“First of all, there are no "millions of years." God created the universe and everything in it in 6 days, just about 6,000 years ago.”
>>Abundant physical evidence—radio-isotoope dating, tree ring dendrochronology, glacial ice cores, fossil coral, rivere varves, etc.—falsifies young earth creation models. There is no evidence to support the premise that any living organisms arose as the result of divine supernatural creation and abundant evidence which supports the conclusion that the biological diversity we observe is the result of descent with modification.
“And yes, dinosaurs did roam the earth with mankind, read the bible.”
>>Again: physical evidence falsifies this claim, establishing that dinosaurs became extinct prior to the origin of human primates. We missed being contemporaries by more than 60 million years.
“Open a Bible and look in Job.”
>>You’re speaking as if the bible were known to possess some inherent authority, or that there’s reason to believe that it accurately describes actual historic events—why? The bible is scripture, not evidence, and it demosntrably describes events that can not have happened as literally described (that whole global catastrophic flood myth, for example).
“There was NO big bang, because something CANNOT be created from nothing.”
>>Actually, it appears it can: virtual particles have been observed to arise from quantum vacuum.
But if for the sake of argument we accept this as given, we must logically conclude that nothing could ever exist (since there could never be a 'first something' for the next something to come from.)
“You sir, contrary to what some hairy men believe, did NOT evolve from an ape, or goop from the bottom of the ocean that grew feet and walked on earth.”
>>No theory of evolutions states or predicts that humans descend from apes or that “goop from the bottom of the ocean grew feet and walked on earth”. Really—if you’re going to criticize evolutionary theories you should take the time to understand what do and do not say.
“It has been proven many times over.”
>>What has been proven many times, exactly, and where can I find these proofs?
“I do agree, women are the physically weaker sex, and we cannot procreate without a man or his sperm.”
>>In human species this appears to be the general case. Did you have point? How does the fact that human emales are physically weaker than human males argue in support of supernatural creation, or undermine evolution?
“We were created to help our husbands succeed, and in the eyes of God we are man's equal.”
>>What is the evidence that humans –male or female—were created at all?
“Are you agnostic? The greek dictionary difines agnostic as "ignoramous, stupid, etc..."
>>Personally, I’m Jewish.
“Are you atheist?”That word is a lie because if one doesn't believe in God the Father, as God, then one will place his or her belief in something else.”
>>I don’t see how that follows. Atheism is simply the position that no god or gods exist. I will note that it is possible to reject beleief in "God the Father, as God" without being an atheist--one could instead place theie faith in a different god or gods--the Hindu pantheon, for example, or the Wiccan Triune Goddess.
“Things like money, themselves, their job, their family, their car, their house, therefore that one thing is his or her god.” >>Not unless they ascribe to money, their job, etc., the supernatural abilities, transcendent conciousness, etc. , characterisitcally attributed to gods.
It isn’t necessary to ‘believe in’ money, by the way, any more than it’s neccessary to ‘believe in’ jobs, families, cars, houses, etc.: we know they exist. Presumably you’ve seen them? If not, take a field trip to your local bank—I’m sure you’ll see multiple individuals handling some money (and you’ll probably pass cars, houses and perhaps families on the way there.)
