She tried to make them comfortable, because that's all she could really do about the situation. And again, you ignore the foundation she started which has since additionally built up schools, soup kitchens, clinics, etc. You're going to give her absolutely no credit for that?

Reality is not a video game (as far as we know) where you can outweigh your evils (like increasing the suffering of dying people) by feeding a couple of homeless people.

Mash is partially correct. It is a matter of faith. We can't know for 100% certainty, but really, neither does science. Science is not 100% either. The trust in science is actually the trust in humanity's ability to decipher all science, which is both a statement of faith in itself, and another reason why believing in God makes more sense to me. You'd be asking me if it's easier to believe in God or humanity, and working in radio has convinced me that humanity left to its own devices will self-destruct.

However, Mash does make one interesting statement. Since science is not 100%, the belief in it is also a faith, and its atheism also a religion. Therefore, by his own logic, he is also a complete and total hypocrite.

That was a perfectly good waste of time for you to write. The whole point of science is that nothing is certain until it is proven so. How did you manage to forget that?

You've also avoided my question, which is how can you proclaim that non-christian religions are incorrect when you've no metric for determining the validity of god?

 

[Slaver123]

A reality rendering Eldritch abomination is as much undeserving as worship as any other being.


Oh really, your supposed "Outer God" Yog-Sothoth is essentially omnipresent, being coterminous with all time and space yet is supposedly locked outside of the lesser reality we inhabit, therefore mostly out of reach. But even this being’s supposed incomprehensibility can be extrapolated and understood. And if his infini-dimensional non-Euclidean physiology gives you gibbering madness or a case of headsplosion, then you’re unable to perform high school calculus. . . . . . .


...Although the way texts describe it, I’d foresee our universe being pummeled into oblivion by a being that often takes the form of a swarm of translucent (soap) bubbles, or gibbering spaghetti and mystery meats with mouths, eyes and pseudopods (pseudopodia).

Wish you were in New Jersey so we could play "Arkham Horror"....

Yog-S may not be a living thing; 'he' could be an event, or the gray-area between universes. The bubbles and tentacles are extrusions into our limited 3-dimensional perceptions of something multi-dimensional. It's worshipped as a god because all primitives tend to worship the forces of nature or the unknown...

 

[Slaver123]

Atheism is also not a religion. Religion is defined as "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". Atheism is the belief that there is no supernatural power.

Atheism is the denial of the possibility of any gods. It's dis-belief, and it has no relevance to science cause it's just as illogical as faith. Science has never disproven the existence of God, nor proven it. Evolution's always used as the "proof" that there's no creator, but that's a logical mis-step; evolution shows how life-forms came to be, how complex organisms evolved out of amino acids which formed from the nova and supernova debris which formed this planet, given the right conditions; that has no bearing on whether a Creator designed it or not.

Genesis says God formed man from the dust of the ground....Ummm, isn't that the same thing science says? The only difference is religionists (mistakenly) think it took 6 days, evolution shows that it took hundreds of millions of years.

I think what science has shown is MORE miraculous than what religion says; it's MORE wondrous to think of God giving dust the ability to form into life on its own than to think of the "Great Sky-Wizard" sculpting Adam with his hands in an afternoon.

 

[Bator]

I don,t believe that all creationist believe that the 6 days of creation were 24hrs each, since there was no measurement of time a day could have been 6 months or 600yrs. I agree with the rest of your opinion. Atheism is a religion because it requires faith to believe that there is no God since it hasn,t been proven that there wasn,t and without abolute proof it requires faith not to believe. They also preach their faith to other non-believers, a congregation if you like, Seems like a religion to me.

 

[Mash]

Atheism is the denial of the possibility of any gods. It's dis-belief, and it has no relevance to science cause it's just as illogical as faith. Science has never disproven the existence of God, nor proven it. Evolution's always used as the "proof" that there's no creator, but that's a logical mis-step; evolution shows how life-forms came to be, how complex organisms evolved out of amino acids which formed from the nova and supernova debris which formed this planet, given the right conditions; that has no bearing on whether a Creator designed it or not.

Genesis says God formed man from the dust of the ground....Ummm, isn't that the same thing science says? The only difference is religionists (mistakenly) think it took 6 days, evolution shows that it took hundreds of millions of years.

I think what science has shown is MORE miraculous than what religion says; it's MORE wondrous to think of God giving dust the ability to form into life on its own than to think of the "Great Sky-Wizard" sculpting Adam with his hands in an afternoon.

See, now you're the kind of person I don't mind discussing this with. You seem to have some common sense.

Atheism is not illogical. Atheism is a conclusion drawn from careful observation done over the course of thousands of years; not once has a shred of evidence been attributed to a God of any sort.

You're right; there is no Scientific proof that backs up Atheism. The thing about Atheism however, is that it doesn't contradict Science, and vice-versa. Now, Christianity is split into so many different sections that it's hard to make any general statements without being inaccurate, but the Christianity that is taught in my town dictates that God made the Earth in 6 days, roughly 6,000 years ago.

That contradicts modern Science six ways to Sunday.

I have never used Evolution to try and disprove God. I have used the argument of Evolution to disprove Creationism. People did not just magically appear as they are now; they developed over millions of years.

I study Astronomy and science. I can't with a good conscience have my faith lie in something that contradicts the two things so blatantly.

 

[Mash]

I don,t believe that all creationist believe that the 6 days of creation were 24hrs each, since there was no measurement of time a day could have been 6 months or 600yrs. I agree with the rest of your opinion.

A day is the time it takes for a planet to spin a full 360 degrees on it's axis. Prior to Earth being formed, there would be no such thing as a 'day'. Days vary from planet to planet, so I don't see why the term 'day' came into Christianity's story at all.
If a day was any less than 50 million years or so, then I still find it unlikely.

 

[Bator]

Thats science speaking, we all know what a day is but back then the earth may have revolved 240-2000 times before anything was created and since God said "let there be light' who knows how long a day was. If the sun was shining constantly and in the same place and you had no watch, what time is it and how long is a day?

 

[Mash]

Thats science speaking, we all know what a day is but back then the earth may have revolved 240-2000 times before anything was created and since God said "let there be light' who knows how long a day was. If the sun was shining constantly and in the same place and you had no watch, what time is it and how long is a day?

"The Earth may have revolved 240-2000 times before anything was created" I'm sorry, but how can the Earth revolve if it hasn't been created yet?

I'll tell you how long a day was. It was the length of time it took the Earth to revolve. It doesn't matter how much light there was. If there was no Earth, which there wouldn't have been, since the Earth hadn't been created just yet, then there would be no days. There would only be seconds, minutes and hours.
There would be no days, years, and there certainly would be no months.

 

[PurpleStyle]

Atheism is the denial of the possibility of any gods. It's dis-belief, and it has no relevance to science cause it's just as illogical as faith. Science has never disproven the existence of God, nor proven it. Evolution's always used as the "proof" that there's no creator, but that's a logical mis-step; evolution shows how life-forms came to be, how complex organisms evolved out of amino acids which formed from the nova and supernova debris which formed this planet, given the right conditions; that has no bearing on whether a Creator designed it or not.

Genesis says God formed man from the dust of the ground....Ummm, isn't that the same thing science says? The only difference is religionists (mistakenly) think it took 6 days, evolution shows that it took hundreds of millions of years.

I think what science has shown is MORE miraculous than what religion says; it's MORE wondrous to think of God giving dust the ability to form into life on its own than to think of the "Great Sky-Wizard" sculpting Adam with his hands in an afternoon.

Atheism (as an adult) is the result of a lack of belief, yes, but it's not illogical. I came to the conclusion of atheism because there is no proof of anything supernatural. No, man didn't form from dust on the ground, and evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life. It's an explanation for the diversity of life. What you're talking about sounds more like Abiogenesis. It is more likely that the first organisms were not from dust on the ground, but from some form of clay in the water. The oldest (Precambrian) organic fossils are found in the form of stromatolites; which contain fossilized microbes. Stromatolites were formed by blue-green (photosynthetic) algae in shallow water.

I don,t believe that all creationist believe that the 6 days of creation were 24hrs each, since there was no measurement of time a day could have been 6 months or 600yrs. I agree with the rest of your opinion. Atheism is a religion because it requires faith to believe that there is no God since it hasn,t been proven that there wasn,t and without abolute proof it requires faith not to believe. They also preach their faith to other non-believers, a congregation if you like, Seems like a religion to me.

The discussion isn't even about atheism. Atheism is more of a sub-category of skepticism, which is a necessary tool of science. To be honest, since I am a scientist first and an atheist as a result of that, my brand of atheism should be called Pearlism (Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). Meaning; if you can prove god exists within the bounds of scientific discourse, I'd be inclined to support you. 😉

Thats science speaking, we all know what a day is but back then the earth may have revolved 240-2000 times before anything was created and since God said "let there be light' who knows how long a day was. If the sun was shining constantly and in the same place and you had no watch, what time is it and how long is a day?

I guess god should have included a few things with the bible; like several disclaimers that give concise directions and an introduction to calculus. :lol

 

[Bator]

Light and then the heavens and the earth were created first, read Genesis

 

[Mash]

Light and then the heavens and the earth were created first, read Genesis

Let me clue you in on some 3rd grade physics. Light does not exist without a source.

Without a source of light, there exists only darkness. The source of light in our Solar System is the Sun, so there was no light here prior to that forming. So, by that logic, it's safe to assume that if God really did create all of this, and light came first, then he would have had to create the Sun before he created the Earth. Since the 'Heavens' aren't a tangible place, their existence can only be speculated upon.

 

[Bator]

You couldn,t give a clue to a dung beetle on where to find, well, you know. You,re fear of the belief in God is just sad. Are you afraid that you will be captured and talked into becoming a believer. They wouldn,t waste their time. Been to any good lynchings lately:lol. This is my final word on this subject, go peddle you hate somewhere else, you must have me mixed up with someone who actually cares what you think, bye, bye🙂

 

[PurpleStyle]

Light and then the heavens and the earth were created first, read Genesis

Apparently you need to read Genesis. You also need to learn physics.

"1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

If you mean for the heavens to be space; then no. The Earth is a fraction of the age of the universe.

"1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Earth was created, then how is it without form? It also contradicts physics in implying that the Earth was created before the sun.

"1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

This, too, makes no sense. Divide the waters from the waters? :huh

In all of this nonsensical rambling, nowhere does it say the Earth revolves around the sun. Again, you'd think god would have had the foreknowledge to put disclaimers in the bible. :rolleyes

Blah blah blah, I forfeit because I don't know what I'm talking about.

Fixed. 🙂