Quantcast

Bill Nye: Creationism Threatens U.S. Science: Do You Agree With Him?

American☆Atheist 2012/09/25 06:48:11
Related Topics: Creationism, Science, 2012
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • cosmicventure 2012/09/25 07:59:19
    yes
    cosmicventure
    +9
    Unfortunately too many people in the USA don't freely think for themselves.

    You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

    Carl Sagan

    loony

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • elijahin24 2012/10/10 18:20:40
    yes
    elijahin24
    +1
    I love that The Science Guy has started speaking out on issues which will sometimes be unpopular. He's right.
  • Dave 2012/09/30 05:55:25
    yes
    Dave
    +1
    100% I agree. People need to wake up and feel some pain to adjust. Get away from oil and the automobile whenever you can, Use a bike.
  • Pyro-82 2012/09/26 04:35:52
    no
    Pyro-82
    I loved Bill Nye's show as a kid, but creationalism does not strictely contradict evolution; it can easly co-exist.
    Some creationasts, however, do threaten science. Not the average church-goer who works on themselves rather than meddle with others, but the sign dragging, rock concert protesting overzealous, super-christan types are a small bit of a problem.
  • YouSirName 2012/09/26 01:31:32
    no
    YouSirName
    There are much worse things than Creationsim, like mainstream religion.
  • Wolf97 2012/09/25 23:21:38
    yes
    Wolf97
    +1
    If it is not Science. Don't teach it in Science. I do not see what is so difficult about that.
  • Frannin 2012/09/25 22:48:10
    yes
    Frannin
    Kinda wacky too.
  • Griegg 2012/09/25 22:00:52
    yes
    Griegg
    It contradicts science. What contradicts science threatens it.
  • charles nelson 2012/09/25 21:58:21
    yes
    charles nelson
    But reason will rule, but please, we need a visitor from Betelgeuse aka Beetlejuice.
  • ProVega 2012/09/25 20:58:15
    no
    ProVega
    Just because most people can't get their head around evaluation doesn't mean we should except the explanation of the simpleminded.

    GWB
  • Avenged7 2012/09/25 18:52:44
    yes
    Avenged7
    Creationism is a religious belief. Science is observation,description, and experimental investigation. Science of something may take years, or centuries. It always evolves. So to take up class time with a religious faith is silly. If parents want their children to learn about creationism, send them to Sunday school, or to a religious school. But do not take time away from children learning about science in a tax payer public school!!!!
  • captainquiggle 2012/09/25 15:57:05
    yes
    captainquiggle
    +1
    It's a joke that's only plan is to undermine ACTUAL SCIENCE with religious agenda-spun garbage.
  • Random 2012/09/25 15:36:13 (edited)
    yes
    Random
    +2
    It's not just a "threat" (or as I like to call it an insult) to U.S science, they're trying that crap here too!

    I believe in God, I also think that we have brains for a freaking reason. Use them people, use them.
  • Odinsown 2012/09/25 14:48:47
    yes
    Odinsown
    +3
    Creationism isn't science, I don't understand why Christians don't get this, I don't believe that man was formed from trees(norse creation myth), yet I follow my gods just fine. Religion shouldn't preclude science.
  • Xerxes 2012/09/25 14:04:51
    yes
    Xerxes
    +1
    Absolutely! If people are taught to reject science for creationism, how will they be able to perform or understand research that deals with genetics, DNA, or evolutionary biology. The US will lose its edge in these fields to the Chinese.

    Maybe some people would like to use prayer to change the channel - I find the tv remote works better...
  • Clay Slayer 2012/09/25 13:59:43
    yes
    Clay Slayer
    +2
    Creationists and Religion has been a stumbling block for science since the dark ages....
  • Bastion 2012/09/25 13:41:19
  • hapman Bastion 2012/09/29 20:33:00
    hapman
    +1
    outstanding. just what I would've done.
  • Zuggi 2012/09/25 13:33:19
  • DeeB 2012/09/25 12:46:35
    yes
    DeeB
    +2
    Looks like it. Creationism belongs in Catholic schools, but they also teach science so they kind of contradict each other.
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/09/25 12:24:20
    no
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Good grief - nothing is threatening science because its foundation is proven with facts.

    Creationism is just a theory by evangelicals - they want to make religion and science line up - nothing to fear there at all. If a small segment of our society believes something, it hurts no one.

    Good grief, we have people who swear that there was no moon landing. We have people who believe in all kinds of different things without foundation. Science is doing just fine.
  • America... Jackie ... 2012/09/25 13:59:44
    American☆Atheist
    +1
    Creationism is a fact?
  • Jackie ... America... 2012/09/25 15:01:55
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    not for me
  • Avenged7 America... 2012/09/25 18:55:56
    Avenged7
    +1
    NO, it's a faith.
  • auron Jackie ... 2012/09/26 12:23:56
    auron
    +3
    Creationism is more of a hypothesis, for a theory you need some evidence and facts.
  • Jackie ... auron 2012/09/26 12:25:26
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    Okay, Honestly it makes no sense to me
  • auron Jackie ... 2012/09/26 12:27:27
    auron
    +1
    What makes no sense you, the scientific method, or how creationism doesn't fit into it?
  • Jackie ... auron 2012/09/26 12:31:03
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +3
    Creationism - One of my former professors has a philosophy group, I am a member. We had a noted creationist speaker - and when all is said and done, it makes no sense to me. I realize it is religion based and understand what their premise is -- it just does not 'compute' for me. I have never had a conflict between faith and science and that is probably the reason that the entire argument is senseless to me.
  • Dave Jackie ... 2012/09/30 05:59:57
    Dave
    lol Of course science is being threatened. Look at all the religious zealots and I might add Republicons that refuse to admit that humans have an effect on the planet. All their thinking of course is sponsored by Exxon or BP and not so much god.
  • Jackie ... Dave 2012/09/30 12:10:55
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    Well rest easy - science is doing just fine.
  • DutchHeretic Native non-Ame... 2012/09/25 12:16:12
    yes
    DutchHeretic Native non-American
    +5
    In science education the US stands on 22nd place in the world rankings this will probably drop a few more points with all this creationist teachings in USA schools...
  • Wally-Molon Labe! 2012/09/25 12:13:25
    yes
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +5
    Absolutely! Anytime you have people who choose mythology and fairy tales over the search for truth using real science there is a problem. Creationists want their mythology taught in public schools to challenge the teaching of evolution as if they didn't have a monopoly on converting minds in churches and homes as it is. The religious are scared of science. Sooner or later their myths will crumble just as the real Zeus and Aphrodite did.
  • Wally-M... Wally-M... 2012/09/25 12:25:08 (edited)
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +2
    Just another thought. A dumbed down population is much easier to control.
  • Clay Sl... Wally-M... 2012/09/25 14:01:50
    Clay Slayer
    +3
    Do not ask questions. just blindly obey, we will do your thinking for you.... The Church....
  • Wally-M... Clay Sl... 2012/09/25 16:30:55
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    Ignorance is Knowledge! Big Brother.
  • Psyblade 2012/09/25 12:07:30
    yes
    Psyblade
    +3
    I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Oh yeah? If people evolved from monkeys then why are there stil monkeys?!"
  • Zuggi Psyblade 2012/09/25 13:35:04
  • Psyblade Zuggi 2012/09/25 14:47:43
    Psyblade
    +1
    I want this!
  • irish 2012/09/25 11:50:55
    yes
    irish
    +5
    the religious loons want to corrupt the minds of the young.
  • Maynard 2012/09/25 11:41:22
    no
    Maynard
    +1
    Question for Liberals.

    IF, as YOU believe, God does not exist.

    WHY, let me repeat,

    WHY,

    WHY DO YOU FRIGGEN LIBTARDS CARE WHAT US CHRISTIANS DO OR THINK?


    Buzz off and let us LIVE IN PEACE so STFU already.


    Hello LIBTARDS, elections are upon us, WHAT does the RETARDED left believe in?


    TELLING US HOW TO LIVE AND BELIEVE?


    Bwaa haa haa and a double ha haa haa, SILLY LIBS, POLITICS ARE FOR GROWN UPS.
  • Maynard Maynard 2012/09/25 11:47:15
    Maynard
    Genesis Chapter 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."

    With that said, I can now explain with today's modern Science that YES, God WAS there prior to the BIG BANG.

    That proof is called Dark Energy and Dark Matter, please note, Dark only means UNKNOWN. Scientists today admit that these were there prior to the Big Bang.



    Prior to the big bang all observable matter was overheated and “squeezed into a volume vastly smaller than the head of a pin”. The temperature was unimaginably, baking and broiling; it was a blistering cauldron at 1032 kelvins. That's one trillion, trillion, billion kelvins. Matter as we see with our eyes could not exist. It was too hot.


    Genesis Chapter 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." (Please note Three.)



    Then came the expansion and cooling – quarks “began to coagulate into protons, neutrons, and the other hadrons”. Stable nuclei, began to form when protons and neutrons began to combine at around age three minutes, during a period known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis.


    My thoughts here? Silly Scientists,if Atomic structure formation began in three minutes, don't tell me the Big Bang was nearly 13.7 Billion years ago. The first known things on Planet Earth that was known to be built by Man was recor...

















































































































    Genesis Chapter 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."

    With that said, I can now explain with today's modern Science that YES, God WAS there prior to the BIG BANG.

    That proof is called Dark Energy and Dark Matter, please note, Dark only means UNKNOWN. Scientists today admit that these were there prior to the Big Bang.



    Prior to the big bang all observable matter was overheated and “squeezed into a volume vastly smaller than the head of a pin”. The temperature was unimaginably, baking and broiling; it was a blistering cauldron at 1032 kelvins. That's one trillion, trillion, billion kelvins. Matter as we see with our eyes could not exist. It was too hot.


    Genesis Chapter 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." (Please note Three.)



    Then came the expansion and cooling – quarks “began to coagulate into protons, neutrons, and the other hadrons”. Stable nuclei, began to form when protons and neutrons began to combine at around age three minutes, during a period known as Big Bang nucleosynthesis.


    My thoughts here? Silly Scientists,if Atomic structure formation began in three minutes, don't tell me the Big Bang was nearly 13.7 Billion years ago. The first known things on Planet Earth that was known to be built by Man was recorded around 6,500 years ago. I don't believe God would be so patient to wait that long but I can't explain the difference, sometimes only FAITH can do such a thing.

    Genesis Chapter 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.

    1:7 And God made the Firmament, and divided the waters which were under the Firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament:

    1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.


    Modern Science and Physics prove too me that Heaven is the 96% of Unknown Matter in the entire Universe. The Bible shows Heaven to be everywhere, both on the Planet as well as in Space. The Bible clearly seperates Heaven from things with Mass, so does modern Science.

    NASA; mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 1% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter. Of this total density, we now know the breakdown to be:
    •4.6% Atoms. More than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory! The actual density of atoms is equivalent to roughly 1 proton per 4 cubic meters.
    •23% Cold Dark Matter. Dark matter is likely to be composed of one or more species of sub-atomic particles that interact very weakly with ordinary matter. Particle physicists have many plausible candidates for the dark matter, and new particle accelerator experiments are likely to bring new insight in the coming years.
    •72% Dark Energy. The first observational hints of dark energy in the universe date back to the 1980's when astronomers were trying to understand how clusters of galaxies were formed. Their attempts to explain the observed distribution of galaxies were improved if dark energy was present, but the evidence was highly uncertain. In the 1990's, observations of supernova were used to trace the expansion history of the universe (over relatively recent times) and the big surprise was that the expansion appeared to be speeding up, rather than slowing down! There was some concern that the supernova data were being misinterpreted, but the result has held up to this day. In 2003, the first WMAP results came out indicating that the universe was flat (see above) and that the dark matter made up only ~23% of the density required to produce a flat universe. If 72% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark energy, which has a gravitationally repulsive effect, it is just the right amount to explain both the flatness of the universe and the observed accelerated expansion. Thus dark energy explains many cosmological observations at once.
    •Fast moving neutrinos do not play a major role in the evolution of structure in the universe. They would have prevented the early clumping of gas in the universe, delaying the emergence of the first stars, in conflict with the WMAP data. However, with 5 years of data, WMAP is able to see evidence that a sea of cosmic neutrinos do exist in numbers that are expected from other lines of reasoning. This is the first time that such evidence has come from the cosmic microwave background.


    Now if you can take just one thought out of all of that, let it be this, 95+ percent has NEVER BEEN DIRECTLY DETECTED IN THE LAB, that's because there are no Atoms, or as I say, no Atomic structure.

    OK, where is all of this leading? To the next item that CAN'T BE FOUND, the Soul. This next thing may bore you or sound morbid, in a nutshell, it shows that when Humans die, they lose around 3/4 of an ounce. Although the study was never conclusive to researchers and it was never studied later, note here that 1/3 seemed very conclusive to me, hmm, that would be that Faith thing again though, hmm.

    American Medicine
    April, 1907
    Hypothesis Concerning Soul Substance Together
    with Experimental Evidence of The Existence of Such Substance
    by Duncan MacDougall, M.D.
    of Haverhill, Mass.
    If personal continuity after the event of bodily death is a fact, if the psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individually or personality after the death of brain and body, then such personality can only exit as a space occupying body, unless the relations between space objective and space notions in our consciousness, established in our consciousness by heredity and experience, are entirely wiped out at death and a new set of relations between space and consciousness suddenly established in the continuing personality. This would be an unimaginable breach in the continuity of nature.

    It is unthinkable that personality and consciousness continuing personal identity should exist, and have being, and yet not occupy space. It is impossible to represent in thought that which is not space-occupying, as having personality; for that would be equivalent to thinking that nothing had become or was something, that emptiness had personality, that space itself was more than space, all of which are contradictions and absurd.

    Since therefore it is necessary to the continuance of conscious life and personal identity after death, that they must have for a basis that which is space-occupying, or substance, the question arises has this substance weight, is it ponderable?

    The essential thing is that there must be a substance as the basis of continuing personal identity and consciousness, for without space-occupying substance, personality or a continuing conscious ego after bodily death is unthinkable.

    According to the latest conception of science, substance, or space-occupying material, is divisible into that which is gravitative, solids, liquids, gases, all having weight, and the ether which is nongravitative. It seemed impossible to me that the soul substance could consist of the ether. If the conception is true that ether is continuous and not to be conceived of as existing or capable of existing in separate masses, we have here the most solid ground for believing that the soul substance we are seeking is not ether, because one of the very first attributes of personal identity is the quality of separateness. Nothing is more borne in upon consciousness, than that the ego is detached and separate from all things else - the nonego.

    We are therefore driven back upon the assumption that the soul substance so necessary to the conception of continuing personal identity, after the death of this material body, must still be a form of gravitative matter, or perhaps a middle form of substance neither gravitative matter or ether, not capable of being weighed, and yet not identical with ether. Since however the substance considered in our hypothesis is linked organically with the body until death takes place, it appears to me more reasonable to think that it must be some form of gravitative matter, and therefore capable of being detected at death by weighing a human being in the act of death.

    My first subject was a man dying of tuberculosis. It seemed to me best to select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted.

    The patient was under observation for three hours and forty minutes before death, lying on a bed arranged on a light framework built upon very delicately balanced platform beam scales.

    The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in respiration and evaporation of sweat.

    During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more decisive if it should come.

    At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.

    This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas this loss was sudden and large, three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds.

    The bowels did not move; if they had moved the weight would still have remained upon the bed except for a slow loss by the evaporation of moisture depending, of course, upon the fluidity of the feces. The bladder evacuated one or two drams of urine. This remained upon the bed and could only have influenced the weight by slow gradual evaporation and therefore in no way could account for the sudden loss.

    There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we explain it?

    My second patient was a man moribund from tuberculosis. He was on the bed about four hours and fifteen minutes under observation before death. The first four hours he lost weight at the rate of three-fourths of an ounce per hour. He had much slower respiration than the first case, which accounted for the difference in loss of weight from evaporation of perspiration and respiratory moisture.

    The last fifteen minutes he had ceased to breathe but his facial muscles still moved convulsively, and then, coinciding with the last movement of the facial muscles, the beam dropped. The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains. In the eighteen minutes that lapsed between the time he ceased breathing until we were certain of death, there was a weight loss of one and a half ounces and fifty grains compared with a loss of three ounces during a period of four hours, during which time the ordinary channels of loss were at work. No bowel movement took place. The bladder moved but the urine remained upon the bed and could not have evaporated enough through the thick bed clothing to have influenced the result.

    The beam at the end of eighteen minutes of doubt was placed again with the end in slight contact with the upper bar and watched for forty minutes but no further loss took place.

    My scales were sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. If placed at balance one-tenth of an ounce would lift the beam up close to the upper limiting bar, another one-tenth ounce would bring it up and keep it in direct contact, then if the two-tenths were removed the beam would drop to the lower bar and then slowly oscillate till balance was reached again.

    This patient was of a totally different temperament from the first, his death was very gradual, so that we had great doubts from the ordinary evidence to say just what moment he died.

    My third case, a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a weight of half and ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later.

    In the fourth case, a woman dying of diabetic coma, unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work, and although at death the beam sunk so that it required from three-eighths to one-half ounce to bring it back to the point preceding death, yet I regard this test as of no value.

    My fifth case, a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes. It was impossible to account for the three-eighths of an ounce drop, it was so sudden and distinct, the beam hitting the lower bar with as great a noise as in the first case. Our scales in the case were very sensitively balanced.

    My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam.

    In my communication to Dr. Hodgson I note that I have said there was no loss of weight. It should have been added that there was no loss of weight that we were justified in recording.

    My notes taken at the time of experiment show a loss of one and one-half ounces but in addition it should have been said the experiment was so hurried, jarring of the scales had not wholly ceased and the apparent weight loss, one and one-half ounces, might have been due to accidental shifting of the sliding weight on that beam. This could not have been true of the other tests; no one of them was done hurriedly.

    My sixth case I regard as one of no value from this cause. The same experiments were carried out on fifteen dogs, surrounded by every precaution to obtain accuracy and the results were uniformly negative, no loss of weight at death.

    A loss of weight takes places about 20 to 30 minutes after death which is due to the evaporation of the urine normally passed, and which is duplicated by evaporation of the same amount of water on the scales, every other condition being the same, e.g., temperature of the room, except the presence of the dog's body.

    The dogs experimented on weighed between 15 and 70 pounds and the scales with the total weight upon them were sensitive to one-sixteenth of an ounce. The tests on dogs were vitiated by the use of two drugs administered to secure the necessary quiet and freedom from struggle so necessary to keep the beam at balance.

    The ideal tests on dogs would be obtained in those dying from some disease that rendered them much exhausted and incapable of struggle. It was not my fortune to get dogs dying from such sickness.

    The net result of the experiments conducted on human beings, is that a loss of substance occurs at death not accounted for by known channels of loss. Is it the soul substance? It would seem to me to be so. According to our hypothesis such a substance is necessary to the assumption of continuing or persisting personality after bodily death, and here we have experimental demonstration that a substance capable of being weighed does leave the human body at death.

    If this substance is a counterpart to the physical body, has the same bulk, occupies the same dimensions in space, then it is a very much lighter substance than the atmosphere surrounding our earth which weighs about one and one-fourth ounces per cubic foot. This would be a fact of great significance, as such a body would readily ascend in our atmosphere. The absence of a weighable mass leaving the body at death would of course be no argument against continuing personality, for a space-occupying body or substance might exist not capable of being weighed, such as the ether.

    It has been suggested that the ether might be that substance, but with the modern conception of science that the ether is the primary form of all substance, that all other forms of matter are merely differentiations of the ether having varying densities, then it seems to me that soul substance which is in this life linked organically with the body, cannot be identical with the ether. Moreover, the ether is supposed to be nondiscontinuous, a continuous whole and not capable of existing in separate masses as ether, whereas the one prime requisite for a continuing personality or individuality is the quality of separateness, the ego as separate and distinct from all things else, the nonego.

    To my mind therefore the soul substance cannot be the ether as ether; but if the theory that ether is the primary form of all substance is true, then the soul substance must necessarily be a differentiated form of it.

    If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss, and that such loss of substance does not occur in the dog as my experiments would seem to show, then we have here a physiological difference between the human and the canine at least and probably between the human and all other forms of animal life.

    I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error, but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost importance.

    One ounce of fact more or less will have more weight in demonstrating the truth of the reality of continued existences with the necessary basis of substance to rest upon, than all the hair-splitting theories of theologians and metaphysicians combined.

    If other experiments prove that there is a loss of weight occurring at death, not accounted for by known channels of loss, we must either admit the theory that it is the hypothetical soul substance, or some other explanation of the phenomenon should be forthcoming. If proved true, the materialistic conception will have been fully met, and proof of the substantial basis for mind or spirit or soul continuing after the death of the body, insisted upon as necessary by the materialists, will have been furnished.

    It will prove also that the spiritualistic conception of the immateriality of the soul was wrong. The postulates of religious creeds have not been a positive and final settlement of the question.

    The theories of all the philosophers and all the philosophies offer no final solution of the problem of continued personality after bodily death. This fact alone of a space occupying body of measurable weight disappearing at death, if verified, furnishes the substantial basis for persisting personality or a conscious ego surviving the act of bodily death, and in the element of certainty is worth more than the postulates of all the creeds and all the metaphysical arguments combined.



    Did you catch the part where he tried it on Dogs and they lost nothing? Yea I know, Man and Dogs lose mass in different ways, we sweat, they pant, still seemed conclusive to me for one simple reason.

    GENESIS CHAPTER 1:26 And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." THIRD created entity for Man, the Image of God. Morris Study Bible.



    Just some simple thoughts to BOTHER THE LIBERALS, have at it, I may get back to it one day.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/22 09:55:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals