x
Click to expand

sagedivinity

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:8/16/2012
Last Login:5/29/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#4023
Highest Content Rank:#13767
Highest Comment Rank:#2349
Content Thumbs: 4 total,  4 ,  8
Comment Thumbs: 3757 total,  4495 ,  738
Content Level Progress: 1.69% (1/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 73% (73/100)
Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:871
Total Comments Made:2863
FJ Points:3545

Funny Gifs

latest user's comments

#189 - No need to apologize. Have a nice day. 6 hours ago on God 0
#187 - Ok, I'm back. Sorry about the wait. Bill Nye mentione…  [+] (2 new replies) 8 hours ago on God 0
#188 - deputydouchebag (6 hours ago) [-]
Sorry dude I'm done with this conversation. You wanna believe in fairy tails go ahead live your life by the context of an archaic book, I'm not gonna stop you. But remember there are literally THOUSANDS of sects of Christianity each one saying the other is wrong. People interpreting literature different is just what happens. If there truly were an all powerful all know eternal being and these were meant to be the "guide book" for all of humanity you'd think he'd be able to get his point across a little better.
User avatar #189 - sagedivinity (6 hours ago) [-]
No need to apologize. Have a nice day.
#185 - Creation science extends beyond just the creation story and ac…  [+] (1 new reply) 9 hours ago on God 0
#193 - popeflatus (1 hour ago) [-]
The flood of Noah is a scientifically verified myth and is based on a story that pre-dates the Jews by about 1000 years. Considering this flood has been proven to be mythical then there is no point "assuming" that any meaningful predictions can be made.

Genesis also contains the story of the Garden of Eden which biology, history, geology and anthopology, among others, has also been shown the be completely fictitious.

Creation science is not science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
#17 - Lousy, good for nothing stoners. 19 hours ago on Tall people +2
#35 - What's up with your name color?  [+] (1 new reply) 19 hours ago on Fact comp #16 0
#109 - Absolute Madman (10 hours ago) [-]
its vomit, like his opinion
#95 - Thank you. 21 hours ago on God 0
#91 - I'm sorry, do you know the exact time he says it? I h…  [+] (3 new replies) 22 hours ago on God +3
#94 - deputydouchebag (21 hours ago) [-]
and 45 mins in he going more into detail.
#93 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Around 12 mins in.
User avatar #95 - sagedivinity (21 hours ago) [-]
Thank you.
#87 - I wouldn't say there is zero evidence for the side of religion…  [+] (8 new replies) 22 hours ago on God -2
#89 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Funny how you'd mention the grand canyon flood theory. Considering in the Bill Nye v.s Ken Ham debate Nye absolutely kills it in it matter of mins. Here's the full debate https://youtube.com/devicesupport
User avatar #187 - sagedivinity (8 hours ago) [-]
Ok, I'm back. Sorry about the wait.

Bill Nye mentioned layers of rock earth at the Canyon how it would be impossible for a flood to form those layers but it isn't impossible. If you put dirt in a bottle of water and shake, it forms visible layers of dirt. The difference between this and a flood would be that in a bottle the water doesn't leave but in a flood water is constantly shifting around and eventually runs off making intrusion more likely.

This article is more about the plants and sea creatures found there.
www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
#188 - deputydouchebag (6 hours ago) [-]
Sorry dude I'm done with this conversation. You wanna believe in fairy tails go ahead live your life by the context of an archaic book, I'm not gonna stop you. But remember there are literally THOUSANDS of sects of Christianity each one saying the other is wrong. People interpreting literature different is just what happens. If there truly were an all powerful all know eternal being and these were meant to be the "guide book" for all of humanity you'd think he'd be able to get his point across a little better.
User avatar #189 - sagedivinity (6 hours ago) [-]
No need to apologize. Have a nice day.
User avatar #91 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
I'm sorry, do you know the exact time he says it?

I have to get ready for an interview so I don't have the time to watch it right now.

I will say this though, before I have to go. I believe the existence of fossilized sea creatures like whales and clams being present at the Canyon could be further evidence for the flood.
#94 - deputydouchebag (21 hours ago) [-]
and 45 mins in he going more into detail.
#93 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Around 12 mins in.
User avatar #95 - sagedivinity (21 hours ago) [-]
Thank you.
#81 - Scientists say Evolutional Theory and Gravitational Theory for…  [+] (15 new replies) 22 hours ago on God +3
#137 - Absolute Madman (14 hours ago) [-]
Actually, for something to become a theory, it has to be well founded and documented. People actually misuse the word Theory so much, that this wrong definition of"Thing that might be right or not" actually stuck. Also, you can be a creationist AND believe in evolution, since Genesis is NOT one of the historical books of the bible and it is in NO WAY meant to be taken as such.
#102 - popeflatus (17 hours ago) [-]
You misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory. A theory in science is the highest form of knowledge.

It begins with making observations about the universe and them forming ideas as to how these phenomena occur and how they work. This is called a hypothesis.

It is then tested by others in the field independently and if they are unable to show that the hypothesis can be falsified then it becomes a theory.

Theories in science have the property of being able to make accurate predictions about the universe and hence are able to form the technology of the world today.

Evolution is as strong a theory as General Relativity (Gravity), whereas creation "science" has no evidence to support it and has zero predictive power.
User avatar #185 - sagedivinity (9 hours ago) [-]
Creation science extends beyond just the creation story and actually focuses on the entirety of Genesis, including the flood. Certainly if the great flood happened and happened as detailed in the Bible than there should be evidence for the event. I believe there is, I've mentioned some of it here and there in this thread. Assuming the flood is true, there are many predictions that can be made and there have been tons of documents created by creationists on the subject. Proving creation itself is a much more challenging task. I'm not really sure what would be excepted as proof for creation anyway. However, there have been many articles on the topic of intelligent design.
#193 - popeflatus (1 hour ago) [-]
The flood of Noah is a scientifically verified myth and is based on a story that pre-dates the Jews by about 1000 years. Considering this flood has been proven to be mythical then there is no point "assuming" that any meaningful predictions can be made.

Genesis also contains the story of the Garden of Eden which biology, history, geology and anthopology, among others, has also been shown the be completely fictitious.

Creation science is not science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
User avatar #86 - yarr (22 hours ago) [-]
That can't be true. 95 percent of Americans were religious?
2006 seems so long ago now.
#84 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Regardless of EVERYTHING. The sheer idiocy that a 2000 year old middle eastern book of fables has the answer to life is enough to turn me away from religion. So humanity started because a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat an entirely unnecessary fruit of knowledge? Come on whats more likely. Not to mention the absolute MOUNDS of evidence evolution has going for it and the 0 religion has.
User avatar #87 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
I wouldn't say there is zero evidence for the side of religion. That would imply everything said in all of the holy books of all of the the religions of the world is false.

I can't speak for other religions but, we know that historically Jesus existed and that he was a prophet, whether or not he was the son of God or a miracle worker is the debated part. I believe there is plenty of evidence all throughout the world for a global flood (ex: the Grand Canyon shows signs of having been shaped by massive flood waters over a short period of time and by a large amount of water). There is also evidence that proves that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed at the same time as detailed in the Bible.
#89 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Funny how you'd mention the grand canyon flood theory. Considering in the Bill Nye v.s Ken Ham debate Nye absolutely kills it in it matter of mins. Here's the full debate https://youtube.com/devicesupport
User avatar #187 - sagedivinity (8 hours ago) [-]
Ok, I'm back. Sorry about the wait.

Bill Nye mentioned layers of rock earth at the Canyon how it would be impossible for a flood to form those layers but it isn't impossible. If you put dirt in a bottle of water and shake, it forms visible layers of dirt. The difference between this and a flood would be that in a bottle the water doesn't leave but in a flood water is constantly shifting around and eventually runs off making intrusion more likely.

This article is more about the plants and sea creatures found there.
www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
#188 - deputydouchebag (6 hours ago) [-]
Sorry dude I'm done with this conversation. You wanna believe in fairy tails go ahead live your life by the context of an archaic book, I'm not gonna stop you. But remember there are literally THOUSANDS of sects of Christianity each one saying the other is wrong. People interpreting literature different is just what happens. If there truly were an all powerful all know eternal being and these were meant to be the "guide book" for all of humanity you'd think he'd be able to get his point across a little better.
User avatar #189 - sagedivinity (6 hours ago) [-]
No need to apologize. Have a nice day.
User avatar #91 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
I'm sorry, do you know the exact time he says it?

I have to get ready for an interview so I don't have the time to watch it right now.

I will say this though, before I have to go. I believe the existence of fossilized sea creatures like whales and clams being present at the Canyon could be further evidence for the flood.
#94 - deputydouchebag (21 hours ago) [-]
and 45 mins in he going more into detail.
#93 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Around 12 mins in.
User avatar #95 - sagedivinity (21 hours ago) [-]
Thank you.
#72 - I think you're ignoring the fact that creation sciences exist …  [+] (18 new replies) 23 hours ago on God +3
#99 - popeflatus (17 hours ago) [-]
Creation sciences do not really exist as there are no scientific papers to demonstrate the creation hypotheses. Some people believe that creationism is real but because there is no evidence to support it it's claims are dismissed.
#75 - deputydouchebag (23 hours ago) [-]
Ignoring the fact? I was assure you I was referencing that heavily. "creation science" is a joke. You know what let me do a simple google search for ya there pal. "99.9% of scientists believe in evolution" The whole "its just a theory" argument is ridiculous you know what else is "just a theory" gravity. And the "evidence" they find is also a joke and in no way proves their point. If ANY of their research proved a christian god we would't be having this conversation.
User avatar #81 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
Scientists say Evolutional Theory and Gravitational Theory for a reason. Because neither can be considered proven or disproven yet. Although, in the case of gravity, I think the theory part refers more to the theoretical mathematics not to the force itself. I could be wrong about that though.

It's fine if you believe creation science is ridiculous but it does exist. I just wasn't sure you were aware. By the way, I wasn't implying their theories were fact, I was saying the existence of the science was a fact just to clarify.

Where'd that percentage come from? I'd like to read it for myself.
Here's a study I found on the subject:
www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
#137 - Absolute Madman (14 hours ago) [-]
Actually, for something to become a theory, it has to be well founded and documented. People actually misuse the word Theory so much, that this wrong definition of"Thing that might be right or not" actually stuck. Also, you can be a creationist AND believe in evolution, since Genesis is NOT one of the historical books of the bible and it is in NO WAY meant to be taken as such.
#102 - popeflatus (17 hours ago) [-]
You misunderstand the definition of a scientific theory. A theory in science is the highest form of knowledge.

It begins with making observations about the universe and them forming ideas as to how these phenomena occur and how they work. This is called a hypothesis.

It is then tested by others in the field independently and if they are unable to show that the hypothesis can be falsified then it becomes a theory.

Theories in science have the property of being able to make accurate predictions about the universe and hence are able to form the technology of the world today.

Evolution is as strong a theory as General Relativity (Gravity), whereas creation "science" has no evidence to support it and has zero predictive power.
User avatar #185 - sagedivinity (9 hours ago) [-]
Creation science extends beyond just the creation story and actually focuses on the entirety of Genesis, including the flood. Certainly if the great flood happened and happened as detailed in the Bible than there should be evidence for the event. I believe there is, I've mentioned some of it here and there in this thread. Assuming the flood is true, there are many predictions that can be made and there have been tons of documents created by creationists on the subject. Proving creation itself is a much more challenging task. I'm not really sure what would be excepted as proof for creation anyway. However, there have been many articles on the topic of intelligent design.
#193 - popeflatus (1 hour ago) [-]
The flood of Noah is a scientifically verified myth and is based on a story that pre-dates the Jews by about 1000 years. Considering this flood has been proven to be mythical then there is no point "assuming" that any meaningful predictions can be made.

Genesis also contains the story of the Garden of Eden which biology, history, geology and anthopology, among others, has also been shown the be completely fictitious.

Creation science is not science.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
User avatar #86 - yarr (22 hours ago) [-]
That can't be true. 95 percent of Americans were religious?
2006 seems so long ago now.
#84 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Regardless of EVERYTHING. The sheer idiocy that a 2000 year old middle eastern book of fables has the answer to life is enough to turn me away from religion. So humanity started because a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat an entirely unnecessary fruit of knowledge? Come on whats more likely. Not to mention the absolute MOUNDS of evidence evolution has going for it and the 0 religion has.
User avatar #87 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
I wouldn't say there is zero evidence for the side of religion. That would imply everything said in all of the holy books of all of the the religions of the world is false.

I can't speak for other religions but, we know that historically Jesus existed and that he was a prophet, whether or not he was the son of God or a miracle worker is the debated part. I believe there is plenty of evidence all throughout the world for a global flood (ex: the Grand Canyon shows signs of having been shaped by massive flood waters over a short period of time and by a large amount of water). There is also evidence that proves that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed at the same time as detailed in the Bible.
#89 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Funny how you'd mention the grand canyon flood theory. Considering in the Bill Nye v.s Ken Ham debate Nye absolutely kills it in it matter of mins. Here's the full debate https://youtube.com/devicesupport
User avatar #187 - sagedivinity (8 hours ago) [-]
Ok, I'm back. Sorry about the wait.

Bill Nye mentioned layers of rock earth at the Canyon how it would be impossible for a flood to form those layers but it isn't impossible. If you put dirt in a bottle of water and shake, it forms visible layers of dirt. The difference between this and a flood would be that in a bottle the water doesn't leave but in a flood water is constantly shifting around and eventually runs off making intrusion more likely.

This article is more about the plants and sea creatures found there.
www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
#188 - deputydouchebag (6 hours ago) [-]
Sorry dude I'm done with this conversation. You wanna believe in fairy tails go ahead live your life by the context of an archaic book, I'm not gonna stop you. But remember there are literally THOUSANDS of sects of Christianity each one saying the other is wrong. People interpreting literature different is just what happens. If there truly were an all powerful all know eternal being and these were meant to be the "guide book" for all of humanity you'd think he'd be able to get his point across a little better.
User avatar #189 - sagedivinity (6 hours ago) [-]
No need to apologize. Have a nice day.
User avatar #91 - sagedivinity (22 hours ago) [-]
I'm sorry, do you know the exact time he says it?

I have to get ready for an interview so I don't have the time to watch it right now.

I will say this though, before I have to go. I believe the existence of fossilized sea creatures like whales and clams being present at the Canyon could be further evidence for the flood.
#94 - deputydouchebag (21 hours ago) [-]
and 45 mins in he going more into detail.
#93 - deputydouchebag (22 hours ago) [-]
Around 12 mins in.
User avatar #95 - sagedivinity (21 hours ago) [-]
Thank you.

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2350
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #5 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/22/2014) [-]
stickied by sagedivinity
**** you
User avatar #9 - ssjkirby (03/17/2015) [-]
Do you think that Deadpool seems like the type of guy who would enjoy Kingdom Hearts?
#8 - desacabose ONLINE (03/01/2015) [-]
User avatar #6 - garymotherfingoak (11/23/2014) [-]
#6 get
User avatar #7 to #6 - sagedivinity ONLINE (11/23/2014) [-]
What?
 Friends (0)