The weird part is that the bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is or how long humans have been around.
Actually it does. The gospel of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam. The lifespan of each person is also given in the bible and when you add them all up, it turns out that Adam was created in 4004BC. Problem is that we have records of civilization going back much further than that. So even if someone only accepts the NT, they are still stuck with a young earth model.
Weak assumptions. You have to assume each day of creation started and ended in order. Then you have to assume that Eve was created shortly after Adam. Then you have to assume that they fell not too long after, and then assume again they started procreating immediately. Finally you have to assume that Luke was more correct than Matthew, since the genealogies don't exactly match. When reading the NT, you're looking at different men's perspectives and interactions with following Jesus. Starting off the gospel with Jesus' lineage isn't an observation, its just relaying information they had at the time.
46% of Americans believe human beings were created in the past 10,000 years.
"I've met some people. Okay, real people, and I've got to tell ya a lot of them are f'ing idiots."No fucking way, people can't be that retarded.
No fucking way, people can't be that retarded.
In the Uk it's 12% which I still think is high.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
You don't realize how many people in this country are members of the flat Earth society.
You and those douchebag brothers from NZ that are members here sure seem to have a sense of superiority.LOL, America.
Who the hell cares? Nothing that happened before Jesus came along matters anyway. World might as well be only 2000 years old as far as any of us should be concerned.
I think he was being sarcastic. I hope.Right, because modern socienty doesn't make use of any of the stuff that have been forming in the earth over millions of years or anything.
No fucking way, people can't be that retarded.
In the Uk it's 12% which I still think is high.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
I think he was being sarcastic. I hope.
Probably one who's in the "microevolution is real, but macroevolution isn't" camp. I wonder if he believes in millimeters, but not meters.I went to university with a really intelligent bloke who was studying medicine and still didn't believe in evolution because of his religion. He's actually a doctor now. I always wondered how he explained things he has to deal with every day, like drug resistant bacteria for example, without evolution.
Probably one who's in the "microevolution is real, but macroevolution isn't" camp. I wonder if he believes in millimeters, but not meters.
LOL! I think you and Atomic Playboy are the lulziest posters on here.Probably one who's in the "microevolution is real, but macroevolution isn't" camp. I wonder if he believes in millimeters, but not meters.
Maybe he just thinks things can't evolve with "new" information. Conclusion: we all evolved from flowers.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/scienceshot-biggest-genome-ever.html
That's either a super-intelligent plant that's here to study us, or else it's just sorely in need of some code optimization.A rare Japanese flower named Paris japonica sports an astonishing 149 billion base pairs, making it 50 times the size of a human genome—and the largest genome ever found.
The screwy thing is, that's what the "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument amounts to.LOL! I think you and Atomic Playboy are the lulziest posters on here.