Don't believe what you read on the internet, kids. LOL!

i keep hoping that creationists will change their tune when confronted with facts, but they don't. there's something in the way they think, where facts and logic are not the features in an argument that carry the most weight for them. claims that appeal to their pride (in being right) are what seem to matter most, and being wrong is intolerable. it's odd all the more that they try to couch their positions in the form of fact-based arguments, but using made-up facts. i wish it was just creationists... ) :

You say that about creationist, but the same can be said for those who follow only science. There is absolutely no evidence for the beginning stages of big bang, abiogenesis, or evolution, yet they are being taught as fact, that it is the only possible way for us to be here. The only evidence supporting evolution to the point of changing from one family classification to another are fossils and similarities in DNA, but yet it has never been observed and there is no DNA from the supposed common ancestors. The same claims used to explain why God cannot be real can also be used for big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. But yet if you were to combine both religion and science, you actually start filling in the gaps that are missing and things start making more sense. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.

"To them, "knowing" something that's not true is preferable to not knowing at all." So my question to this is if we don't know everything about these scientific theories, why are they being taught as fact while not really being taught that they are incomplete? And I really have not seen any evidence from anyone (and I have talked to hundreds of people online over the years about this) to prove that religion is not true. So unless you want to provide some evidence for your claims, which is your main complaint about this meme to begin with, then really I don't think you have the right to claim what is true or not.

"The Big Bang and evolution are taught as theories because that is what they are. " You missed the point I made. Without the beginning stages, they are incomplete and should not be taught as the only possible reason as to how we got here.

"Speciation has been observed both in nature and in the laboratories." This is why I use the term family classification. Trying to use the term species leaves open too many possibilities since science wants to change the definition of what classifies as different species depending on what they are trying to prove. I never said speciation has not been observed, what I said has not been observed is the transformation from one family classification to another. Speciation can easily be defined as diversification within a family classification, which majority of all creationists will say is proven and is supported by other creation theories. However the changes beyond family classifications have not been observed anywhere.

"God is not in the same area of study as the physical sciences. He is in the field of philosophy or theology." Only because science cannot study what is beyond the 5 senses of the human body. If it cannot be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard, science will not accept it. However the beginning stages of big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution have never been seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard either. The after effects have been. The point I was making is that it is very possible for what has been observed by the effects of big bang to be that of the point God created the universe. Same with abiogenesis and evolution.

"Scientists readily admit that these theories are incomplete." But I have never heard it taught in schools as being incomplete, nor have I ever heard that there is a possibility it happened another way.

"The burden of proof is on the person making the claim," But yet you did make the claim that religion is not true. So since you are making that claim, where is your proof? Now you have to also consider that you can't link sources in a meme, and since this account has not made a single comment, I can't explain why they didn't site anything in a comment themselves.

"I'm not a scientist myself." So you blindly follow and believe everything they say because they are scientists, which means they must know everything about what they are saying and that it is 100% fact? But if a theory is incomplete, it cannot be considered fact.

I will just consider a lack of reply means you are incapable of coming up with any argument that would actually carry any weight in this discussion. Like I said, you are not the first person I have encountered that is incapable of accepting a conclusion in which both religion and science coexist and that the discoveries of science are merely the discovery of the outcomes of what God did. I also understand why you want to refuse to accept this as a possible conclusion, and that is because if you were to accept this and that God does exist, then you would also have to accept that your actions have eternal consequences, and the possibility of that scares you. If our existence goes beyond the few years we spend here on Earth, and our existence has more of a meaning then the 100% pure chaotic chance that we just happened to be here, and I wasn't ready or willing to accept that, I would be scared as well. But I have accepted it, and it has allowed me to go beyond a single mindset and realize that both religion and science contain the answers we have been looking for.

"The Bible says Earth existed before the Sun." What evidence is there with the big bang theory that the sun was formed before the planets? The Bible never stated that the planet had any life on it before the sun. God did create light before He brought any life to the planet. It might not have been until later that He concentrated that light into the sun to create the daytime, night-time, and the different seasons, but there is nothing to state that the light He created on day 2 couldn't support life on the planet. So like I said, unless you can provide evidence that shows the exact process of how everything was created thru the big bang, you cannot state a lifeless planet couldn't have formed before the formation of the sun or light. BTW, this would require knowing the first stages of the big bang, knowing the exact cause and conditions, and what the possible singularity was, all which science does not know.

"It says a house can get leprosy." The bacteria for leprosy, like any other bacteria, has evolved over time. The bacteria once existed outside of the human body before changing to exist only within the human body, with the exception of a couple types of animals. So it is possible for the bacteria for leprosy to grow on rocks, which is a common material used for building homes then, if the conditions were right. So yes it was possible for a house to have leprosy, even though it isn't able to today.

"It says the sun stood still in the sky for a whole day." Doing a simple search for what would happen if the sun stopped, if the sun stopped shinning for a couple weeks, we would all be dead. However for only a day, the temperature of the earth would only drop by 2.5K, but this would be if the sun completely stopped shinning for a day. That isn't the case here as the sun was still shinning. As this was the only time this event ever happened and the only known account of it happening, there is not enough information to know exactly what took place here. Now I could say that scientifically the answer for how this took place hasn't been discovered yet, just like the argument is used for the beginning and missing stages of big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. But I know you will refuse to accept that as a possibility because the event is based off of something that was accounted for in religious text and not as a scientific discovery.

**to be continued**

**continued**
"It says you can produce striped livestock by having the parents mate in front of a striped stick" I think you are confused as to what took place here. Those that mated in front of these sticks were already striped, spotted, or speckled. It is believed that visual impressions at the point of conception can effect the outcome. But if you actually read what Jacob did with the livestock, you would see what he was actually doing was selective breeding. https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+13-1+Pearson.pdf This can explain more if you are interested.

"The Bible says there was a global flood. There is no scientific evidence for that." Except for the scientific evidence of chambers of water found below the earth's crust which would account for the fountains of the deep. The uncovering of mammoths in the arctic regions (which if it was the same then as it is today they would never have survived to begin with) in which they still have live vegetation in their stomachs and femurs broken in 2 yet still stand. Neither of those would be possible for a slow gradual ice age as explained by science, but would have to occur by a quick sudden freeze like that of water that originated from earth being shot into space and then brought back down at a force that could cut right thru the femur and being cold enough to freeze them instantly. Fossils of sea creatures found on top of mountains. The only work model of Pangaea originates from the theory of a global flood. I could keep going, but if you were to open up your mind to the possibility and study the hydroplate theory without taking events as you have already been taught what to believe happened, you would actually be able to see a real possibility of this happening.

"The Bible says Noah gathered animals from all over the planet. How did he get animals from distant islands?" The land had not separated yet and was still Pangaea, so these animals were not on islands as of yet. Animals also have the instinctive nature to avoid natural disasters and go to where it is safe, which if you read the accounts of Genesis, the animals went to Noah, not the other way around. And if you really to study this event and what took place, it was 2 of each kind, not 2 of every animal, male and female, but also within that a certain number of clean and unclean of each one of these kinds. **to be continued again**

**continued again**
Studies have shown that it is quite possible that there were around 30,000 animals in total. With the ark being dark, many animals have an instinctive nature to go into a state of hibernation, which means not as much food would have been needed for them. There are plenty of studies out there that fully explain all of this and is backed by scientific studies, if you were to actually take the time and read them. I am not going to waste my own time finding them for you when I have no reason to believe that you would even read them if presented. I have done my own research on all this and more, so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do some yourself. You just have to realize that they won't be published in your scientific journals because secular scientists refuse to accept the possibility of anything that is based or backed by religious texts. When scientific papers are published, they are first read and evaluated by peers in the same or similar fields. Why would any secular scientist even want to consider allowing documents that back religious texts be published in scientific journals?

"How did penguins survive on the Ark?" Well as I stated, religion does accept evolution at the point of diversification, which means there are limits to what evolution can do, as anything beyond diversification has never been observed or fully proven in any other way. In order for me to fully answer this, I would have to know every type of animal that would have been within that 30,000 estimated to know which of the Aequornithes birds were on the ark. Also without knowing every aspect of the ark, as in what was in each chamber the animals were kept in, it is hard for anyone to state what animals exactly were on the ark. To make it a short answer, I don't think that penguins specifically were on the ark, but an animal in which is closely related enough to the penguin could have evolved from within the point of diversification was on the ark. It would be similar to that of canines, if I could explain it simply. There wasn't a need or required to have 2 of each type of dog we have today, which today there are roughly 339 different breeds of dogs. But we do know that selective breeding can take place, and the right canines can be used to produce the 339 breeds we have today over an extended period of time. So the same would happen with the penguins, except selective breeding by nature.

**Hopefully one more comment**

*Hopefully last one**
"Does a scientific theory have to be 100% complete before it is adopted as a theory?" 100% complete, no. But without the beginning stages to know how something actually started and the conditions of the environment in which they started in should be required for a proper working theory. I would have to say that even if the exact conditions were known and each of the first steps, big bang would never be able to be duplicated because I don't think the conditions could have be recreated. Big bang, and probably evolution, are based off of a backwards model, meaning they take the known information of today and from information recorded in the past, to create a model that if reversed would create a scenario for what could have happened in the beginning. However there are too many unknown variables in which could effect the outcome and the timeline in which it happened. Take the creation of ice as an example. You can freeze water in 29 degrees F. You can freeze it faster in -20 degrees F. Now we can recreate this scenario so we have something to measure it to in order to know how long the water spent in -20 verses 29 degrees. But if we only ever had 1 ice cube and was to examine it after it was completely frozen, having nothing else to compare it to, how would we know if it was all in -20, all in 29, or a variation of both and in between? With nothing to compare it to, we wouldn't know. We most likely wouldn't even know the temperatures. Well the same goes with big bang. We only have 1 universe, nothing we can compare it to. So how do we know that the model(s) that is(are) created contain the correct variables without knowing the first stages and conditions? This is why I state without these stages, these theories are incomplete and therefore cannot be trusted based on science alone.

"Inference is not blind faith." I didn't say inference was, I said it was a conclusion. It is the unknown variables that is used with the known information to create the inference is the aspect of blind faith.

"Where is your proof that God exists outside of our physical universe?" God is the singularity that created the universe in the form of big bang. As I stated in another comment, something cannot create something within itself without outside interference. So in order for the universe to be created, an outside force that exists outside of the universe itself had/has to exist to make it possible. That outside force was and is God.

"Religion and science are not comparable, since religion doesn't follow the scientific method, and science does not follow the blind faith that religion demands of its adherents." Your entire comment is completely invalid because of this 1 statement. It doesn't matter if you think religion and science are not comparable. What you fail to grasp is the simple concept that in recent years there have been archaeological digs and other scientific discoveries that have actually backed up events and places that were mentioned in the Bible that were once lost but now found. But your biggest mistake was saying that science does not follow the blind faith that religion demands, when in fact it does on a much larger scale. You know those first stages I keep referring to for big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution that science has yet to be able to discover (and will never discover if they completely detach themselves from God and religion like they are), the lack of those first stages requires a high level of blind faith from you that science is accurate in their theories. With those theories not being able to be completely recreated, how can you actually state that they are accurate in any way? The only way is blind faith in the research and scientists. You even stated that you don't know all the answers and that I should ask a scientist, which is actually you stating that you don't have the knowledge to fully understand what science has or hasn't discovered, but you are willing to believe that what they state is fact and truth. Because it sounds good to you, you are willing to believe it even though you don't fully understand it. In other words, blind faith.

And I never stated that that those were the reasons you are an atheist, but that those are the reasons you are unwilling to accept a possibility that religion and science can coexist. The reality is, any reason you have in being an atheist would actually have to go away the moment you start realizing it is possible for religion to be true and religion and science can coexist. But since you have to convince yourself that they can't coexist, I know you are never going to reach that point.

When I read your comment, the rest of it was tied to that one statement, so it is possible and logical to dismiss an entire comment based off of one statement. Just because you think there is a flaw in the Bible, that doesn't mean there is. Many scholars, even those who started secular, have determined there are no flaws in the Bible. And any time I have been presented with a supposed flaw, I do the proper research and also determine that it isn't a flaw but a misconception.

As far as stating Islam is true based on discoveries today, it would all depend on what it is. Most religions share the same stories in the first few books, but yet there are things that have been discovered that were in the New Testiment, places that became nothing but ruins, and are found today matching how the Bible described them. So like I said, it all depends on what it is, and really if it is exclusive to Islam or not.

So you completely ignore everything stated by the missing first steps? Without those steps, the theories are incomplete and cannot be duplicated or fully tested. So without that information, they are using blind faith that their incomplete models actually work accurately. The best way I can describe it is it would be like baking a cake. If you take an existing cake, scientifically you can break the cake down and determine the ingredients. You might or might not be able to know the exact amounts of each ingredient, but what you won't be able to determine the temperature of the oven. So if you don't know everything start to finish, how can you determine you will know how the original cake was made?The lack of the first steps requires blind faith for the rest of it to know it is accurate.

I know God exists outside of our known space and time. It actually tells us that in the Bible. To require God be a natural occurance in our known universe, that would make God a finite object, only existing for a designated amount of time. That is not what God is.

Inference is a conclusion based off of evidence and reasoning, but what about the unknown evidence that is needed to complete the conclusion? Those items are guesstimated and based off of known conditions and require other unknown conditions to match a predetermined set of conditions. But as those conditions will never be known, I see it as blind faith to say the unknown matches what is required to make the known possible, especially when a working model is not feasible.

But yet if you don't have the capabilities or knowledge to confirm their evidence to match their claims, are you still going to be skeptical of their claims or accept their evidence and claims since they have the capablities and knowledge you don't? I am sure you can see that those that accept the evidence and claims they can't test or understand themselves are doing so out of blind faith.

If you fully understand the concept of big bang, no matter which model you follow, the entire event had to happen outside our known universe, which isn't that where God exists at? You can't create somethinng within itself without outside interference. A woman's body cannot create another human being without interference of an outside source, and that even includes Jesus's mother Mary.

So what evidence do you require for religion that you say doesn't exist? If your only answer is God, then 1) we have already determined He exists outside of our known space and time, which means science cannot provide evidence for that, and 2) I will continue to remind you that the lack of the first stages in the 3 major theories of science is enough evidence to accurately state science alone cannot explain those events.

If you want, feel free to ask me about these supposed flaws that are in the Bible and tell me what evidence it is you would require in order to believe religion is true. I guarantee that you won't present something I haven't heard about yet.

Big bang is nothing more than observations made of an event that happened some time in the past. There is absolutely no possible way to know for a fact the exact conditions before, during, and directly after the event to be able to determine the exact cause. The cause has never been observed or studied by any scientific method. I really see it as being no different than your claims that God is not real because science has not been able to study God using any scientific method. If both have never been studied and cannot be explained by science (and before you say 'at least not yet' for the beginning of big bang, that same argument can be used for science studying God) then why can they not be one and the same?

To get back to something I missed on responding to: "Animals who died millions of years ago would not have any DNA left that we could study." Exactly, but yet because of similarities in DNA from one creature to another, the claim is made that they had to share a common ancestor. However there is a higher probability that DNA similarities can be explained simply by that is the DNA that is required to survive on this planet. At the point of abiogenesis and the start of evolution, there were billions of billions of DNA combination possibilities, yet every creature and plant that we have today supposedly came from only 1 of those possibilities because that was the only possibility that could survive on this planet? I wouldn't know how to calculation the probability of that, and I am not sure that it is even possible since science doesn't even know how many possible combinations of DNA there could have been, but I would bet that I would have a better chance of winning Powerball jackpot 1,000 times in a row. If we don't have the source to compare it to, it can only be speculation that common ancestors are possible.

Darwin actually never claimed that. His theory is based on natural selection. The whole we evolved from monkeys or bacteria is just a line from X-men movies. Liberals can't tell the difference between facts and fiction.