The only parts of science that religion contradicts are the ones that fall under evolution, which has not been proven. The only way that you could possibly say that the Bible says that the world is flat is if you called out the use of the poetic phrases 'the ends of the earth', 'the corners of the earth', etc. which are POETIC PHRASES. In fact, the Bible makes references to paleontology, geology etc. that were unproven by science until within the last century or two.

The only people to justify God in that way are the over-vocal idiots who scream about the evils of science and give Christianity a bad name.

If you believe in God and the Bible, you should believe that He doesn't have to follow scientific laws -- an omnipotent being can, by definition, do whatever it wants. Also, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness," means that everything in the Bible is true. The lies that people say in dialogue may not be true, but it's true that they said them. Jesus taught in parables, but he always said when something was a parable.

That wasn't his question -- he was asking where the first matter in the universe came from. It has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning, which means that there was a time before the universe in which there was no matter. It's impossible to create something from nothing, so therefore the universe itself is scientifically impossible. That means that the universe had to have been created through something other than science.

As for where God came from, God exists outside of time and has no beginning.

If a woman has sex and recieves money, that's illegal. But if she films it and puts it online, it's pornography? Pornography is definitely a bad thing.

There were eight people on the ark -- Noah, his three sons, and their wives. Therefore, if Ham, Shem, and Japheth had enough kids, they could have repopulated the world with very little incest.

I'm okay with people celebrating it, but there's no real reason to. The only reason Columbus was important was because he tried to go to India and hit another continent on the way. Lief Erikson was the first European to go to America, and is therefore more deserving of a national holiday. Also, Columbus enslaved the Native Americans and forced them to mine gold, despite the fact that there was no gold to mine where he landed.

The difference is in no way superficial -- I believe in micro evolution, because we have observed it. However, there is no proof that it's even possible for speciation to occur, meaning that macro evolution is still unproven.

Also, most religions believe that their god created the universe, and state the way in which he/she/it/they did so. Evolution's tenet of genetic variation through natural selection goes against many of these, including the Genesis account, and is therefore incompatible with their religion.

a/a=1 -- true for any number

0/a=0 -- true for any number

if a=0, then 0/0=0 and 0/0=1

0=1 -- transitive property

1=2 -- property of addition

Since most religions have a creation story that is entirely incongruous with the Theory of General Evolution, I would say that evolution disputes with these religions and therefore promotes atheism.

If you have no food, it IS possible to walk to your neighbor's house but not across the country. This is a more accurate description of my viewpoint.

There are many reasons why Luigi is superior to Mario. First off, He's taller and can jump higher. Mario is short and fat, while Luigi is much more athletic. In addition, while Mario is constantly battling Bowser and Wario, Luigi is mostly staying peaceful, with his main antagonist (Waluigi) being a petty criminal who first appeared in a tennis game. Also, the main argument against Luigi is that he's a coward. However, in Luigi's mansion he fends off tons of ghostly Boos to rescue Mario. In addition, in the SM64DS (and maybe the SM64, I haven't played that) Mario's special ability is to swell up like a balloon and float around, while Luigi turns invisible and walks through walls. Plus, he can walk on water, and in some games he shoots lightning instead of fireballs.

Finally, he actually has a girl. You may say, "What? Mario's got Princess Peach! He rescues her all the time!" but bear with me. In SMB2 we discover that Peach can create a sphere of flames and almost fly. She's more powerful than Mario, or pretty much anyone else in the franchise. Also, most of the times that she's captured she's standing right next to the key to Bowser's destruction. When Mario does rescue her, she rewards him with a kiss on the nose -- not even the lips, the nose! Then, when Baby Bowser reveals that Peach is his mother, she displays no surprise, thus revealing that she's been having sex with Bowser all along. He might be raping her, but she displays no revulsion at the sight of her children. The only explanation is that Peach and Bowser are secretly in love, leaving Mario without a girl. Daisy, on the other hand, has never shown us any hint that she has anything but a steady relationship with Luigi. Plus, she's way hotter.

All of this combines into uncontroversial fact -- Luigi is better than Mario.