Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines

[Verbl Kint]

@Verbl Kint ... Sir, did not find reference of Gilgamesh in the Bible I am using ... though some references in the Internet ... did not care to dig anymore ... but I hope you can post what about Gilgamesh with this atheism and agnosticism discussion ... thanks

From wikipedia:

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from Ancient Iraq and is among the earliest known works of literary writings.

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

[Clondalkin]

But looking at the evolution theory ... it has to undergo continuous massive rewriting (and probably flip flopping) ... and try to evolve the belief in EVOLUTION as scientific findings, experimentations, and articulation became even more sophisticated ... perhaps they should issue complete list of ERRATUM in their previous publication so as to put the public informed (which I doubt they will do) ... talk about conspiracy of crooked scientists, blinded atheists and baseless evolutionist!

You know what, if Science would not allow massive rewritings in order to correct what is wrong or inaccurate, then the Physics would still be based on Newtonian Laws and Einstein would probably be branded as NON Scientific or even baseless.

As in most scientific theories, I would have to guess that "the dating system"is based on a mathematical model that is far too complex for non-math-wizards to grasp.  That's why us normals end up with calculators.  And I would suppose that the mathematical models of dating are far too complex compared to Beginning Of Life = Genesis Pages XXX.

[barrister]

Good article from Time ... 2005 pa, pero maganda pa rin:





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

[aHobbit]

You know what, if Science would not allow massive rewritings in order to correct what is wrong or inaccurate, then the Physics would still be based on Newtonian Laws and Einstein would probably be branded as NON Scientific or even baseless.

As in most scientific theories, I would have to guess that "the dating system"is based on a mathematical model that is far too complex for non-math-wizards to grasp.  That's why us normals end up with calculators.  And I would suppose that the mathematical models of dating are far too complex compared to Beginning Of Life = Genesis Pages XXX.

Again, you're just categorizing the theory as science ... a theory can be rewritten so it comes closer to fact (as evidences comes along) ... the theory of relativity has nothing to rewrite as they can be presented in models and experimentations ... these theories became strengthened as we progressed into high-end science ... WHILE theory of evolution became weakened as evidences and high end science come by ...

You see ... only until recently, when tooling and discoveries do provide weaknesses in earlier norms and standards of measurement ... that somehow, all assumptions will be challenged, and corrected, than accepting it as totally correct in the light of recent models on the contrary --- no matter how complex one assumed it is!

[Clondalkin]

My point simply is, why consider the act of correcting something that is wrong or inaccurate as non scientific?  At least the theoretical scientists dont stop at nothing to try to question the validity of all existing theories - regardless of how many mistakes are committed.

BTW, if Im not mistaken, the Theory of Relativity is still incomplete and will be rewritten once a genius can prove the Theory of Everything scientifically.

Time pers, bakit parang Pabili nakita ko kanina?  Namalikmata ba ako?  

[aHobbit]

Good article from Time ... 2005 pa, pero maganda pa rin:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)

[tigkal]

pabili din basa ko.

[oweidah]

Time pers, bakit parang Pabili nakita ko kanina?  Namalikmata ba ako?  

+1 me too

America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ... Recently, America if slowly going down the drain (even internally) because they are removing God in their governance and mental reference ... Of course, that is only my assessment (as I understood my religion)

hallerrrr!!! america attacked by the liberals?......again? as in flower-power 60s 70s?

am i hearing rush limbaugh???

seeing RED again? (better dead than red? )  

[Clondalkin]

Try to watch Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings.

[sardaukar]

Question for aHobbit,

You say that you would like to keep this discussion scientific and not religious and that's great. You further say that current dating methods are inconclusive, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Even though different scientific methods from fields of science as varied as geology, astronomy, moleculary biology, archeology, cosmology and others, mostly agree that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.

My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.

[allanmandy]

A Note of Caution: To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

Wrong! Any good geochemist will choose samples that have not been contaminated, altered or disturbed. We do not just pick up rocks then send them immediately to the lab to have them dated. It involves a rigorous process of sample preparation that involves carefully picking suitable mineral grains under the microscope. And if ever the minerals that were picked are not entirely preserved (for example, daughter isotopes have escaped from the system), the radiometric age they yield are in fact, the minimum age, meaning the true age can actually be much older.

Corals and Caves
Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years. A similar comment can be made for growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites in caves.

Coral and stalactite/stalagmite growth rates are not definite. These may vary depending on the rate of water transport or the temperature/sedimentation state of the coral's habitat. Thus, more accurate ages of corals and stalactites/stalagmites will depend not on the rates of their growth, but on isotopic dating.

Radiometric Dating: Contradictions and Key Assumption
The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (such as the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology and understanding. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.

A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that decay rates, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This is a huge and critical assumption that few have questioned. Several lines of evidence show that radioactive decay rates were once much faster than they are today. A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood.

I don't know what on earth is a "blind test" in radiometric dating. And I have yet to read a journal or even a news article that says radioactive decay rates aren't constant.

"A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood."

Umm, okay. What a compelling "evidence" that is. Can you cite scientific studies on this particular case? Very intriguing.

Index Fossils
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped sort organisms in that order during the flood.  Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000 to 400,000,000 years old. Today, geologic formations are almost always dated by their fossil content—which, as stated above, assumes evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of fossils. Because this reasoning is circular, many discoveries, such as living coelacanths, were unexpected.  

If this so-called "global flood hydrodymanic mechanism" were true, then the largest particles and fossils will be deposited first (and that includes the large dinosaur bones), while the light ones such as trilobite, coelacanths and the smaller simpler life forms will be deposited on top. Also, storm and flood deposits would not show excellent stratification as those seen in famous geologic outcrops (the Grand Canyon for instance).

Geologic Column
Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called “geologic column.”aMost “geologic periods” are missing at most continental locations. Only 15–20% of Earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct order.b Even within the Grand Canyon, 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.

This can be explained by Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift. New crust is being created everyday, and since the Earth is not expanding, old materials are being destroyed and recycled. FYI, the oldest know crustal rocks are 4.3 billion year-old amphibolite rocks in Quebec, Canada. Also, stratigraphic breaks can be explained by unconformities and non-conformities (results of erosion and non-deposition, respectively).

Parallel Layers
Because no worldwide or even continental unconformity exists in earth’s sedimentary layers, those layers must have been deposited rapidly. (Anunconformity represents a time break of unknown duration—for example, an erosional surface between two adjacent strata.) Parallel layers (calledconformities) imply continuous, relatively rapid deposition. Because unconformities are simply local phenomena, one can trace continuous paths, which sometimes move horizontally, from the bottom to the top of the stratigraphic record that avoid these time breaks. The sedimentary layers along those paths must have been deposited rapidly and continuously as a unit

Frequently, two adjacent and parallel sedimentary layers contain such different index fossils that evolutionists conclude they were deposited hundreds of millions of years apart. However, because the adjacent layers are conformable, they must have been deposited without interruption or erosion. Often, in sequences showing no sign of disturbance, the layer considered older by evolutionists is on top! Evolutionary dating rules are self-contradictory.

Any sane geologist would not label as "conformable" two parallel stratigraphic units that contain different sets of fossils that belong to different geologic times. It is possible that in the case your are trying to present, an angular unconformity exists between the two units. Paleontology is a systematic discipline that uses many tools for dating, not just correlation. Discoveries submitted to respectable journals undergo rigorous peer reviews. New findings that challenge conventions are scrutinized and adopted if evidence is convincing and sound.

[allanmandy]

Question for aHobbit,

You say that you would like to keep this discussion scientific and not religious and that's great. You further say that current dating methods are inconclusive, inaccurate or just plain wrong. Even though different scientific methods from fields of science as varied as geology, astronomy, moleculary biology, archeology, cosmology and others, mostly agree that the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years.

My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.

Yeah! What aHobbit is doing is trying to disprove scientific dating techniques and use their limitations to bolster his claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. We want to hear actual findings by your "science" that definitely show that the Earth is really that young.

[indie boi]

The problem in this whole argument is that aHobbit claims that "science" is magic and any kind of scientific study or findings are merely "theories" or "hoaxes." What I don't understand is why evolution, to aHobbit's mind is a "theory" and yet Creation is a practically a law. What's the basis for this? Don't tell me that since it's in the bible it's the truth and nothing but.

I'm getting this feeling that at some point here, names like Erich Von Daniken and Zacharias Sitchin will make an appearance and be considered incontrovertible scientific authorities.

[jerix]

perhaps we can only understand all of these if we return to our source and become one again with the source.

Im so amused on how the human mind works on the subject. More ideas please.  

[aHobbit]

Question for aHobbit,

My question is, is there any scientific study, conclusive or not, proven or not, that posits the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years? I'd like to be enlightened if it exists.

I have not read a dating mechanisms that will agree together to put the age of the earth to whatever figure - though in creation science, a number of possible tools to age the earth using various methods showed so much younger earth compared to the evolutionist depiction ...

thus I said in my post, I can not site specific age ... however, if you ask me, based on my belief of the account of bible depicting human history, it is more or less 7,000 years ... but you should take note, I am not proving the age of human using the Bible, I am just stating that if I made the Bible my reference ...

Thus, whether the Bible is correct (or my interpretation of the Bible is correct) as to the age of human life ... or the age indicated by evolutionist is correct for that matter ... then let science continue its investigation ... it should be noted however that some dating mechanism used by evolutionist before may need adjustments

Yeah! What aHobbit is doing is trying to disprove scientific dating techniques and use their limitations to bolster his claims that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. We want to hear actual findings by your "science" that definitely show that the Earth is really that young.

You read it wrong again ... it is early tools in science that have their respective limitations ... and it is not my depiction ... it is caused by the inevitable development within science ... and what put darwinian theory to so much controversy is that ... it incorporates with it lots of assumptions basing it in the 18xx technologies ... only to be made more exacting in our present time

You may have read in the saga of this evolution thing ... that even the validation of that BOGUS archeopterix materials that champion their missing links ... can only be detected by 1986 ... and finally rested 1990 ... so thus these dating techniques

The problem in this whole argument is that aHobbit claims that "science" is magic and any kind of scientific study or findings are merely "theories" or "hoaxes." What I don't understand is why evolution, to aHobbit's mind is a "theory" and yet Creation is a practically a law. What's the basis for this? Don't tell me that since it's in the bible it's the truth and nothing but.

I'm getting this feeling that at some point here, names like Erich Von Daniken and Zacharias Sitchin will make an appearance and be considered incontrovertible scientific authorities.

Ow, come on! You are just trying to obscure the discussion   ... I DID not say Science is not magic ... YOU DID!   ... What I did say is that EVOLUTION IS THE MAGIC!   and EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY    ... and EVOLUTION IS JUST A PIECE OF MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN BY AN IMAGINATIVE MAN   ... A theory yet UNPROVEN supported by  lots of UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS ... BASED ON 1800 TECHNOLOGIES, UNVALIDATED EVIDENCES, AND INCOMPLETE PROOFS!

And it is no secrets even among scientist, and academicians ... that there have been no substantial validation of the theory that have happened since it was popularized ... in fact, it has further weakened!

As usual ... You can put the Bible and the Theory of Evolution in the same footing - a written manuscript ... but science will prove either one or the other since they poles apart ... and the way science is exposing its flaws, YOUR EVOLUTION is preparing for a burial ...

[Clondalkin]

As usual ... You can put the Bible and the Theory of Evolution in the same footing - a written manuscript ... but science will prove either one or the other since they poles apart ... and the way science is exposing its flaws, YOUR EVOLUTION is preparing for a burial ...

You mean as the science is exposing the flaws of the evolution theory, it proves the validity of the creation theory?  Ganon ba kasimple yon?

You dont even consider exposing the flaws of the evolution theory as DEBUGGING the theory (until a more plausible scientific theory comes out) which is an integral step in scientific method?  

[aHobbit]

...
 on isotopic dating.


I don't know what on earth is a "blind test" in radiometric dating. And I have yet to read a journal or even a news article that says radioactive decay rates aren't constant.

"A case can be made that earth’s radioisotopes quickly formed and that most decayed at the beginning of a global flood."

the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism was passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

read on ...

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/262/

[aHobbit]

You mean as the science is exposing the flaws of the evolution theory, it proves the validity of the creation theory?  

No ... it sinks the evolution theory deeper into the pit!   without any impact on your creation "theory"  



Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

[indie boi]

however, if you ask me, based on my belief of the account of bible depicting human history, it is more or less 7,000 years ...

Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.

What I did say is that EVOLUTION IS THE MAGIC!

So, in your world, evolution, which has generated a lot of findings and studies is magic compared to Creation, where you can't even present us with any kind of incontrovertible proof that will prove Creation is true?

I shall end this with my strong beliefs against fundamentalism. Ahobbit flat earthers a few posts ago and you can feel his derision for such people. Unfortunately, fundamentalist belief is much the same as the Inquisition of the dark ages. There is a conscious suppression of free thought and the growth of science in favor of half-truths, fantasies and lies just to uphold what they think is the ONLY resource man needs in order to exist and thrive. Fundamentalism is dangerous in that it wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into  that age when religion was a tool used for oppression and the subjugation of human creativity and free thought.

[allanmandy]

the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism was passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

read on ...

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/262/

The calculations (which includes decay rates) shown in that paper relies heavily on the assumption that the universal Carbon-14 supply was created entirely during the beginnings of the Universe. Just so you'd know, IT WAS NOT. Elements are continuously supplied by stars, in birth, maturity and death. These can be captured by a planet's atmosphere, or from solar/meteoritic debris that showers upon a planet. Carbon-14 is produced in the Earth's atmosphere from the interaction of neutrons and Nitrogen-14. The amount of C-14 present in the atmosphere is reflected by the amount incorporated by every living organism that breathes air. Thus, if C-14 levels at a given time period are low, C-14 incorporated in existing organisms are also lower. Because the modern industrial age has released significant amounts of low-C-14 gases, present organisms have lower amounts of this isotope in their bodies, and thus poses a limitation to dating carbonaceous materials from this period (the effect will give us younger ages). However, while that is true, the decay rate of C-14 is still constant.

As for the presence of "anomalous" amounts of C-14 is samples "expected" to have zero C-14, this may be explained by contamination from biogenic sources like bacteria (yes, young bacteria can thrive amongst sediments that are millions of years old) and radioactive materials from surrounding rocks.

[aHobbit]

Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.

So, in your world, evolution, which has generated a lot of findings and studies is magic compared to Creation, where you can't even present us with any kind of incontrovertible proof that will prove Creation is true?

Missed it again bro   ... Creation is not proving anything in creation, for creationist, creation is a belief, might be a fact for others ... and unless you want to prove creation wrong, will draw you back to science and do the leg work ... On the other hand, your EVOLUTION, inspite of trying hard to come up with its evidences, suffers much of criticism based on new discoveries and technologies ... I will just wait to have EVOLUTION 6 feet under the ground as we await more baffling discoveries in this 21st century!

I shall end this with my strong beliefs against fundamentalism. Ahobbit flat earthers a few posts ago and you can feel his derision for such people. Unfortunately, fundamentalist belief is much the same as the Inquisition of the dark ages. There is a conscious suppression of free thought and the growth of science in favor of half-truths, fantasies and lies just to uphold what they think is the ONLY resource man needs in order to exist and thrive. Fundamentalism is dangerous in that it wants to drag us kicking and screaming back into  that age when religion was a tool used for oppression and the subjugation of human creativity and free thought.

I agree with you ... let's kick that kind of fundamentalism that you knew ... it will not help anyone   ... on the other hand, will the other cliff not offer you the same death? 



Big Bang - The Bucks Stop There!       Bucks as in $$$
http://www.icr.org/article/7/245/

[aHobbit]

As for the presence of "anomalous" amounts of C-14 is samples "expected" to have zero C-14, this may be explained by contamination from biogenic sources like bacteria (yes, young bacteria can thrive amongst sediments that are millions of years old) and radioactive materials from surrounding rocks.

Of course, that's why they tried to remove those contaminations or so ... and stil not come up to the billion years magic ... not even close to the 180,000 years!     


Has the Big Bang Been Saved? I will save now for the candles during its wake! 
http://www.icr.org/article/1109/245/

[allanmandy]

Of course, that's why they tried to remove those contaminations or so ... and stil not come up to the billion years magic ... not even close to the 180,000 years!     


Has the Big Bang Been Saved? I will save now for the candles during its wake! 
http://www.icr.org/article/1109/245/

And of course you would not get the "magic" billion years from C-14 because the half-life is only 5370 years!!! C dating is only good up to ages of 60,000 years. If you want the billion year ages, use U-Pb or Nd-Sm.

[allanmandy]

Living space must've been such a huge problem during the first 5,000 years. Imagine squeezing yourself in with dinosaurs, mammoths and all of the other creatures that supposedly lived on earth millions of years ago. I'm still trying to imagine a Flintstones existence for ancient man. And I tell you, it's right up there with Spongebob Squarepants in the ludicrous department.

And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....

[Clondalkin]

And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....

That will be like us eating danggit.  Everything digested to porridge state.   

[Clondalkin]

Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove?   What??? 

Ganon ba yon???  

For a while, I thought Ahobbit would be able to present some scientific proof of how man was instantly created from nothing.  Anyways.

[indie boi]

Sa hinaba haba ng mga sinulat dito bale ang bottom line lang ay creationists have nothing to lose and prove while evolutionists have everything to lose and prove?   What??? 

Succinct. Direct to the point. And true.

It's funny that the burden of proof is on evolutionists and despite all of the evidence, it's still considered "magic".  Creationists just smugly say, "it's in the bible so you shouldn't even question it."

[indie boi]

And makes you wonder. Why have there been no discoveries of human skeletons inside dinosaur fossils? Hmmm....

LOL 

[Klaus Weasley]

aHobbit: Approximately, only 1/3 of the Bible has basis on historical fact. In fact, historians, anthropologists and archaeologists have yet to uncover any hard, actual evidence that the story of Moses even happened.

[Verbl Kint]

America is facing an attack from liberals ... influenced by the europeans who typically go sliding down into atheism ... and hide in the cloak of science. ... America rose to its place today embracing a more Godly governance and mental reference (Bible) early on ...

Is this the same "godly governance and mental reference (Bible)" that directly and indirectly was responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos from 1899 to 1903?