Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Faith No More]

...you can't rule something out without evidence and those that do are closed minded.

That's not actually how things work. You don't need evidence something is incorrect to dismiss it, you just need a lack of evidence. Read about Carl Sagan's invisible dragon to understand more.

[5thHorseman]

'Isiah 40:22 it says "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..."'

Ever considered it was his view of wehat he could see? As weirdly your 360 degree view is a circle. See i can make bible say what i want too.

[chi pan]

'Isiah 40:22 it says "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth..."'

Ever considered it was his view of wehat he could see? As weirdly your 360 degree view is a circle. See i can make bible say what i want too.

well i'm sure he spoke of the expansion of the heavens (which means universe) same passage. i'm sure he just observed that too.

---

"You come across as someone who thinks they have it all figured out. I see it a lot.
Also, you really don't know anything, based on what I've seen."

really. from my understanding according to the big bang theory the earth was a very dense spot and then it expanded with tons of energy that energy formed matter and antimatter (to this day we have no idea how these would form) as matter and antimatter collided it produced tons of energy and there was more matter than antimatter (fortunately a lot more) and the from that build up of energy created stars, and as those stars blew up (supernova) the higher forms of matter at their core was flung into the uneverse creating debris and all these came together in different areas to form plannets, some of these plannets. our plannet was in the perfect spot to sustain life, and after a lot of commet strikes supplied the earth with what is now all of it's water. from then the conditions of the atmosphere were perfect to create the effect that creates protien units when an electronic current is run through the watter. these protien units float around in the big ocean until they come accross eachother and fall into placr to create a protien chain which developes into the first lifeform. this lifeform then reproduced, evolved into more complex forms eventually evolving into every living organism on the plannet.
-does this sound right? or did i miss something. if i did miss something tell me what don't just tell me i'm wrong and call me stupid i'm trying to have a rational discussion not a fight.

[The Grand Nudger]

The earth? "Earth as center of big bang", has to be a typo.......

You're also mixing quite a few different things together in your understanding of the entire bit. Missing some crucial steps, etc. Adding in concepts which do not belong, such as "conditions were perfect for". They were not, are not, and likely will never be.

All hail the mighty Wiki link!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[Jackalope]

What Rhythm said. When I get home I'd be happy to respond in detail with respect to cosmology (biology is not my strong suit).

There is observational evidence to support BBT, as well. Are you familiar with it?

[Michelle_Patton]

what i also find astounding is you assume your science is right but science changes all the time.

You're absolutely right there - science does change when errors are discovered......unlike the babble.

god doesn't leave us alone, he guides us when we ask for help.

Really? Hmmmm, I must have been asking the wrong way then.

[The Grand Nudger]

Try arabic next time. Maybe he'll answer.

[Michelle_Patton]

Try arabic next time. Maybe he'll answer.

Ahh, so that's where I went wrong!

Silly me.

[chi pan]

"The earth? "Earth as center of big bang", has to be a typo.......

You're also mixing quite a few different things together in your understanding of the entire bit. Missing some crucial steps, etc. Adding in concepts which do not belong, such as "conditions were perfect for". They were not, are not, and likely will never be."

yes it was a typo my bad i meant universe. and please i would like to know what steps i'm missing and of course they weren't absolutely perfect but close enough to get the results needed. as stehpen hawking said "we are in a place in our solar system where it's not too hot, and not too cold, but just right." and yes, i got this from his show "into the mind of stephen hawking."
most of those on here think creation has no scientific evidence what so ever to support itself but that's not true. to prove this i have a youtube debate i encourage to watch. reguardless of who you think won the debate, it's easy to say both put up a solid case toward one another so here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww
i was surprised they had this on TV b/c they don't really have good creationist scientist trying to prove their point a lot on those debate shows.

[The Grand Nudger]

A youtube debate isn't evidence, unless two mouth breathers arguing over which star wars flick is the best is evidence for the existence of Obi Wan Kenobi. There is no such thing as creation science. I'm sorry, but that's the cold hard truth. If this is a pillar of your faith you're going to need to look for something else to prop up your sagging myth.

Since you seem to be completely stuck on this I'm going to link you the wiki. The habitable zone in our own solar system is estimated to be between .7 and 3 AU wide, in a hollow sphere (roughly) surrounding our sun. A single AU is 149,597,870km. That's discounting extremophiles (that live here on our own rock), subsurface oceans, and alternative biochemistry. That habitable zone where the conditions were "close enough" is massive, isn't it. Run the volume of that hollow sphere through your mind a bit. Now imagine all of the things in that immense amount of space that will completely end you. Consider how many planets (or moons, or asteroids) currently float around in each stars habitable zone (different sizes for different stars). Just how special is this zone? Just how exclusive? Now consider the even greater amount of space that is not within this zone.

When you say "just right for life", or "close enough for life" you simply mean "just right for me". Well, no shit, where else would you be found? Someplace that you can't survive? Case in point, the place we live isn't "close enough" for our own biology. We require shelter, clothing, tools, etc. Our own biology isn't even "close enough" for our own biology. From "just right" to "close enough" is just the same sort of backpedaling bullshit you get day in and day out from any apologist. I won't stand for it and neither should you. If this rock were designed it was designed with beetles in mind, which represent 40% of described species (for perspective, all of the things you think of when you think of "animals" are slightly less than 1%). Even the beetles would go the way of the Dodo if it weren't for photosynthetics, which poison their own biosphere with the oxygen we (and beetles) require for life. Oxygen which is constantly escaping our planet. Good thing plants just keep shitting where they eat. Pointing to any single species and saying that this place is "just right" or "close enough" doesn't quite work. It doesn't work for life as a whole either, since every living thing just keeps on dying. Now, you always hear that if this place were designed it would be a bad design. That's not entirely true. It's no design at all. No designer would implement anything so arbitrary. My three year old can keep blocks stacked together, and she's not exactly a "designer", nor is she able to bend or shape the laws of nature to do so. This "designed universe" can do no such thing. What are you proposing, a god that created everything without understanding how any single piece of the creation worked, a god that is powerless in the face of it's own creation? A god that wished for the extermination of all life? How lucky for him, and us(or maybe not). I see nothing worth bowing down to in any of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone