Similar posts

Unknown author #fundie creationworldview.org

Evolutionists do not want us to teach in our public schools the science that shows the validity of creation. They want us to teach only their (with apologies to Rudyard Kipling) "Just So Stories."

Personally, I believe that we should teach evolution side-by-side with creation giving equal scientific emphasis and have our students learn to think critically. Let us show them both and allow them to decide for themselves which one they will believe because origins is a faith position. Evolutionists reject this two model approach to teaching about origins because they inherently know that they will lose every time.

If they will not allow the teaching in our public schools of the science to support creation and adamantly defend the teaching of evolution only, that is fine with me - as long as we teach the students more about evolution than the evolutionists do. If we teach students ALL about evolution then they will realize that evolution is intellectually bankrupt.

The solution to evolution is education!

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about the implications of the Laws of Science, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, and how these Laws disprove evolution. Please allow us to teach the truth about the whole and complete nature of natural processes, like photosynthesis and metamorphosis, and how these could not possibly come into existence by random chance. Please allow us to teach the truth about what is really in the ground, like the out of order layers and polystrate fossils, as opposed to what evolutionists say is in the ground.

Please allow us to teach the truth about the hoaxes and frauds that have been authenticated and perpetuated by evolutionists then later had to be retracted. Please allow us to teach the truth about: Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, English Peppered Moths, the Horse Series, Pithecanthropus alalus, Galapagos Finch Beaks, embryonic recapitulation and the Monera.

Please allow us to teach the students the truth about how the acceptance of evolution is the foundational justification to promote: human racism, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness, pornography, and all the other immoral and unethical activities within our society.

Yes, I am convinced! We need to teach more about evolution in our public schools, not less!

With this admonition in mind, I want to give you a Primer on the Scientific Reasons that Evolution is Wrong. The following are only thirty basic points and are by no means the total list that we might make. This is just a list that you may refer to when you want a quick way to look up what is wrong with evolution.

1. The evolution of one kind into another kind is not happening in a measurable way in the present, nor can it be proven to have occurred in the past.

2. No new kinds of organisms are being observed coming from previously existing organisms. (We discover new kinds that we have never cataloged before, but this only shows our ignorance of their existence.)

3. No new structures or organs have been observed coming into existence. All observed structures or organs are fully formed when first observed. (The only observed changes to current structures or organs come from their decay and degradation.)

4. There are distinct gaps between the known kinds of organisms. One kind is not observed to change into another kind. We do not observe the "missing links" because they are missing, not there, don't exist.

5. Life only comes from life and reproduces after its own kind. Life does not come from non-living material. Life does not spontaneously generate itself.

6. Mutations, the supposed driving mechanisms of evolution, are random in nature and are neutral or harmful. They do not accumulate beneficially. Mutations produce the wrong kind of change and will not provide for the upward progressive increase in intelligence or complexity required by evolutionists.

7. We observe stasis, not change, in nature. Extinction is a proof of creation. We do not find change in the fossil record nor can we measure it in the present. Animal and plant kinds that exist today retain the same appearance but are smaller in size than their known predecessors.

8. The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced ("younger" and "older" layers found in repeating sequences). "Out of place" fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

9. Polystrate fossils, fossils which penetrate two or more layers of the fossil record (most often trees), are common throughout the fossil record. In rare cases even large animal skeletons have been found in vertical position rather than in a horizontal position.

10. Life forms are found to be complex even in the "oldest" layers of the fossil record. For example, various species of Trilobites are found to have very sophisticated eyesight. Yet evolutionists say that these creatures supposedly evolved into existence when the first multiple celled life forms began to evolve some 620 million supposed years ago.

11. Nature does not provide us with the proof for the "Tree of Life" so glibly talked about by evolutionists. We do not find life starting as simple and then branching upward and outward as it becomes more and more complex. We do not find that life forms follow the pattern of a single tree trunk with many branches. The physical evidence provided by nature gives a picture of an extremely large orchard with all plant and animal types represented from the beginning with their own individual trunks and branches producing the variations within kinds that we have today, but no new kinds progressing from previous kinds.

12. There are no transitional forms found in the fossil record. In spite of all the reports people may have heard, we have never found the fossil of a plant or an animal which is a true intermediate form. The "missing links" are missing because they are missing.

13. Be wary of artists renderings. An artists depiction, conception or illustration is imaginary. Simply because we see an artists illustration of a cow becoming a whale doesn't make it so. Human desire and imagination are not evidence.

14. Ancient man was not primitive. Ancient human cultures had more complex languages than we do today. The engineering feats of the past cultures are well recognized and in some cases have not been duplicated in modern times. There never was a Stone Age, Bronze Age or Iron Age. Man has used stone, bronze and iron tools in all ages of past human activity. Indeed, there is nothing new under the sun.

The observed Laws of Science contradict the various theories of evolution.

15. The law of Cause and Effect not only describes that for every effect there must have been a cause, it also tells us that the cause must be greater than the effect. No one can create anything greater than themselves. You do not get an increase in intelligence or complexity without the input from a greater intelligence.

16. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics work contrary to evolutionary belief. The First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Energy Conservation) proves that the universe cannot be the reason for its own existence. According to the First Law the universe cannot have been anything less than it is, and if it cannot have been anything less than it is, it had to come into existence whole and complete. If the universe came into existence whole and complete, then it had to be created. Simply adding energy to a system will not cause an increase in intelligence or complexity. The addition of undirected energy to a system accomplishes nothing, except possibly for the destruction of that system.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy) proves that evolution cannot happen. The Second Law stipulates (a poor attempt by scientists to describe The Curse of Genesis Chapter 3 and Revelation) that in all activities some of the energy becomes unavailable for further useful work. The universe is running down, not up.

17. The concept of a "Big Bang" producing the universe is absolutely illogical. Explosions do not produce ever increasing order and structure. Explosions produce disorder and chaos. Explosions break things down or destroy what was previously ordered.

18. There is no substantiated method in nature which would allow stars to be "born." The Gas Laws prove that the pressure of hot gases expanding outward from a center is far greater than the gravitational force drawing them towards a center. Stars could not evolve into existence.

19. The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind.

20. The input of undirected energy accomplishes nothing. The input of undirected energy will destroy a system, not build it up. Only the input from a greater intelligence will cause a beneficial increase in order and/or complexity.

21. Not only must there be the input from a greater intelligence in order to produce an increase in complexity and/or intelligence, that intelligence must have a preconceived plan of action. No master craftsman would start to build without first having a plan, a blueprint.

22. In order for evolution to be true atoms must form useful molecules such as enzymes, amino acids and proteins by random chance. It is mathematically impossible for these molecules, much less the far larger DNA molecule, to form by random action in nature. It cannot happen!

23. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are supposed to be the driving forces of progressive upward evolution. There are no selective benefits for a supposed transitional form. There would be no advantage for a creature to have a half-evolved eye or a half-evolved wing. Indeed, the existence of such structures would be detrimental and serve only to eliminate, not perpetuate, such disfigured organisms from a given population.

24. The presumed intermediates required by evolution do not exist. The missing links are missing because they are missing. Reptilian scales do not/cannot become feathers. These structures originate from different cells within the skin tissue. Reptilian lungs do not/cannot change to become avian (bird) lungs. Air flows in and out of reptilian lungs just as in humans. Bird lungs have a flow through design.

25. Living organisms are incredibly complex and have specific design features. In order to make this point please consider the following partial list: woodpecker tongue, Bombardier Beetle chemistry, insect metamorphosis, Giraffe heart and arterial system, Gecko feet and human eyes (or human brains for that matter).

26. Single-celled organisms such as bacteria, amoeba and algae have the same degree of complexity within them that multiple-celled organisms have within them. Single-celled organisms have a skeleton, respiratory system, digestion and elimination systems, circulatory system, reproductive system, command and communication system.

27. Life forms are irreducibly complex. To code for RNA production within a cell you must already have whole and complete DNA. To make DNA you must already have whole and complete RNA. In addition, it requires about 70 proteins to fabricate a DNA molecule, but you must have whole and complete DNA to fabricate those proteins.

28. When we see design we know that there is/was a designer. The human mind intrinsically knows the difference between randomness and design. When we see a plastic hair comb, one of the simplest structures ever designed and consisting of only one part, we know that it was designed and made through intelligent effort. A plastic hair comb does not come into existence by random chance.

If we see three stones sitting on the bottom of a clear stream we know that they got there by the random action of the water current. If we see the same three stones piled up one on top of the other sitting on the bank of that stream we know that an outside intelligence placed them there.

We see design throughout nature. For good health blood must clot when it gets outside the body, but must not clot inside the body. In addition, it must stop clotting and not continue to clot once exposed to the outside. The molecular motors which turn the cilia of cells look exactly like little electric motors complete with bearings, shaft and housing. Our bodies must make decisions to accept or reject foreign substances or our immunological system does not work. Our bodies must also manufacture effective countermeasures without killing us at the same time.

29. Charles Darwin stated that the existence of vestigial and retrogressive organs and structures in the human body were essential proofs of evolution. It has now been determined that there are NO vestigial or retrogressive organs or structures in a human body!

30. Evolutionary theories remain incapable of explaining the existence of sex, symbiosis or altruism.

I reiterate that the solution to evolution is education! If we teach the true facts of science and teach our people to think critically they will never believe the Just So Stories of the evolutionists.

Besides, what is so dangerous about the facts that support creation?

A belief in creation destroys the works of the Devil!

That is what is so important about it and why evolutionists cling to their faith position concerning it. Evolution is a religion of conveniences. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which people may mentally justify that there is no God. The acceptance of evolution is the only way in which they may mentally justify that they may lead a sinless life with Jesus Christ. The Bible declares that this is manifest delusion.

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

Truth is Hate to Those Who Hate the Truth! #fundie youtube.com

Evolution makes no sense at all. I just don't see how any intelligent person could believe such nonsense. I mean, have you ever seen an ape that could be taught to do algebra? No! Other than the most basic skills (which a dog can also be taught), an ape does not have the capacity to learn anywhere near the human level. Apes are dumb! You can say a dog is smart (and it might be), but it can't logic like a human being can.

Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on folks, you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists. Notice that I didn't call them "scientists" because there is NOTHING scientific about evolution. Science by it's very definition means "the study of." To "study" something, it must be observable. Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab. Do you realize that evolutionists CANNOT display even ONE single proof of evolution...NOT ONE! Dinosaur fossils don't prove anything except that they existed. Whether dinosaurs existed in Biblical times or during a pre-Adamic period is debatable amongst theologians. Many preachers believe that Lucifer operated a kingdom upon the earth prior to Genesis 1:2. The Bible does support this theory with credible evidence. This is commonly known as the "gap theory." Regardless, the fact that dinosaurs once inhabited this earth adds no credibility to the THEORY of evolution.

(LATER)

Evolution is for stupid people, stupid because they refuse to acknowledge the Word of God in their life. There is NO WAY you can believe the Bible and evolution. But you say, "what about 'theistic evolution' where God created everything and then allowed it to evolve? I'm glad you asked. There is no such teaching found in the Bible. Genesis chapter one is very clear that God created this earth as we know it today in 6 days. "IF" there was a pre-Adamic creation, it was destroyed according to Genesis 1:2. I won't be dogmatic as to whether or not there was a pre-Adamic time period, but the Bible is certainly dogmatic that all life on this earth today was created within the six days of creation. The Bible is very accurate in it's chronology. The Bible dates itself from creation up until the end of the Old Testament. The Bible dates creation at approximately 4,000 B.C. This means that all life on earth today was created about 6,000 years ago! There was no evolutionary process! There is nothing to prove the THEORY of evolution (and that's all evolution really is...a bogus theory).

The fact that the "theory" of evolution is missing a critical link (the "missing link") should speak volumes as to the credibility of such a wild theory. The "missing link" is the Neanderthal man (the ape man). There is simply NO evidence of such theories. The few skeletal remains which have been dug up and claimed to be prehistoric could easily be the fossil remains of modern men. Bone structure also varies from one ethnic background to another. It is very possible to dig up a skeleton with more rounded bones (which is more common in African anatomy). This is NO evidence of evolution, but of variances in human anatomy. East Asian people (such as China) have very unique facial features which are more pronounced. Evolutionists have not discovered a Neanderthal man! You can believe anything if you repeat it to yourself long enough. Many people want to believe evolution because it relives them of the horrifying possibility that there might actually be a holy God watching how we live. Whether you believe there is a God or not, the thought of both possibilities is very freighting. I believe in God.?

Ken Ham #fundie facebook.com

As I demonstrated in my debate with Bill Nye in February, creationists can be—and are!—great scientists. No one in their right mind would argue that Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, or Francis Bacon (inventor of the scientific method) hindered science. Nor would they say that Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner, can’t do science. Observational or experimental science—the kind of science that deals with the present and is testable, repeatable, and observable—does not require a belief in evolution! That’s why both creationists and evolutionists can do amazing things like being involved in building space shuttles and finding cures for diseases. However, when you move into historical science—the kind of science (knowledge) that deals with origins (beliefs about the past), and is not directly observable, repeatable, or testable—your model of origins will determine how you interpret the evidence of the present. It all depends on your starting point! Is it man’s fallible opinion about the past or God’s infallible Word?

Mario Seiglie #fundie ucg.org

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn’t believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly “evolved” or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the “molecules to man” theory—we’ll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now “evolving” into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin’s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You’ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it’s only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more “faith” to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn’t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator’s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.

Anonymous #racist cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com

The Inhunamity of Utopian Europe

Instead of the religion and the law by which they were in a great politick communion with the Christian world, they have constructed their Republick on three bases, all fundamentally opposite to those on which the communities of Europe are built. Its foundation is laid in Regicide; in Jacobinism; and in Atheisim; and it has jointed to those principles, a body of systematick manners which secures their operation. – Edmund Burke

When Russell Kirk published his book The Conservative Mind, Thomas Molnar commented that Kirk had proved there were conservative-minded American thinkers but had failed to show they had any major impact on the American experiment in government. A point well taken. At every critical juncture in the early days of the American republic, it was the secular utopians, men like Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, and Marshall, who won the day and put their radical imprint on the American government. The ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality were lurking in the foundational documents of the U. S. Constitution. And there was great bloodshed; when the radical nature of the American government was challenged in the 1860s, the savage god of the utopians unleashed his terrible swift sword on the offending white, Christian Europeans of the South. The war cry then, as it is now, was liberty, equality, and fraternity!

It’s significant that Lafayette, a supporter of the American Revolution, also became part of France’s regicide government. There are many differences in style between the two revolutions, the American and the French, but the spirit animating both is the same: it is the spirit of the archangel Satan.

The presence of an anti-Christian, anti-white nation such as the United States on the world stage would not be as great a danger to white people as it now is if the other European nations were not smaller caricatures of the United States. Every European nation is following in the United States’ footsteps, at slightly slower rates, because they have more traditional European baggage to throw away before they completely succumb to liberalism and its attendant negro-worship.

It is always encouraging when a European nation objects to any part of the American liberal agenda. For instance, I don’t think Russia is a sound nation – they did not, as Solzhenitsyn had hoped, reject the materialism of western democracy when Russia abandoned communism. And they have some negro athletes (one is too many) on their sport teams, but they did issue a counter-attack against America’s deification of sodomy. It was quite heartening to see Russia celebrating the traditional family over and against America’s satanic family ideal.

I wish more European nations would resist American influence, but unfortunately the hatred of the white race and the Christian religion is a virulent virus throughout the European world. It will take more than the removal of the United States to kill the virus; it will take a resurgence of the European spirit, which is undemocratic, militantly Christian, and unapologetically racist.

It grates on conservatives’ nerves (something akin to fingernails scraping a blackboard) when you suggest that America was not founded on sound conservative principles, but isn’t it quite obvious that our negro-worshipping, sodomite present is linked to our anti-European past? What was good in America had nothing to do with the democratic idea men, but it had everything to do with the European Americans who brought the faith and ethos of the white man to America. What binds together the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and all the European revolutions that have followed in their wake is a commitment to an utopian, democratic future that has no place for a God with a heart of flesh and for the people who championed that God. What Butterfield admired in the English, prior to the 20th century, was that they went into the future holding onto the strings of their past. Once England followed the American and French example and cut those strings connecting Britons to their past, the sacred soil of Christian Britain became fertile ground for the growth of Islam and negro-worship. Without a past, we are not a people, we are just abstractions of the liberals’ utopian minds, to be eliminated whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. And the expedient moment has come: The white man must be eliminated, to make way for a new people purged of the sins of the past and ready to live and strive in the new non-Christian, non-white utopia of the future.

One of the great movies of all time is The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. The movie tells the story of Wilhelm Grimm’s (the ‘impractical’ brother) efforts to preserve the folk tales of his people that we now call Grimms’ fairy tales. At one point in the film, Wilhelm becomes sick and appears to be dying. He has collected the tales in his head, but he has not yet put them on paper. All the people from Fairyland – Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, the Frog Prince, and so on – come before Wilhelm in a dream sequence and beg him not to die so that they will not die. On Wilhelm Grimm rests the fate of fairytale Europe.

Wilhelm does not die and the fairytale people live to nourish and enrich the lives of all true Europeans. But their fate, the fairytale people of Europe, once again hangs in the balance. Such folk tales, many that go all the way back to the time of our Lord and perhaps were told by Him when He trod on England’s green and pleasant land, came from the lifeblood of the European people. If Europeans no longer believe they are a people with a great spiritual heritage, they will not preserve their past; they will be Undines, resembling human beings on the outside, but inwardly lacking an animating spirit. Our Lord told us that unless we become as little children we will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The fairytale comprehension of life, represented by those tales collected by Wilhelm Grimm, is all in all. Only the Europeans saw that it was not tragic that “we are such stuff as dreams are made on.” A dream that is grounded in the visionary heart of the European people is a dream that brings us face to face with our Lord on the road to Emmaus. “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us by the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?” Of course the apostles’ hearts burned within them, and did not our hearts burn within us when we lived in fairytale Europe rather than in multicultural Europe?

The churches have played their part, a diabolical part, in killing the European people. “Of what use is a past when you have the anointed ones to tell you about God?” Of what use indeed? I think an antique European would answer the godded men with this question: “Of what use is the historical Jesus?” If you reject the flesh-and-blood people who loved Christ enough to build their civilization with Him as the incarnate center, then where is our incarnate Lord to be found? In the midst of multi-cultural Babylon? Or is He to be found in the future? If that is the case, then how do we differ from the Jews, who reject the historical Jesus but look to the future for the coming of their God. In Ian Maclaren’s great masterpiece Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush, in the chapter called “His Mother’s Sermon,” a young minister returns to his hometown to preach his first sermon. He is filled with Biblical history and the latest university-taught theology, but right before he ascends the pulpit, he remembers the words of his mother on her death bed:

“I canna see ye noo, John, but I know yir there, and I’ve just one other wish. If God calls ye to the ministry, ye’ill no refuse, an’ the first day ye preach in yir ain kirk, speak a gude word for Jesus Christ, an’ John, I’ll hear ye that day, though ye’ll no see me, and I’ll be satisfied.”

As the bred-in-the-bone Europeans die out, the Europeans with hearts of flesh, there is no one left to “speak a gude word for Jesus Christ.” Our fairy king of Europe has faded away and been replaced by the negro, because His people have faded away.

I don’t know if Christ actually set foot on England’s green and pleasant land when He was on this earth in the flesh. I like to think He did, but it is not of vital importance. The important thing is that He visited Europe in the flesh through His people. When we are in contact with His Europe we are just as close to Him as the apostles were on the road to Emmaus. I shall never forget the feeling of awe that came over me some forty years ago when I set foot in Britain. The land of Shakespeare, Scott, and Dickens, an important part of His Europe! How can we allow such a fairytale land to become the haven of Muslims and colored heathens? Anthony Jacob, after listing the white man’s considerable material accomplishments, proceeds to the real significance of the white man’s accomplishment: It is white people who built the only civilization that was dedicated to something more than material things; their civilization was consecrated to Him who was and is the personal God above the material dust of this world. I can’t read any classic work of European literature or view an old movie that depicts Europeans from long ago without feeling sadness and anger. Sadness because of that which is lost, anger against those who destroyed Christian Europe and against those Europeans who refuse to fight for its restoration. Our love of our people in and through the historical Christ built Christian Europe. A renewal of that love, for them and for Him, will restore Christian Europe.

I’m at the age when a lot of my friends and relatives are getting sick and dying. Last year, for instance, I watched my father die very slowly and inhumanely in the hands of an inhumane medical staff. And in the past four months I witnessed the slow painful death of a friend, who also suffered a needlessly painful death at the hands of an inhumane medical staff. My run-ins with modern “medicine” are not isolated incidents. There is an overwhelming testimony building, from liberals, grazers, and conservatives, that there is something monstrous going on in the medical profession. How could it be otherwise? The churches jettisoned the European Christ for a theory of God, and the liberals abandoned Him for the negro gods. The issue isn’t whether there were or were not American conservative thinkers; both Kirk and Molnar were wrong when they placed thought, divorced from the lifeblood of the European people, at the center of existence. To hell with that kind of abstract existence. Everything in modern Liberaldom now consists of statistics. My father was past ninety; what difference did it make if he starved to death; at best he had one or two more years. My neighbor had two terminal diseases; what difference did it make if she was left in bed without any attempts to move her limbs except when her husband or friends came in to do it? What difference does anything make since we all are doomed to suffer and die? It used to make a difference to Christian Europeans. They did not make their humanity the slave of inhuman statistics. You prolong life, even if it is aged life, because He wants it that way. We all die, certainly, but doesn’t it behoove Christian Europeans to place a Christ-like presence before the sick and dying so that they pass into eternity with Christ’s name on their lips? The brave new world is upon us. When He is absent, because the Europeans have gone whoring after other gods, then all is “cheerless, dark, and deadly.” The Murdstones are two of the most consummate villains in all of literature, and they commit all their villainies in the name of religion despite the fact that there is nothing Christian in their religion: “’And do you know I must say, sir,’ he continued, mildly laying his head on one side, ‘that I DON’T find authority for Mr. and Miss Murdstone in the New Testament?’” Indeed, that is the point. What is the liberals’ and the church men’s authority for this ‘utopia’ they have thrust upon us? It is certainly NOT His authority. And what other authority is there for a European?

Dostoyevsky’s underground man said that, “A man lives his whole life to prove he is not a piano key.” Yes, but let us deepen the underground man’s defiant declaration: “A man lives his whole life so that he can say, ‘Into thy hands I commend my spirit, O Lord.” That is what being a European is all about. +

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. Your fairy story about bacteria randomly transforming into all forms of life via death, destruction, corruption and evil is not observable, not testable, and not repeatable. Therefore, by definition, it is not science.

If darwinists knew how science worked, then they would therefore reject darwinism for the exact reasons that I've just stated it.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Evolution makes no sense at all. I just don't see how any intelligent person could believe such nonsense. I mean, have you ever seen an ape that could be taught to do algebra? No! Other than the most basic skills (which a dog can also be taught), an ape does not have the capacity to learn anywhere near the human level. Apes are dumb! You can say a dog is smart (and it might be), but it can't logic like a human being can.

Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on folks, you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist. This is what is known as the "missing link" by evolutionists. Notice that I didn't call them "scientists" because there is NOTHING scientific about evolution. Science by it's very definition means "the study of." To "study" something, it must be observable. Not only is evolution not observable, it is not testable or repeatable in a lab. Do you realize that evolutionists CANNOT display even ONE single proof of evolution...NOT ONE! Dinosaur fossils don't prove anything except that they existed. Whether dinosaurs existed in Biblical times or during a pre-Adamic period is debatable amongst theologians. Many preachers believe that Lucifer operated a kingdom upon the earth prior to Genesis 1:2. The Bible does support this theory with credible evidence. This is commonly known as the "gap theory." Regardless, the fact that dinosaurs once inhabited this earth adds no credibility to the THEORY of evolution.

Evolution is for stupid people, stupid because they refuse to acknowledge the Word of God in their life. There is NO WAY you can believe the Bible and evolution. But you say, "what about 'theistic evolution' where God created everything and then allowed it to evolve? I'm glad you asked. There is no such teaching found in the Bible. Genesis chapter one is very clear that God created this earth as we know it today in 6 days. "IF" there was a pre-Adamic creation, it was destroyed according to Genesis 1:2. I won't be dogmatic as to whether or not there was a pre-Adamic time period, but the Bible is certainly dogmatic that all life on this earth today was created within the six days of creation. The Bible is very accurate in it's chronology. The Bible dates itself from creation up until the end of the Old Testament. The Bible dates creation at approximately 4,000 B.C. This means that all life on earth today was created about 6,000 years ago! There was no evolutionary process! There is nothing to prove the THEORY of evolution (and that's all evolution really is...a bogus theory).

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

I know the real God is real.

Fairy-tale characters are for darwinists, i.e. many/most darwinist believe space aliens jizzed on the earth to create bacteria which proceeded to transform into all forms of life. Those space aliens with magical jizz are fairy-tale characters. You believe in the evolution fairy-tale, so fairy-tale characters are right up your alley!

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

If the Archaeopteryx specimens really are genuine, there are several reasons why Archaeopteryx can be considered to be a bird and not a reptile:

1 - Scientists say it is only a bird and not a transitional species. It is significant that a special scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided by the evolutionists that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.

Therefore, the scientific community now officially declares Archaeopteryx to be, not a transitional species, but only a bird!

2 - How could scales turn into feathers? Although zealous evolutionists have always claimed that this creature is a descendant of the reptiles and the ancestor of the birds, yet they do not explain how the scales on a reptile can change into feathers.

3 - Bones like a bird. Archaeopteryx is said to have thin, hollow wing and leg bones—such as a bird has.

4 - Not earlier than birds. Archaeopteryx does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period (the Jurassic) in which Archaeopteryx was found.

5 - It has modern bird feathers. The feathers on Archaeopteryx appear identical to modern feathers.

"But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us."—*A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 1020.

6 - No intermediate feathers ever found. Transition from scales to feathers would require many intermediate steps, but none have ever been found.

7 - Well-developed wings. The wings of Archaeopteryx were well-developed, and the bird probably could fly well.

8 - Wings designed for flight. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are asymmetrical, that is the shaft does not have the same amount of feathers on both sides. This is the way feathers on flying birds are designed. In contrast, feathers on ostriches, rheas, and other flightless birds, or poor flyers (such as chickens) have fairly symmetrical feathers.

"The significance of asymmetrical feathers is that they indicate the capability of flying; non-flying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings."—*E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 248.

9 - No prior transitions. There ought to be transitional species from reptile to Archaeopteryx, but this is not the case. It cannot be a connecting link between reptile and bird, for there are no transitions to bridge the immense gap leading from it to the reptile. It has fully developed bird wing-bones and flight feathers.

10 - Bird-like in most respects. Archaeopteryx gives evidence of being a regular bird in every way, except that it differs in certain features: (1) the lack of a sternum, (2) three digits on its wings, and (3) a reptile-like head, but there are explanations for all three points. Here they are:

[a] - Lack of a sternum. Archaeopteryx had no sternum, but although the wings of some birds today attach to the sternum, others attach to the furcula (wishbone). Archaeopteryx had a large furcula, so this would be no problem.

"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.

- Digits on its wings. Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. Modern birds with wing claws include the hoatzin (Oplsthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternum—such as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.

[c] - The shape of its skull. It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says the head is shaped more like a bird.

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the ‘London’ specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that ‘Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird."—*Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-113.

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: ‘A vertebrate with feathers.’ Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

11 - Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird; and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: How could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creature birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p. 160.

12 - Other birds had teeth. It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds that also had teeth.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)."—*P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), pp. 196-197.

13 - Could be a unique bird. Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.

The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck and has fur, but lays eggs; in spite of its egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk and chews its food with plates instead of with teeth. The male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole; but, like a duck, it has webs between its toes. It uses sonar underwater.

The platypus is definitely far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, and there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.

14 - Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, *Romer, the well-known paleontologist, said this::

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presume thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later ‘proper’ birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), p. 1.

Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

ARCHAEOPTERYX—That name surely sounds scientific. But it covers, what many scientists consider to be, yet another contrived hoax. Notice how carefully each "feather" is separated from the one next to it. None overlay others, as would occur if the bird was pressed flat by natural conditions. Instead, the artist carefully scratched out separated "feathers."

15 - Modern birds in same strata. Bones of modern birds have been found in Colorado in the same geologic rock strata—the Jurassic—in which archaeopteryx was found (Science 199, January 20, 1978). According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be; for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of by researchers in Utah.

16 - Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,—but we also find birds below it!

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46 [also see Nature 322, August 21, 1986; Science 253, July 5, 1991].

No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic; but, within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx. More information on this Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

Author Steve Ham explores the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Recently I had the opportunity to read and review the book Counseling the Hard Cases.1 This book places the biblical counseling movement on display as it reports the process and outcomes of real-life counseling cases. As a biblical creationist, I was continually encouraged to find the counselors’ dedication to the sufficiency of Scripture for helping real people with real problems. While preparing a review of this book as a graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, I became even more aware of the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

I noticed the strong correlations between biblical creationists and biblical counselors in the first chapter of Counseling the Hard Cases. Both positions face accusations revolving around the nature of authority and science. For example, many “Christian counselors” are convinced that the use of such treatments as hypnosis or psychotropic drugs are based on strong scientific research and analysis.2 Persuaded that this research comes from an authoritative source, they then integrate it into their counseling methodology.

Like most “Christian counselors,” trained biblical counselors typically take great care to refer counselees to doctors for necessary medical diagnosis and treatment of their physical ailments. However, for spiritual issues the biblical counselor seeks to ensure that Scripture is seen as the supreme authority and sufficient to help all believers deal with trials (suffering) or sin in their lives. Biblical counselors also should acquaint themselves with the research related to such things as medication, noting which recommendations are based upon repeatable, testable observations and which are based on assumptions influenced by a secular worldview. This is also why biblical counselors prefer to work in partnership with physicians who are Bible-believing Christians. In recognition of secular worldview influences in the medical community, many biblical counselors have armed counselees with questions to ask their practitioners who prescribe medications such as anti-depressants. Especially if a diagnosis is as broad as the term “chemical imbalance,” biblical counselors will encourage questions such as the following:

• What tests were performed to prove that the problem exists?
• What proof do you have that the problem you discovered is not merely a symptom of a deeper problem?
• What proof do you have that the medication you are prescribing truly corrects the problem?

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

In today’s world it seems nearly every social or relational problem known to man is categorized by a descriptively named disorder and often treated by some psychotropic drug. In many cases, counselors and others re-label sinful responses to situations in a way that removes personal responsibility. For example, lashing out at your children in anger is now known as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and “it’s not your fault” that you act the way you do. If your son consistently disobeys your authority as his parent, he will likely be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These disorders are often depicted as villains maliciously attacking their victims as if they were a force unto themselves. When seen in this light, these problems become the cause of debilitation for many people who find themselves lost in a hopeless dependence on secular psychological techniques and prescription medication.

This wrong perception of relational problems that are ultimately rooted in sinful thoughts and behaviors has sadly become commonplace even in the church. Many counseling practitioners have attempted to make a compatible partnership between Christian doctrine and worldly philosophies in the diagnosis and treatment of the human soul.[

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

To address this issue, Counseling the Hard Cases reports on real-life case studies from eleven experienced biblical counselors. Compiled by editors Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, the introduction clearly sets forth the theme for this collection of biblical counseling case studies.4 In the development of the modern biblical counseling movement over the last fifty years, persuasive evidence shows that “Scripture is comprehensively sufficient to do ministry with people experiencing profound difficulties in their lives” (p. 23).

While the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling is the basic thesis of the book, in each of the hard cases the editors have been careful to display this concept practically in the lives of real people. Even for those who are not skeptical about biblical counseling, the results of these hard cases were amazing and gave great cause for rejoicing in the redeeming grace found in the Cross of Christ.

The biblical counseling movement has been criticized by those who are skeptical of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling. Secular psychology understandably views the Bible as irrelevant, but many “Christian counselors” acknowledge the Bible’s relevance yet deny its sufficiency in the way that they practically advise their counselees. We expect people with a purely naturalistic view of the human condition to dismiss biblical wisdom in counseling, and therefore this book primarily answers the criticisms of “Christian counseling.”

One of the primary criticisms of biblical counselors is that they use the Bible to somehow replace science and therefore ignore the consensus of secular research for dealing with psychological problems. But the proof of scriptural sufficiency for biblical counseling is convincingly “in the pudding.”5 This book helps put to rest the misconception that biblical counselors ignore science as the reader observes them partnering with trained physicians to treat real and identifiable physical problems. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Christ, through the voice of the counselor, that the application of biblical truth guides a responsive counselee to healing and sanctification.

When discussing counseling methods, a key question to ask is this: does the authority to diagnose the many human dysfunctional behaviors come from man’s word or God’s Word? Heath Lambert is quick to point out that the counseling debate is profoundly centered in presuppositions. He refers to Jay Adams, who stated that his presupposition in counseling methodology is “the inerrant Bible as the standard of all faith and practice” (p. 8). It is clear that each of the contributing authors commences his or her counseling approach with the same presupposition as Adams. To some, this presupposition may seem like an intellectual debate about methodologies. But the ten extraordinary cases presented in the book consistently confirm the truth of this idea in real-life situations as the hope of Christ transforms lives and frees people from bondage to sinful thoughts and behaviors. So, a presuppositional approach to Scripture is not simply a debate about truth; it is also entirely practical.

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

Like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook.

Other accusations against the biblical counseling movement have come from a misinterpretation of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Critics claim that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore it is ill-equipped to help with so-called psychological disorders. The answers to such claims are well stated in this book.

First, secular psychology fails to prove that many of the human problems “classified as mental illnesses” are related to any real “disease or illness at all” (p. 8). This ultimately means that the “science” of secular psychology has its own problems with regard to the definition of observational (i.e., testable, repeatable) science, by which a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and either proven or denied. As a prime example, no one really knows how certain neurotransmitters relate to conditions like depression and anxiety. Yet various medications are prescribed to correct imbalances that have not been accurately defined.

Second, critics from the Christian counseling movement suggest that biblical counselors are using the Bible in place of “science” or as a “science” textbook. But, like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook. Within all the different genres that Scripture takes, the biblical counselor starts with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word. So, instead of viewing human problems in the light of a secular label such as a phobia or disorder, biblical counselors present human problems as Scripture does—in terms of the problem of human sin and suffering and the answer in the gospel.

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

Reading through each of the hard cases, one soon comes to the realization that these scriptural truths are not just words on a page. Instead, the case studies show there truly is transformational power in the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The same God who saves us from everlasting destruction also brings us into a life that exemplifies His grace. Even more enlightening is the fact that many of the people whose stories are told in this book found genuine healing after having first been disillusioned by the debilitating effects of anti-depressives, hypnosis, attempts to relive a better childhood, and various other secular treatments.

The list of documented cases contains “disorders” that many pastors have dispatched in the “too-hard” basket. They include an extreme example of sexual abuse, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and more. A purely theoretical book cannot touch the impact of this book in retelling what these real-life experiences reveal about the sufficiency of Scripture in the counseling process.

One final thing that should be mentioned in respect to these cases is the book’s consistent theme highlighting the believer’s satisfaction in Christ, confidence in the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, a commitment for prayerful reading and application of Scripture, and the supportive care of the local church community. The counseling process is shown to engage not only one counselor but God working through His Word and the community of believers in the heart and mind of the counselee.

The Powerful Word of God

I heartily recommend this book to pastors and any believer needing to witness the powerful nature of the Word of God to gain confidence and steadfastness in the faith—and anyone with a desire to help others:

I myself am satisfied about you my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, ESV)

Footnotes

1. Stuart W. Scott and Heath Lambert, eds. Counseling the Hard Cases. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
2. “Christian counseling” is a term most often associated with counselors who are prepared to integrate secular psychology’s methodologies and treatments into their counseling.
3. Answers in Genesis has produced an excellent video on this very topic called Counterfeit Counseling by Pastor Brad Bigney.
4. Dr. Stuart Scott, one of the editors of Counseling the Hard Cases, spoke at the Answers for Pastors conference in October 2013 on the sufficiency of Scripture in biblical counseling.
5. This is not to say that every biblical counseling case ends successfully. God’s Word—our fully reliable and sufficient source of truth—requires the believer to submit and obey in humility, but sadly, some people do not submit to the authority of Scripture.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

Because the Island of Greenland is geographically shaped like the head of a bear, wolf or fox, its silhouette appears to only have one eye. . This shape is coincidentally replicated in the shape of southern Texas with Austin, Texas, representing the eye of the bear. The single eye is symbolic of the blindness that Greenland suffers for it is cut-off from the underworld, relying completely on the CIA of Switzerland for its survival. The one-eyed Beast of Greenland is most commonly depicted as the Eye of Providence (i.e., the All-Seeing Eye of G.O.D., otherwise known as Greenland of Denmark). The Eye of Providence and the Bear of Greenland is coincidentally found on the flag of Šiauliai, the fourth largest city in Lithuania. In Norse Mythology, the god of Odin, who coincidentally only has one eye, goes by the name of “Battle Wolf” and “Bear”, both tributes to Greenland. The Biblical “Number of the Beast” (i.e., 666) also appears to be a direct reference to Greenland as the Holy Bible is the allegorical and metaphorical history book of the Greco-Roman Empire. The term “Beast” (B+S+T) was evidently derived from the term “Best” (B+S+T) which is why Greenland was chosen as the home of the Greco-Roman Empire. The Mesopotamian god Ugallu, is known as the “Big Weather-Beast”, for the “Ugallu” (G+L) acronymically equates to Greenland. Lastly, in Disney’s Monsters, Inc., the character known as "Mike Wazowski" is depicted as a one-eyed green monster, a modern tribute to the Beast of Greenland.

Bear of Greenland
The term “Bear” (B+R) is constructed by the acronyms of “Babylon” and “Rome”, the former capital city and name of the Greco-Roman Empire. Since Greenland resides above or over the Earth (i.e., in heaven), the German word “über” (B+R) translates to “above”, “over” and “across”. The Bear of Greenland is flanked by Bermuda Triangle in the Atlantic Ocean and the Bering Strait in the Pacific Ocean. Boreas (B+R+S), meaning "Devouring One", was the Greek god of the cold north wind, Aurora, was the Roman goddess of the dawn. Consequently, the Arora Borealis (B+R+L+S) are the Northern Lights which shine upon the Bear of Greenland. Aside from the god of Odin who goes by “Bear”, Búri (B+R) was the first Norse god in Norse mythology who became the father of the other gods, including Borr (B+R), a god who had three sons, Odin, Vili and Vé. The names of these metaphorical sons are deciphered as follows: “Odin” (D+N) represents the third and final den (home) of the Greco-Roman Empire in Greenland; “Vili” (V+L) represents the veil of secrecy which allows the Roman Empire to thrive unabated in Greenland, until now; and “Vé” (V) is an acronym for Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory. Lastly, Britannia (B+R+T+N) the female personification of England, while Hibernia (H+B+R+N) the female personification of Ireland, both of which have the “Bear” (B+R) of Greenland within their respective names.

Den of Greenland
Because a bear, wolfs or fox must have a den to live in, the term “Den” (D+N) has become synonymous with Greenland. Since the Romans were the first to invent gunpowder and “Dynamite” (D+N+M+T), it was give the name of “Den Might” for it represented the power of the Greco-Roman Empire in Greenland. Tributes to the “Den” of Greenland are found throughout popular culture, including but not limited to: Business: Denny’s; Denner; Celebrities: Dan Rather; Harry Houdini; James Dean; John Madden; Joe Biden, Madonna; Michael Jordan; and Princess Diana; Culture: “Danny Boy”; Mythology: Odin, a god in Norse Mythology; Tuesday: Middle Low German (Dingesdag); German (Dienstag); Dutch (dinsdag); Afrikaans (Dinsdag); Thursday: Proto Germanic (Þunras dagaz); Old English (Þunresdæg); Old High German (Donarestag); Middle Low German (Donersdag); German (Donnerstag); Dutch (donderdag); Afrikaans (Donderdag); Wednesday: Proto Germanic (Wodanas dagaz); Old English (Wodnesdæg); Old Saxon (Wôdanesdag); Old High German (Wôdanstag/Wuotanstag); Middle Low German (Wodenesdag); Scottish (Wadensday); and Words: condone; Dan; Danish; dance; dandelion; dawn; dean; den; dentist; Dianetics; dine; dinner; dinosaur; don; done; donate; done; donner kebap; don’t; dune; dynamic; dynasty; dynamite; and Great Dane.

The Borg
The “Borg” of Star Trek are an allegorical metaphor for the Greco-Roman Empire in Greenland which rules the world via the Babylon System. The Borg refers to a fictional alien race that appears as recurring antagonists within the Star Trek franchise. The Borg is a species that have been turned into cybernetic organisms functioning as drones of the Collective, or the hive. The Borg force other species into their collective and connect them to "the hive mind", an act called assimilation. Similar to fascism, this process entails violence, abductions, and injections of cybernetic implants. The Borg are infamous for their phrase, "You will be assimilated". This mantra is evident today as all those who do not assimilate into the capitalistic Babylon System are ultimately destroyed, economically or physically.

Wolf of Greenland
Because Greenland is geographically shaped like the head of a wolf, numerous references to wolfs are found through mythology and popular culture. The term “M. canina” meaning “werewolf”, is a mythological human who has the ability to shapeshift into a wolf or a wolf-like creature, either purposely or after being placed under a curse. The term “canina” is a direct reference to Canaan (i.e., Greenland), home of the werewolf. “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is one of Aesop's Fables where the idiom to "cry wolf", meaning to give a false alarm, was ultimately derived from. To “cry wolf” was likely derived in respect to attacks emanating from Greenland (e.g., Greco-Roman Vikings). Another idiom “keep the wolf from the door” was also likely derived in respect to the Wolf of Greenland. In the language of German, the number “12” is pronounced “zwölf” which equates to “Zion Wolf”, a reference to Mt. Zion in Greenland. The book "Little Red Riding Hood" is a European fairy tale about a young girl and a Big Bad Wolf, a metaphor for Greenland. The story revolves around a girl called Little Red Riding Hood (i.e., the Roman Empire), after the red hooded cape and cloak that she wears. Lastly, Beowulf is an Old English heroic epic poem set in Scandinavia which is commonly cited as one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature.

Bear in Popular Culture
Tributes to the Bear of Greenland, the term “Bear”, or terms containing the consonants of “B” and “R” (e.g., beer) are found throughout popular culture, including but not limited to: Athletes: Charles Barkley (NBA); Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (NBA); Kobe Bryant (NBA); Larry Bird (NBA); LeBron James (NBA); and Tom Brady (NFL); Calendar: month of February; month of September; month of October; month of November; and month of December; Celebrities: Brad Pitt; Bruno Mars; Julia Roberts; Justin Bieber; Justin Timberlake; Mark Wahlberg; Pierce Brosnan; Robert DeNiro; Robert Pattinson; and Steven Spielberg; Coaches: Bear Bryant; and Vince Lombardi, for which the Super Bowl Trophy is named after; Computing: Cyber-attacks, digital attacks that can be launched from anywhere in the world; Corporations: Barclays; Bayer; Behr; Blackberry; Braun; Bridgestone; Brinks; Burberry; Burger King; Burlington Northern; Burton; Halliburton; KBR; Lamborghini; Marlboro; Subaru; and Julius Bar; Cities: Barcelona, Spain; Beirut, Lebanon; Berkeley, California; Berlin, Germany; Bern, Switzerland; Birmingham, Alabama; Birmingham, England; Bristol, Connecticut; Brooklyn, New York; Burbank, California; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Culture: “White man’s burden”; Financial Markets: Barrel of oil; Bear Market; Gold bar; Stock broker; Inventors: Albert Einstein; and Johan Guttenberg; Legal: Bar Association; Mascots: Baylor University Bears; Brown University Bears; the Chicago Bears; the Chicago Cubs; the Memphis Grizzlies; Mercer University Bears; Missouri State University Bears; Morgan State University Bears; Oakland University Golden Grizzlies; University of California at Berkeley Golden Bears; University of Northern Colorado Bears; University of Maine Black Bears; and University of Montana Grizzlies; Military: Ft. Bragg; Green Berets are worn by special forces military in the Australian, French and Dutch commandos, as well as the United States Army Special Forces; Places: Bahrain; Barbados; Bering Strait; Bermuda; Bermuda Triangle; Bora Bora; Bourbon Street; Brazil; Brunei; Burkina Faso; Burma; Burundi; Great Britain; Liberia; Luxembourg; Nebraska; and Siberia; Politicians: Barack Obama (President of the U.S.); Ehud Barak (Prime Minister of Israel); Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister); John O. Brennan (Director of CIA); and Silvio Berlusconi (Prime Minister of Italy); Politics: Brady Bill (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act); the 2nd Amendment and the “Right to keep and bear arms”; Religion: Abraham, founding father or Israel; Barabbas; Bartholomew; Bereishit, the first book in the Jewish Bible; Sports Franchises: Atlanta Braves; FC Bayern Munich; and FC Barcelona; Toys: Care Bears; and teddy bear; Television: The Borg of Star Trek; Television Anchors: Brian Williams (NBC); Chris Berman (ESPN); and Tom Brokaw (NBC); Witchcraft: Abracadabra, an incantation used as a magic word in stage magic tricks; and Words: aberration; abortion; abroad; algebra; amber; Amber Alert; Aurora Borealis; bar; barb; barb wire; barber; bare; bare foot; bargain; barge; bark; barn; baron; barracuda; bear, bear arms; bear down; beard; beer; beret hat; berries; berry, bird; birth; birthday; board; border; bore; boring; born; borrow; bourbon; bra; brace; brackets; Braham Bull; braid; brail; bran; branch; brand; brand new; brandy; brass; brat; brave; brawl; brawn, BRB; breach; break; breakfast; breast; breath; bread; breed; brew; briar; bridge; brie cheese; brief; bright; bring; brink; britches; broccoli; broil; bronze; broom; brother; brow; brown; brunch; brush; brutal; bur; bureau; bureaucracy; burgundy; burglar; burka; burn; burrito; caliber; candy bar; celebrate; cyber; embarrassed; eye brow; labor; laboratory; liberty; library; lumbar; neighbor; number; robbery; rubber; side burns; somber; starboard; and suburban.

Wolf Mascots
Mascot-related tributes to the Wolf of Greenland are found throughout the world, including but are not limited to: Australia: Brisbane Wolves FC, a soccer team; South Coast Wolves Football Club, or "Wollongong Wolves," a football team; Western Wolves FC, a football team; and Windsor Wolves, a rugby team; Belgium: La Louvière Wolves, an American football team; Canada: Akwesasne Wolves, a hockey team; La Tuque Wolves, a hockey team; Ottawa Wolves RFC, a rugby team; Ripley Wolves, a hockey team; Shelburne Wolves, a hockey team; St. Catharines Wolves, a soccer team; Sudbury Wolves, a team in the Ontario Hockey League; Sudbury Jr. Wolves, a team in the Northern Ontario Junior Hockey League; and Sudbury Wolves (EPHL), a defunct team in the Eastern Professional Hockey League; England: Walthamstow Wolves, a speedway team; Warrington Wolves, a rugby league team; Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C., a football team commonly known as "Wolves"; and Worcester Wolves, a basketball team; Indonesia: Tangerang Wolves FC, a football team; Ireland: Dublin Wolves, an ice hockey team; Nigeria: Warri Wolves F.C., a soccer team; Pakistan: Faisalabad Wolves, a cricket team; Scotland: Edinburgh Wolves, a Scottish American Football team; Sri Lanka: Wayamba Wolves, a cricket team; Switzerland: EHL Wolves, a Swiss ice hockey team; and the United States: American Wolves, a wrestling team; Chicago Wolves, a minor league ice hockey team; Carolina Raging Wolves, a football team; Connecticut Wolves, a hockey team; Detroit Wolves, a baseball team; Idaho Wolves, a soccer team; Los Angeles Wolves, a former professional soccer team; Manchester Wolves, a minor league arena football team; Minnesota Timberwolves, an NBA basketball team; North Carolina State University Wolfpack, sports teams of North Carolina State University; Stockton Wolves, an arena football team; Stony Brook University Seawolves, sports teams of Stony Brook University; University of Nevada Wolf Pack, sports teams of University of Nevada; and the Wisconsin Wolves, a football team.

One-Eyed Creatures
There are at least 65 one-eyed creatures in mythology, religion and fiction, all tribute to the one-eyed Beast of Greenland. These include but are not limited to: Agent Pleakley: Agent Pleakley, a one-eyed creature in in the film “Lilo & Stitch” (2002); Ahgg: Ahgg, the witches' giant spider with one eye in the center of his forehead in “My Little Pony: The Movie” (1986); Ahriman: Ahriman, a species of monster from the Japanese role-playing game series "Final Fantasy" (1987); Alpha Centauri: Alpha Centauri, green hermaphrodite hexapod with one huge eye in the “Doctor Who” episode "The Curse of Peladon" (1972); Arimaspi: Arimaspi or Arimaspoi, a legendary people of northern Scythia that were "always at war with their neighbors" and stealing gold from griffins. They had a single eye in the center of the forehead; Balor: Balor, a figure from Irish mythology who was known for his evil eye that could kill just by looking at you. It was prophesied that he would be killed by his grandson, so he attempted to murder his grandchildren; Basilisk: Basilisk, large one-eyed mutant in Marvel Comics' “New X-Men” (2004-2008); Big Billy: Big Billy, a one-eyed creature in “The PowerPuff Girls” (1998-2005) episode entitled "School House Rocked"; Big Dan T.: Big Dan T., a character in the Coen Brothers film “O Brother, Where Art Thou” (2000), who is intended to emulate the Cyclops from Homer's "Odyssey; B.O.B.: B.O.B. (Bicarbonate Ostylezene Benzoate), gelatinous one-eyed creature in “Monsters vs. Aliens” (2009); Bongo Bongo: Bongo Bongo, a one-eyed creature from the “Legend of Zelda” (1986-2014); Cyclops: Cyclops, a race of giants in Greek and Roman mythology, including Polyphemus. They had a single eye in the center of the forehead; Cyclops, one-eyed creatures in monsters in the popular Japanese role-playing game series "Dragon Quest" (1986); Cyclops, one-eyed creatures in the film “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” (1958); Cyclops, one-eyed creatures in the role-playing game “Dungeons and Dragons” (1974-Present); and Cyclops, Tyson, Percy Jackson's one-eyed half-brother in “Percy Jackson and the Olympians” (2005-2009); Cyclopskin: Cyclopskin, one-eyed creatures in the role-playing game “Dungeons and Dragons” (1974-Present); Cylon Centurions: Cylon Centurions, one-eyed creatures in the sci-fi franchise “Battlestar Galactica” (1978); Dajjal: Dajjal, the anti-Christ in the Islamic religion that only has one eye; Dalek Sec: Dalek Sec, monster that became a one-eyed Dalek-human hybrid in “Doctor Who” (1963-1989); Darklops Zero: Darklops Zero, prototype of Darklops in the film “Ultraman Zero: The Revenge of Belial” (2010); Draken: Draken, a one-eyed sea monster in animated series “Jumanji (1996-1999); Drethdock: Drethdock, a one-eyed creature from the Sega Saturn game “Battle Monsters” (1995); Dusclops: Dusclops, a one-eyed ghost in Pokémon (1996-Present); Dusknoir: Dusknoir, a one-eyed ghost in Pokémon (1996-Present); Duskull: Duskull, a one-eyed ghost in Pokémon (1996-Present); Evil Eye: Evil Eye, a one-eyed monster in the online RPG “MapleStory” (2003); Gohma: Gohma, a one-eyed creature from the “Legend of Zelda” (1986-2014); Graeae: The Graeae, three witches (or sisters) that shared one eye and one tooth between them; Hagen: Hagen or Högni, a Burgundian warrior in German and Norse legend that is depicted in some accounts as having only one eye; Hitotsume-kozo: Hitotsume-kozo, monsters (obake) in Japanese folklore. They had a single giant eye in the center of their face; Imbra: Imbra, a one-eyed idol and the highest god of Kafiristan in the novella “The Man Who Would Be King” (1888); Jian: Jian, a bird in Chinese mythology with only one eye and one wing. A pair of such birds were dependent on each other and inseparable; Kabandha: Kabandha, a demon with no head, no neck, one large eye on the breast, and a mouth on the stomach. Kabandha appears in Hindu mythology as a character of Ramayana; Kang and Kodos: Kang and Kodos, a recurring one-eyed alien duo in the “The Simpsons” (1989-Present); Kerack: Kerack, alien race resembling large one-eyed prawns in novel “Camelot 30K” (1983); Leela: Leela, a one-eyed mutant character in the animated series “Futurama” (1999-2013); Likho: Likho, a one-eyed creature that’s the embodiment of evil fate and misfortune in Slavic mythology; Mike Wazowski: Mike Wazowski, round monster with one large eye in the film “Monsters, Inc.” (2001); Minions: Minions, one-eyed comic henchmen in the animation “Despicable Me” (2010); Monoids: Monoids, a one-eyed alien race in the “Doctor Who” episode "The Ark" (1966); Morris: Morris, a one-eyed mutant character in the animated series “Futurama” (1999-2013); Munda: Munda, a one-eyed mutant character in the animated series “Futurama” (1999-2013); Muno: Muno, a one-eyed creature in the children's television series “Yo Gabba Gabba!” (2007-Present); Naga: Naga, a one-eyed mutant in the film “World Without End” (1956); Ojáncanu: Ojáncanu, a one-eyed giant with long beard and red hair of Cantabrian mythology who embodies evil, cruelty and brutality; One-Eye: One-Eye, one of three sisters in the Brothers Grimm fairy tale "One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes" (c. 1889); One-Eyed: One-Eyed, starfish-shaped aliens from the planet Paira in the “Warning from Space” (1956); One-Eyed Monster: One-Eyed Monster, the antagonist in the film “One-Eyed Monster” (2008); Orb: Orb, a one-eyed Marvel Comics super-villain, the primary adversary of Ghost Rider; Psoglav: Psoglav, a one-eyed dog-headed monster in Serbian mythology; Purple People Eater: Purple People Eater, a one-eyed creature in the song “Purple People Eater” (1958); Ravage: Ravage, a one-eyed panther-like Decepticon in the film “Revenge of the Fallen” (2009); Sauron: Sauron, the eponymous arch-villain of “The Lord of the Rings” (1954-1955), often manifests as 'the Eye' in Peter Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien's work; Scaroth: Scaroth, a one-eyed time-travelling alien in the “Doctor Who” episode “City of Death” (1979); Sgt. Psyclopps: Sgt. Psyclopps, the one-eyed guitarist for the costumed comedy punk band The Radioactive Chicken Heads; Sheldon Plankton: Sheldon Plankton, a one-eyed creature in “SpongeBob SquarePants” (1999-Present); Shuma-Gorath: Shuma-Gorath, a giant eye with tentacles, in the Marvel comics universe; Starro the Conqueror: Starro the Conqueror, a one-eyed supervillain in DC Comics; Suezo: Suezo, a one-eyed, one-footed breed of monster in video game/anime series “Monster Rancher” (1997); Tepegoz: Tepegoz, a one-eyed ogre in Oghuz Turkish epic Book of Dede Korkut; The Wicked Witch of the West: The Wicked Witch of the West, a one-eyed witch from "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" (1900); Vaati: Vaati, a one-eyed creature from the “Legend of Zelda” (1986-2014); Waddle Doo: Waddle Doo, a one-eyed creature from Nintendo game franchise “Kirby” (1992-2014); Wenlock and Mandeville: Wenlock and Mandeville, the one-eyed mascot from the London 2012 Olympics; Zargon: Zargon, a giant one-eyed monster in the role-playing game “Dungeons & Dragons” (1974-Present); and Zatar the Alien: Zatar the Alien, a one-eyed green alien in the MTV series “Celebrity Deathmatch” (1998-2007).

Fox of Greenland
Because Greenland is geographically shaped like the head of a fox, numerous references to foxes are found through mythology and popular culture. The word “Fox” (F+X) acronymically and/or consonantly equates to “Double Cross North” or “Pi kills” as Pi is an acronym for Greenland. The idiom “sly as a fox” is indicative of the Greenland’s behavior while the term “fix” is slang for “fox”, meaning to make right, firm, stable, or stationary. Corporate entities (e.g., 20th Century Fox, Firefox, Fox News Channel, and FX) as well as films such as Disney’s “The Fox and the Hound” (1981) all contain fox-related titles and imagery. Interestingly, a white fox is depicted in the coat of arms of the Northwest Territories of Canada which border Greenland.

Clint Loveness #fundie pepperdineevolution.weebly.com

In response, someone might say that Moses did not understand science, but Jesus affirmed Moses in Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ Jesus also said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” If there were a billion years before Adam and Eve then it was not ‘the beginning’. If there were a billions years before Adam and Eve, than you have death before sin, which goes against Scripture!


image

Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach the flaws of evolution? For example, they should teach the different types of evolution. One type is called “microevolution”, which refers to changes variations within species (different types of dogs, etc.); I have no problem whatsoever with this type of minor evolution, as it clearly occurs within the plant and animal kingdoms. However, there are some major scientific and moral flaws within “macroevolution”, which is defined as one species morphing, or evolving, into a completely different and separate species. Clearly, these two very opposite types of evolution cannot be called similar to each other, yet evolutionists have hijacked the word “science” by blending microevolution and macroevolution together
Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the foreword to the Origin of Species (100th edition), admitted that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” When the well-known apologist Ray Comfort recently interviewed dozens of evolution professors, he asked them for just one example of repeatable, observable evidence of macroevolution and they COULD NOT give even one example. Thus, macroevolution does not follow the scientific method, which means that macroevolution is not real science. In fact, since these professors need billions of years they actually need faith to believe this worldview. I recommend that you watch his movie called “Evolution vs. God” on this link.

I asked Dr. Honeycutt for one clear example of macroevolution and he used whale evolution, but Dr. Honeycutt was wrong, because the world’s leading authority on whale evolution admitted that it was a hoax on this link. Even Darwin himself was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved his own theory. He hoped that in the years to come, there would be more fossils discovered that would prove the theory as he stated it. It has been over 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for the missing links, but the supposedly innumerable transitional forms have not been found. Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach about how many missing links have been a hoax? In fact, every time a supposed link is discovered, an evolutionist would criticize that example as a hoax, meaning that we still do not have one example. The Cambrian explosion disproves transitional forms because the very base layer of the fossil record shows advanced life forms. This fact is fatal to the evolutionary theory’s descent with gradual modification through natural selection. The fossils record is evidence for a worldwide flood or for transitional forms evolving, but it cannot be both. If Noah’s flood were true you would expect to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and what do we actually see in the fossil record? Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

Evolutionary dating methods are not accurate. For example, did you know that living snails have been radiometrically carbon dated to be 2,300 years old? Or that the radioisotope dating showed Mount St. Helen's lava to be 340,000 years old, when in reality it was only 10 years old? Carbon-14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years old, but we find carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils, diamonds, and coal - which is good evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old, not millions of years old. Scientists have found red blood cells in many different dinosaur bones that could not possibly have survived millions of years. Here are two links for the top scientific reasons why the earth is not millions of years old: from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis the two leading creationist organizations.

Essentially, the bottom line is this: macroevolution is not only unscientific, it directly goes against the Bible. If I was a current Pepperdine student and I had these theistic evolution professors teaching me that Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Noah and the worldwide flood were not real, that evolution was true, and that Genesis was not to be taken literally, I probably would have doubted whether or not the rest of the Bible was true and I would have lost my faith! I’m worried that many more students like my brother will lose their faith in Christ because we are putting another religion called evolution ahead of the Bible. In the past, the Hebrews worshiped two gods and one was named Baal. Now, I believe that we are guilty of worshipping two gods by mixing evolution and theology. If you look up “religion” in the dictionary, it says that a religion is “a worldview that explains the cause of origins, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially the creation of humans.” I would propose that evolution is not science but a form of another religion that you need FAITH to believe in. God will also judge a teacher more strictly, which makes this issue of an important issue because if you compromise the book of Genesis, than this will encourage many young people to compromise and to reject the rest of the Bible.

Cdbren #fundie patheos.com

Animals beget their own kind. You can't scientifically get from a fish to a Giraffe. That's a laughable fairy tale. There is no testing, observing or repeating of this happening.

Walk out of your box and really explore science.....that's my best advice.

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

Recently, atheist Richard Dawkins appeared in a short video titled “Mr. Deity and the Atheist.” In this very mocking video Dawkins speaks with a character playing God named “Mr. Deity,” and gives reasons why God doesn’t exist. “Mr. Deity” replies to his accusations, but his answers are even more mocking than Dawkins’ claims and are clearly attempts to make fun of God.

Dawkins tells Mr. Deity, who clearly is supposed to be representing the biblical God, “You know, it seems to me that if you really want to be useful you could do us all a favor and simply vanish.” Dawkins’ rationale for this is that, “The whole of your precious creation was made by evolution and you didn’t have to lift a finger to help it along. You’re completely redundant, not just lazy. Even if you weren’t lazy, there’d be nothing for you to do.” Dawkins claims that evolution has destroyed any need for God because we don’t need a Creator to get us here because everything can be explained naturalistically. Really, Dawkins has placed his faith in his religion of evolution and millions of years.

He adds, “And what’s more, we have science now, making you completely unnecessary.” By “science” he, of course, means evolution, which is historical science. This kind of science deals with the past and is therefore not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. Now, to prove his point that science has made God unnecessary he says, “Do you know that we just used science to do something truly amazing and quite difficult? We landed a probe on a comet.” Here he has done what so many secularists do. He’s used a bait-and-switch. He says that “science” (unobservable historical science) has made God redundant, but then he uses an example from “science” (observable, testable, repeatable operational science) to prove his point! But historical science and observational science are not the same thing!

Actually, it’s only because God exists and because His Word is true that we can even land a probe on a comet. You see, the universe is governed by laws of nature. But in a random, material universe that supposedly arose naturalistically, where do set, immaterial laws of nature come from? And what makes these laws operate the same way tomorrow as they do today? There are no real answers to these questions in an atheistic worldview. But there is a Creator, and He set the laws of nature in place at the beginning. And we can trust that these laws will work the same tomorrow as they did today because our unchanging God upholds and sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3).

Dawkins’ comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years. They are opening the door to compromising with the rest of God’s Word. After all, if you can’t trust God’s Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can’t trust God’s words in Genesis, then why should we trust God’s Word in the Gospels?

Adam #fundie amazon.com

Science is: testable, repeatable, observable.
now that you know what science is you tell me which of the two fit.
1. dogs birth dogs, fish birth fish, humans bith humans, ect.
or
2. dinosaurs birth birds, monkeys birth humans, ect.

You don't need to be brilliant to know that when your wife is pregnant she is going to have a human baby. Not even an atheist evolutionist is foolish enough to expect any thing else. Ask Dick Dawkins if he thinks a the hospital prepares for any other species to be born when a pregnant woman enters. It makes great speculative chat and sells books but in reality when the doctors go to work they don't think twice as to what comes from mom.

Humans giving birth to humans is a testable, repeatable, and observable fact of nature. so why make a theory up to say it happens any other way?

n/a #fundie

[Ok, here's the story: I bought an old computer from Value village that wasn't formatted, and lo and behold, they didn't wipe their hard drive! It has 2 fundie essays on it, or at least that's all I can find (good old Windows 3.1!). I'll clip a few quotes from it and put them at the top, then the whole essay if you want to read it. I saw there were other essays on the site but didn't know how to submit just an essay. Interesting -- the file name for this one was toastmast.doc, implying that it was a toastmaster's speech. Essay 1 is your basic "evolution isn't scientific" essay, Essay 2 suggests that the British European union is the coming of the antichrist.]

FIRST ESSAY

Quote: "This kind of thinking is like watching a tornado sweep through a junk yard and out the other side comes a 747."
"Thermo dynamics is physics, it is the laws that govern the relationship of all energy and matter in our universe."

Essay:

The speech I am giving today is speech #8 from the communication and leadership manual, “Make It Persuasive” My objective is to persuade you to consider a point of view that differs from the one you hold. The subject matter of my talk is the origin of us and our world, in other words , “Where did we come from?” This is a topic that is far too complex to handle in this short time. But I am going to plant three ideas in your head, for your consideration, and then to speak again on the subject at a later date.

About six months ago I attended a lecture series given by Dr. Ron Carlson. He holds degrees in anthopology, palaeontology, geology, physics, biology to name only a few subject areas. It is from his speech that I prepared this talk to you. His basic premise is that the theory of life on this planet, presented to the world by Charles Darwin over 100 years ago, the theory of evolution, is not scientific. There are known scientific principles, principles proven by the scientific method of study, that contradict the theory of evolution. The work of Charles Darwin does not hold up over time of study and research.

Well let’s get started. The evolutionist believes that the world started with a Big Bang, a really BIG BANG - a hydrogen explosion. Energy spread out, and order was established in the formation of planets, galaxies, stars and the earth. In a few billions years, there developed on our planet, earth, some amino acids, some simple forms of life. From an accident in nature, life commenced on earth - algae, bacteria, protosoa, reptiles, vertebrates, mammals - followed by the early primates - a few million years more, the evolutionist confirms, we have man. The important point to note here is that there was no predestined or predetermined pattern in the commencement of life forms on this planet. The beginning of life was an accident. An accident, like the explanation of the origins of the universe - the Big Bang was an accident. There is no proof that the accident did indeed happen. The Big Bang theory is used to explain one theory of the creation of our world.

Dr. Carlson offers another theory of creation of our universe. It is the one written in the book of Genesis of the Bible. We were created by a supernatural, creative, active God. My question to you, are you an accident, or the product of a supernatural creative, active God?

Let’s look at some of today’s scientific laws and the evolution vs creation theory. A basic principle of the evolution theory is that energy and matter become more organized over time. There is an upward direction of more complexity - inorganic matter becomes organic matter. Organic matter becomes conscious matter, becomes moral matter, with a brain with a heart, becomes ethical matter, becomes an orderly society. This is in direct conflict with the 2nd law of thermo dynamics. Thermo dynamics is physics, it is the laws that govern the relationship of all energy and matter in our universe. This basic law of physics states that everything eventually runs out of energy - and as it does this order and organization become chaos. The process is called entropy - everything goes down to chaos over time. Entropy refers to a mathematical principle that everything including the universe over time runs out of energy. It is a basic law of physics. The theory of evolution is built on the principle that over time, we have become more organized and more complex. We’ve come from hanging in the trees to walking upright and organizing ourselves into complex societies says the evolutionist. Dr. Carlson says no, this is in contradition of the 2nd law of themo dynamics. This kind of thinking is like watching a tornado sweep through a junk yard and out the other side comes a 747.

To the field of biology we go next. A basic law of biology is the law of bio-genesis. This law states that life can only be produced by life. It states that it is impossible to get life from non-life. Life needs a metobolic engine that takes energy from the environment to create itself - the DNA is part of this life force. Only life can create new life. The law of bio-genesis says it is impossible to create life from non-life. Yet this is what the scientist who teach evolutionary theory say, that life started from non-life. Out of the waters of the Big Bang came early forms of life i.e. algae, bacteria etc. Life started as an accident. From no where, came the first signs of life.

A third thought I would like to plant is the comments Darwin himself made about his theory of evolution - he said that over time the fossil record would eventually show all the transitional forms of life evolving from the ocean to land, to complex life forms, and finally to man. He admitted that at the time he proposed his theory of evolution the fossil record was scant. He said given time, the record would support his theory. Since that time over 100 years have elapsed. Hundreds of paleontologists have spent their careers looking for the transitional fossils, the missing links to show how one species evolved in to the next. There are none. To visit the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, the largest museum of evolution in North America, is to see there are hundreds of fossils - but no transitional forms, no missing links. Instead what the fossil record does show is that there is a sudden appearance of fully formed fossils - fully formed unto themselves. There are no transitional forms - no fossils of early forms of a part cow part eagle. No fossils of early forms of a part shrimp part frog. Darwin’s predictions that the fossil record would prove his theory has not happened.

The theories of creation - the Big Bang or creation by a supernatural creative, active God. The fossil record show life forms appear suddenly. The creation theory states that life forms appeared suddenly. Is our planet winding down to chaos - as stated in the 2nd law of thermo dynamics? Man is capable of destroying life on this planet, sending it into total chaos through bombs, destruction of the environment. Note the holes in the atmosphere - our protection from the sun is diminishing. Do we see any signs of increasing order and organization in our world? The second law of thermo dynamics is at work. Have we been able to create life from non-life in the science lab? Should we accept this as a possibility of our origins - life began as an accident - rather than to believe that a supernatural, creative active God created us.

You ask how could such a doctrine as the evolutionary theory , if it is false, be so accepted as scientific truth? This would not be the first time in the history of our planet that false laws of science were accepted as truth - i.e. there was a time when the thinking of the world said the earth was flat. With that in mind, I hope I have planted a thought in your head, three thoughts actually 1. the law of thermo dynamics, 2. the law of bio-genesis and 3. the fossil record - maybe the world did not evolve, but rather was created by a super creator. Are you persuaded?


Essay 2:

Quotes: "The gold head of the statue represents the Babylonian empire - the empire of splender and magnificense."
"It is suggested that the European Common market countries are those that were part of the great Roman Empire and are coming together again today in an economic union that will be political as well. These are the feet and toes of iron and clay. A mixture of different people. But they will not stay united, as iron and clay do not unite. It is this Kingdom, the revived Roman Empire and all previous remnents of kingdoms that will be smashed by the rock. As the Bible predicts God in the form of Jesus Christ will return to the earth and build his Kingdom, the fifth kingdom that will be everlasting. All other Kingdoms will be destroyed."

Essay:

The millennium will change in a very few years. December 31, 1999 marks the end of this thousand year period and the next day, January 1, 2000 marks the beginning of another thousand year period. What is in store for us in this next millennium? There is something mystical and mysterious about the millennium change. At least there is in the minds of some of us. In the remaining years before 2000 there will be more and more prophets, and sign readers telling us what is to come. One famous prophet of the 1500’s, Nostradamus, pin pointed the seventh month of 1999 as the time when a great king of terror will descend from the skies. However, he continues in this quatrain, Mars (god of war) will reign for the good. Could this be armageddon, the battle between good and evil?

Another prophet writing in the times of the Babylonian Empire - around 600 B.C. made prophesies for the future based on dreams, his dreams and his interpretation of his King, Nebuchadnezzer’s dreams. These dreams are written in the Old Testament book of Daniel.

Just a bit of historical information about ancient times. King Nebuchadnezzer conquored the known world of the day. In today’s geography the countries are called Iran, Iraq, Jordon, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, Greece and Italy. Nebuchadnezzer’s empire was known as the Babylonian Empire - it was an empire of incredible splender, incredible glitz. The world had not been gathered together in one kingdom this size before. Nebuchadnezzer’s word was law - he had total and supreme power. Following this empire, the Persians conquored the known world and held their empire ( from 530BC to 330BC) until Alexander the Great conquored the world to commence the Greek empire.(330 BC to about 63 BC) The Roman empire followed - there has not been a world empire to replace the Roman empire. Napoleon tried to build a world French empire, but failed. So we have the Babylonian empire, the Persian empire, the Greek and Roman empires.

Returning to Daniel, he was a valued adviser to the King of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzer, the King had a dream where he saw a huge dazzling, statue, awesome in appearance. The statue had a head of gold - chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of part iron and part clay. A huge rock was cut out but not by human hands. It struck the feet of the huge statue - the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were smashed to pieces - and blown away

by the wind - but the rock that hit the feet, became a huge mountain and filled the earth.

Daniel commenced to interpret the dream for Nebuchadnizzer. Daniel told him that God had shown the king what would take place in the future of nations. The gold head of the statue represents the Babylonian empire - the empire of splender and magnificense. The greatest empire to date in the history of man. The following empire would be inferior to the Babylonian empire - thus made of silver in the statue. We know this to be the Pesian empire. The Greek empire is represented by the bronze on the statue. The metals are getting stronger as we move to the feet of the statue and less glitzy. The governments of these successive empires are becoming less despotic, and democracy is beginning to be part of the way people live together. The fourth kingdom will be as strong as iron - the strongest of the metals. The Roman empire was the strongest of the four great empires, and the least glitzy. The Romans governed by senates and assemblies, closer to democracy. Daniel continues, the iron will crush all the others. But this fourth kingdom will be a divided empire or kingdom - this is represented by the feet of clay and iron. This kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. Just as you saw in the statue that the clay and iron were mixed, this fourth kingdom will be a mixture of people - they will not stay united, any more than iron mixes with clay. The rock that destroys the whole statue, grows and takes up the whole of the earth.

Interpretations in today’s Christian world - see the time of the Roman empire still here, in the present. Although for us it seems the Roman empire is no longer, commentators today feel that there will be a revival of the Roman empire, it never died - the legs and feet of iron and clay have not yet met with the crushing blow of the rock. The predictions of this fourth empire are not yet completed. It is suggested that the European Common market countries are those that were part of the great Roman Empire and are coming together again today in an economic union that will be political as well. These are the feet and toes of iron and clay. A mixture of different people. But they will not stay united, as iron and clay do not unite. It is this Kingdom, the revived Roman Empire and all previous remnents of kingdoms that will be smashed by the rock. As the Bible predicts God in the form of Jesus Christ will return to the earth and build his Kingdom, the fifth kingdom that will be everlasting. All other Kingdoms will be destroyed.

Is the formation of the European Common Market the completion of the Roman Empire. Is there any connection between the prophet Daniel’s predictions of the rock smashing all former Kingdoms, and the formation of God’s everlasting Kingdom and those of Nostradamus predicting a battle of the king descending from the skies and good reigning over all. What wonders will we behold in this next millennium?

edwitness #fundie disqus.com


(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: https://christiannews.net/2018/12/04/discovery-of-giant-synapsid-fossil-in-poland-throws-a-wrench-in-evolutionary-expectations-for-triassic-layers/ )

edwitness:
"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

edwitness:
Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

edwitness:
What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

edwitness:
"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

edwitness:
"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.

Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

Rayburne Winsor: First of all, you must distinguish between operational or experimental science, which can be observed, tested and repeated in a laboratory, from historical or Origins science which cannot. Even evolutionists admit hat. Neither biblical creation nor "goo-to-you, molecules to man" evolution can be proven. The Tree of life (GTE or Thesis of Common Ancestry) is just an unproven hypothesis at best. What evolutionists conveniently do is extrapolate "change in gene frequency over time" or "descent with modification" and rapid speciation (which creationists have always believed to be compatible with biblical creation) as evidence for vertical (primitive to complex) change that increases the genetic information content in the genome. It is not. All alleged "proofs" of "evolution in action" today do not show that functional new information is added to genes; rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of genetic information. Let us examine the fossil record. After, 150 years after Darwin and alleged millions of years of gradual evolution-by-creeps [too slow to see], evolution-by-peaks [too fast to see] and evolution-by-freaks (genetic mutations still harmful-produces nothing new by way of transmutations: snails remain snails, clams clams, trilobites trilobites, jellyfish jellyfish, birds birds, fish fish, apes apes, man man) , we have only a few highly disputed intermediate or so-called transitional fossils that could cover a billiard table and are highly disputed even among evolutionists themselves.

What scientists find in the fossil record are completely formed and intact fossils of all life-forms without a hint of evolutionary ancestors or "transitional" fossils in the geological strata beneath them (evidence for biblical creation). And what do we have in the so-called hierarchy of human evolutionary ancestors that you see neatly and orderly arranged in some museum? You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.


David Murray: abiogenesis is not evolution, open a grade school level science book as you are not smarter than a fifth grader. Then learn how to use google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia


Rayburne Winsor This is not science; it is science fiction. You have nothing more than illustrations and drawings like you see in textbooks, or plaster of Paris reconstructions of candidates (supposedly intermediate or transitional) out of the wild imagination of some artist paid to tell the evolutionary story? All you are seeing in museums are STORIES ABOUT EVIDENCE, not actual material evidence of bones and in-between stages of evolutionary development. Detailed analysis of a number of various "ape-man" candidates shows that they are either fully ape-like or fully human, not transitional or even mosaic. Australopithecines were not ancestral to modern man, and Lucy was a knuckle-walker . Homo habilis is a "taxonomic wastebin". Homo erectus was a variety of Homo sapiens (Humans), with overlapping cranial capacity and morphology and even seafaring ability. Homo erectus, including Java Man, was just a post-Babel variety of Homo sapiens (modern man), and had seafaring ability. Some of the ape-man candidates are based on very fragmentary remains such as Ardipithecus and Orrorin. Artists are told to make their drawings look "more transitional"; there is plenty of leeway since skin, hair, lips and noses are not fossilized.

(...)

Rayburne Winsor: I have heard the same old crap during the last 40 years of discussing this topic with atheists, science students and skeptics. Most of which is highly speculative in nature and not surprisingly based on evolutionary assumptions and predictions (nothing ew). But what real evidence, if any, do they have. As I said, a few supposedly “transitional” fossils that even evolutionists highly dispute among themselves.
Charles Oxnard, formerly professor of Anatomy and biological Sciences at the University of Southern California and Professor of Human Anatomy and Human Biology , University of Western Australia, showed that the big toe of the famous “Lucy” stuck out as in chimpanzees.

Also, Dr. Fred Spoor, Professor of Evolutionary Anatomy at University College London, UK , and joint editor of the Journal of Human Evolution , performed CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals , the organs of posture and balance. This showed that they did not walk habitually upright (See Spoor, F, Wood, B., and Zonneveld, F., Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369 (6482):645-648, 1994). This is all contrary to Dawkins’ claim that Lucy “walked upright on her hind legs...on two feet which were pretty much like ours although its brain was the size of a chimpanzee. Indeed, evidence now suggests that Lucy had wrist-locking abilities “classic for knuckle walkers” which is hardly consistent with Dawkins claim that ucy walked upright like we do (Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287 (5461) :2131, 2000, citing the first author of Richmond, B. G. and Strait, D.S. , Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle walking ancestor , Nature 404 (6776):382, 2000). Museums once featured Australopithecus africanus as an ancestor to humans---A. Africanus includes “Mrs Ples” (now thought to be small “Mrs Ples”) and the Taung child (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, p.189-193) . Donald Johanson , the discoverer of “Lucy” , places Australopithecus africanus in a side-branch not leading to man (Johanson, D. C. and White T.D. , A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids , Science 203:321-330, 1979) and many museums have now demoted this once certain human ancestor to a non-ancestor.

Time magazine reported on a specimen called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated between 5.6 and 5.8 million years old. Time claimed that this new specimen was already walking upright , at (what they claim was ) the dawn of evolution. But how clear is this really> Time reports the opinion of the discoverer of “Lucy”, Donald Johanson : “Beyond that, he’s dubious about categorizing the 5.2 million year old toe bone (Ardipithecus) with the rest of the fossils : not only is it separated in time by several hundred thousand years, but it was also found some 10 miles from the rest (Lemonick, M.D. and Dorfman, A., One Giant Step for Mankind, Time magazine cover story, 23 July 2001). Note that this toe was the major “evidence” for uprightness, yet, at being found 10 miles away , it boggles the mind how it could be regarded as part of the same specimen. As one researcher put it regarding the fossils and human evolution, “Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear” ( Shreeve, J., Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990).

When the various fossils are analyzed in depth, they turn out not to be transitional or even mosaic. That is my last comment. I don't really care what you come back with. You believe what you want. You seem to enjoy calling me dishonest and a liar, but David the truth is you would not know the truth if it was standing right in front of you. I will leave it to the readers to decide who is honest and truthful based on real evidence and scientific research, for which I gave clear references, mostly from evolutionary journals and publications, not straw dummy arguments without evidence to support it. Of course, I know you will deny that too as dishonest and a lie. Right?
Honestly, I don't feel sorry for guys like you who are brainwashed by the fairy tale for grown-ups (Evolution) but the truth is, as both you and I know, you do not want to know the truth, just promote your evolutionary faith that is nothing more than a philosophical justification for not wanting to believe unbelief in a Creator/God. It is not rocket science, David, as I hope and pray you find out before you exit this life on earth (and you will).

For example, Pakicetus (whale from Pakistan) was first drawn as an aquatic creature based on a few skull bones and teeth (Gingerich, P.D., et al., Science 220 (4595): 403-406, 22 April 1983). Its discoverer Philip Gingerich proclaimed it to be perfectly intermediate in time and in its morphology, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales (Gingerich , P.D., J. Geology. Educ 31:140-144, 1983. Since a few scraps of bone were interpreted in an evolutionary framework, it is not surprising that they were thought to be a “missing link”.

However, when the rest of the skeleton was found, it was realized to be a fast-running land creature (then drawn by the same artist as the diagram in Dawkins book (see Thewissen, J. G. M., et al., Skeletons of terrestial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413: 277-281, 20 Sept. 2001; and Pakicetus...eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell www.neoucom.edu/Depts.Anat/Pakicetid.html ).

This is hardly the only example of evolutionists misleading the public , exaggerating the evidence from a few scraps of bone. The moral of the story, as one evolutionist put it, is:”Fossils are fickle. Bones will sing any song you want to hear (Shreeve, J. Argument over a woman, Discover 11 (8):58, 1990 (in reference to human evolution).

ApologetiX #fundie apologetix.com

[ApologetiX are a Christian parody band. These are the lyrics to one of their songs, a parody of the Dire Straits song "Money or Nothing]

"Monkeys For Uncles"

I want my missing links ...

"Now look at them Dodos" – that's the way they view us
They claim that Christians are a dead species
Then they worship – macroevolution
Monkeys for uncles in your history
Now, that ain’t workin' – after we refute it
Then they tell you – that the Bible’s dumb
Maybe then your sister was a ring-tailed lemur
Maybe then a lizard was your mum
They've got to insult us to sway others
Because they're missin' the missin' links
They've got to lose the Originator
They've got to prove these other theories

That little maggot with the earwig and the stinkbug
They're buggies, but listen here
That little maggot could become an X-man
That little maggot needs a billion years
They've got to insult us to sway others
Because they’re missin’ the missin’ links
They've got to use their imaginations
They've got to prove these other theories

Sure they mean well ...
Huh?

They've got to insult us to sway others
Because they’re missin' the missin' links
Get God removed from the situation
They've got to prove these other theories

They should've learned they're playin' with fire
They could get burned, but they get numb
Look at that drama they got from trickin' us with Java Man
Ain't that guy handsome?
And what's up there? What's that?
Why's that annoy us?
There ain't no right and wrong -- we're like the chimpanzees
Oh, that ain't workin' -- macroevolution
Monkeys for uncles in your history

Oh, that ain’t workin' – that’s the way I view it
I beg to differ on your empty theory
That ain’t workin' – that’s no way to prove it
Get your monkeys for uncles in your history
Monkeys for uncles – history
Monkeys for uncles – missing links

I want my, I want my, I want my missing links
I want my, I want my, I want my missing links
Romans 1:21
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

churl #fundie achristianthing.wordpress.com

The term “brony” describes a male (often adult) fan of the recent TV childrens’ series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. When I first heard about brony culture, I was just a little unsettled. Men of my generation have trouble growing up – much to the chagrin of many eligible women I know who have suffered at the hands of their prolonged adolescence – and to me this sounded like another instance of immature infantilism; I won’t exactly say that I was ready to pull a Mark Driscoll and tell them to “man-up,” but I will say that it made me wish there were more sensible guys around, if not for my eligible women friends, at least for the dignity of our sex. I may not have been ready to tell such men to man up, but I could at least insist that they grow up. To a certain degree, I still think this. But I have come to see that the actual process of growing up may be more complicated than I initially thought. Perhaps growing up is not simply a matter of becoming serious. Perhaps it is also a matter of becoming (as George MacDonald famously put it), not childish, but childlike.

You see, while I would not call myself a “brony” per se, My Little Pony happens to be my five year old son’s favorite show. As most parents will know, this means I have been witness to almost all the episodes multiple times. And the conclusion I have come to is that, at bottom, what appeals to a certain kind of male about the show is its representation of the kind of story we no longer tell. By this, I mean the fairy tale that does in fact entertain some idea of innocence.

In modern culture, we love fairy tales, but we always insist on digging up in them very dark twists and sub-themes. Almost all of them (we presume from psychoanalytic theory) are about sex. Hansel and Gretel must be witch hunters. That Prince Charming cannot be the protagonist has become something of a modern cliché. Snow white becomes a sexualized vampire figure. Etc. I do not mean of course to say that we should have no revisionist fairy tales; in my opinion, the recent Snow White and the Huntsman film did quite a good job of adapting the tale. But it is perhaps tragic when a film like Shrek – that was so humorous to us who were brought up on the original stories – can no longer be understood in a generation that no longer has these stories. Irony and complexity can only work when the basic building blocks are grasped, and we seem unable or unwilling to pass these on to our children. All we can see are the sarcastic adult versions, and even when we encounter an original, we still think that it masks something far more sinister than its literal vehicle suggests.

What I want to suggest, though, is that there is in us not only a deep desire and need for complexity, nuance and treatment of a sinister reality; there is also in us the desire for something beautiful, something innocent – older writers would call this an Edenic impulse. And what I want to suggest is that My Little Pony is popular among males precisely because they have no other cultural referent pointing them back to a certain kind of fairy-tale innocence that they were created to need.

The reason the show does this so well, I suggest, is because it is pagan in the best possible sense – it is a classical pagan story. I am not here using the word pagan pejoratively, but rather descriptively. As in classical philosophy, friendship in the series is one of the highest goods. The ideals – the seven elements of harmony that figure prominently in the show – are reminiscent of the classical cardinal virtues, with a nod to the theological virtues thrown in via the number seven. There are composite beasts that look like they could come from a classical or medieval bestiary, and dragons are penalized for their hoarding capacities. There is even a nod to the classical grammarian in us all, that insists on pluralizing “pegasus” as “pegasi” (this, by the way, is a far greater “take-home-message” than the ones I see on most childrens’ shows).

Considered all together, these elements make for a show that, in an imaginative desert, stands out as a mythopoeic beacon. It is sad, of course, that we are not at a historical point where children are being fascinated by the really great mythopoeic stories – the ones that held the likes of Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, and MacDonald in their thrall. Nonetheless, we must work with what we are given, and even if My Little Pony will not exactly outlast the Grimm brothers, it is a significant pointer in our culture back to the childlikeness for which my generation – and particularly the males of my generation – are starved. At least, culturally speaking, there is still some kind of space wherein girls can appreciate real mythopoeic innocence (or at least I feel it may be easier – but am willing to be corrected); in male culture, though, such innocence appears as “girly” against the backdrop of a hyper-violence channeling all the ferocity of past epics with none of the wisdom or the reasons these epics provide for fighting.

I think when we understand this we may be able to evaluate so-called brony culture in a different light. Rather than understanding it as a stunt or stutter in the “serious” development of an adult, perhaps instead we should understand it as a transitional space in culture for those on their way to becoming childlike. And such childlikeness is to be by all means encouraged, for it in fact involves a maturity and wisdom beyond the stiff and unimaginative thing we think of as adulthood. As T. S. Eliot liked to remind us (channeling I think Heraclitus), “the way up is the way down,” and perhaps we will find this true of the young men that we simply want to “man up”; maybe the problem is not that they have become children, but that they have not become children enough.

Jenna Smithers #fundie youtube.com

Only Pokemon evolve, evolution is a fairy tale for adults...Darwin himself said the most obvious and damaging argument against his theory is the lack of transitional fossils, if evolution happened transitional fossils WOULD outnumber fully formed fossils. If it took lets say a million years for a lizard to change into a bird it would have a million years to form a fossil while it was changing, while it had partly developed wings or growing feathers or a beak....If animals were evolving for millions of years that would mean that most of the animals that were on earth were transitional, but we only have fossils of fully formed animals of distinct types. There are no part bird part lizard, or part fish part lizard. Go look on wikipedia's transitional fossils page, you'll see a few fossils of fully formed animals then a bunch of drawings of what a transitional animal WOULD look like. If your theory was correct then 99% of our fossils would be partly formed animals but they aren't....Also if you try and say I don't understand what a transitional fossil would be, go check wiki they have a drawing of a fish that is obviously part fish part reptile....But no fossils of these creatures undergoing change?

caseypayne1980 #fundie christianforums.net

In reality we should be amazed that God can create and did create so many life forms with similiarities. To believe we came from an A sexual single celled organism to a organism with reproductive organs for mating is in it's self stupid. Then carring that idea to a fish and plant and later to a creature on land that grew legs. Fish in the sea today still don't have legs as far as we can remember, and last time I check they didn't want to walk on land. But the fairy tale sounds fun to believe. Have a pet fish? Go ahead and throw it out of its fish bow and tell it to walk and breath. Evolution will grab ahold of it right and for survival it will walk. lol Dummiest theories of the world today lay in science. Science can have all the angles it wants to lie. Yes I said lie because the only way out of a lie is the truth. And no self pride loving scientist is going to back down. They'll simple create more oopsie to back old oopsie. Its just that simple.

caseypayne1980 #fundie christianforums.net

You know what I give up. Not because I'm losing but because. What have I won If I explained something to a foolish man. He's still foolish. I"m not going to play the circle game all day with someone who seams to just want to but heads. Perhaps if you stopped reading things in a biased angle you wouldn't be were you are now. twin nested hierarchy is a pretty funny concept too. Well since we all share smiliar traits we must have all came from a common Ancestor aka the single celled organism. In reality we should be amazed that God can create and did create so many life forms with similiarities. To believe we came from an A sexual single celled organism to a organism with reproductive organs for mating is in it's self stupid. Then carring that idea to a fish and plant and later to a creature on land that grew legs. Fish in the sea today still don't have legs as far as we can remember, and last time I check they didn't want to walk on land. But the fairy tale sounds fun to believe. Have a pet fish? Go ahead and throw it out of its fish bow and tell it to walk and breath. Evolution will grab ahold of it right and for survival it will walk. lol Dummiest theories of the world today lay in science. Science can have all the angles it wants to lie. Yes I said lie because the only way out of a lie is the truth. And no self pride loving scientist is going to back down. They'll simple create more oopsie to back old oopsie. Its just that simple.

Harry #fundie talkorigins.org

IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST

1)I would convince people that order came from disorder and chaos. 2) I would convince people that intelligence came from non-intelligence. 3) I would persuade minds to believe that living things can spring from dead matter.(The opposite of the law of biogenesis) 4) I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba. 5) I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death. Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth. 6) I would convince man that the intricate design of the universe had no designer, it was all an accident. 7) I would convince man that dolphins at one time had legs and climbed trees and then evolved into men. 8) I would convince man that the very first thing that ever came into existence, came into existence out of nothing. 9) I would convince man that the laws of nature( gravity, biogenesis, aerodynamics etc.) did not need a law giver. These laws came into being accidently from non-intelligence. 10) I would tell man that if the moon was not in the exact place it is in, the earth would be covered by water, and that the moon is where it is by accidental happenstance and good fortune.

LAST OF ALL IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST, I WOULD PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES ARE ALL TRUE

DRJJ #fundie sciencemag.org

Micro evolution: sure, we all agree-small changes within species over time and survival of the fittest (wolf into dog, etc)!
Macro evolution: we all crawled out of supernatural pond scum, after a big bang from nowhere,
by chance and luck, then miraculously but naturally now, evolved into a more complex being than any supercomputer by light years, with billions of transitional missing links still missing?
A hoax! And one we teach as intellectually honest science in public schools as required learning!!

This is in breach of separation of church/state (requires blind faith) and teaching our kids they are all just animals with no hope! Don't be surprised when you/yours are treated like animals (turn on the news)!

Einstein to Time Magazine later in life re CREATION:
"We're all like a bunch of little children, entering a huge library, with 1000s of books written in many languages. The little child knows someone must have written those books" (the heavens declare his glory)

"In God we Trust" -it's the best practice (and the truth) See (moral) conscience, miraculous Bible (feeds the soul) and history for details (man is not inherently good, etc). Thanks

Umm_Hanzalah #fundie ummah.com

"I'm not interested in fossil evidence. Anyone can make stuff like that up...as we know many of these fossil evidences and bones have been proven to be fake. I'm just fascinated at the fact that these atheist scientists claim to be more logical than those who believe in God and yet fail to show transitions of species that are alive. For if they were telling the truth, transitions of living species would be observable.

I stick by my belief that the theory of evolution's origins lie in racism and atheism, despite what the political beliefs of todays evolutionists may be.

The reason why I say that atheists grow in arrogance when studying the creation is because by studying the intricate details of this beautiful creation, (which is in wonderful working order) it should humble them to acknolwedge that there is something greater than them (i.e. The Creator), but instead they marvel at their own so-called 'intelligence' and reject The Creator and grow in arrogance regardless of which 'top' university they may be at."

8th Grader (On Evolution) #fundie sorryitwasaprivatemessage.com

You can't seriously believe everything just kind of snapped together, had chemical reaction, produced life, and slowly worked it's way up over millions of years.

I believe in intelligent design. What's more, my Creator also became a man and died for your and my sins. All the proof you need is in the Bible. I don't care if you disagree, but those are my beliefs.

Why don't dogs who have their tails or ears clipped have babies with those features clipped already? What about the women in Africa who break their necks at birth and put a ring on for every year, why aren't their children automaticly born with broken necks and cracked collar bones? Can you anwser that?

How would the missing 'missing links' survive their transitions? How would mouse changing into a bat live if it couldn't run, yet couldn't fly with it's half-wings? If you can answer those questions easily, with proof, I'll be stunned.

Carico #fundie achristianandanatheist.com

Sorry, but all you have to do is look at the latest "missing link" which looks more like a lizard than a human being. :lol: If that were found before the Darwin Delusion, there is no possible way to claim it was in any way, human, much less a missing link between humans and...of course they don't know what's on the other side of the chain since Darwin didn't describe his main characters (the common ancestor). So they can't know what any links in the middle of the chain are supposed to look like. They can thus find any animal and make up any story they want about it that can't be verified by anyone in history. That's the definition of a fairy tale. :wink:

But it's funny how easy it is for so many people to believe anything scientists say. Agaon, that's how myths become popular. :wink:

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

Gravity is observable, testable, repeatable, why don't you show me the "common ancestor" evolving into something?
Atheism is a belief system like any other religion, one cannot prove there is no God, one has faith there isn't.
It is funny how you try to apply the title of 'science' to attack things, though, or how you attempt to lump your religion with real science.

We see the hawthorne fruit fly evolving today. Observed evolution. Where's the evidence for creation?

"200 years ago, the ancestors of apple maggot flies laid their eggs only on hawthorns — but today, these flies lay eggs on hawthorns (which are native to America) and domestic apples (which were introduced to America by immigrants and bred)." Wow, quite the example of evolution - I can barely type I'm laughing so hard!!

Another xtian who doesnt understand evolution. There are MANY types of speciation. But there are 0 forms of creation. The joke's on you, Christian.

A cow never evolved to anything other than a cow, bacteria is always bacteria, jokes on you.

Prove it.

A total lack of proof is all I need to know evolutionism is nothing more than a blind faith religion.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

New York Times: A Dinosaur With a Beak and Feathers Unearthed in China

By KENNETH CHANG

Today's rebuttal focuses on the Darwin's deluded dogma of "Evolution" TM -- specifically as it is said to relate to a new dinosaur unearthed in China. Before we begin to analyze a few select excerpts, let's us remind "youse guys" of what you probably learned in 8th grade, but may or may not have forgotten -- namely, the classic textbook definition of the "Scientific Method."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The key word is "the O Word" -- OBSERVATION. Darwin's deluded devotees can scream "SCIENCE!" in your face all they want; but if a theorized phenomenon - or iron-clad-after-the-fact forensic evidence of said phenomenon - are not OBSERVABLE, then it does not meet the standards of the Scientific Method. N.O. = N.S. (Not Observable = Not Science) Learn it. Love it. Live it.--- End of discussion. --- Got it? Good.

The "O Word" is more than just synonymous with science, it IS science; and no amount of fancy math equations, artistic renderings,computer models and academic bullying can ever substitute for it.

Now that 8th Grade Science class is complete, let's "observe" what Kenneth Chang's article is claiming.

Kenneth Chang: It had feathers and a beak.

Rebuttal: How do you know for certain that this creature had feathers? Only bone and beak fragments were discovered in the rock. A platypus has a beak but no feathers. The scientists are assuming feathers, not OBSERVING.

Kenneth Chang: It was the size of a donkey, and it did not fly. It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds.

Rebuttal: How do you know that this skeletal remnant this some odd-looking creature was "a close relative of birds?" Did anyone actually OBSERVE the transition of the alleged common ancestor into this feathered and beaked dinosaur on one branch; and birds on another branch? (Answer: No) To assume so merely on the basis of a few common characteristics amounts to reckless inference based upon wild conjecture.

Kenneth Chang: In a paper published on Thursday ... a team of scientists described a fossil of Tongtianlong Limosus, a new species in a strange group of dinosaurs that lived during the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct.

Rebuttal: How is it possible to chronicle events of "the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct" when there was no one around to OBSERVE and document the the life and times of Tongtianlong Limosus? (Answer: It is not possible) Do these "theoretical scientists" have some sort of magic time-machine that allows them to go back and forth through the ages?

Kenneth Chang: Oviraptorosaurs are not direct ancestors of birds, but share a common theropod dinosaur ancestor with the lineage that later evolved to birds.

Rebuttal: Again, we must ask: who OBSERVED this common-ancestor to bird & dinosaur progression? (Answer: nobody)

Kenneth Chang: The features, ... for display to potential mates... "They were like advertising billboards," Dr. (Stephen) Brusatte said.

Rebuttal: So, not only does the magic crystal ball of "theoretical science" tell us that the poor beaked bloke who got stuck in the mud had "feathers" -- but we may also recklessly infer that the feathers were used to attract bird chicks. But why should we infer such a thing when only peacocks (as far as we know) showoff their plumage to attract female? Eagles don't. Pigeons don't. Ostriches don't. How does this ass-clown "Dr. Brusatte" know that our muddy Chinese friend engaged in such aviary exhibitionism?

Kenneth Chang: Some features like the feathers come from the common ancestor, ...

Rebuttal: A classic logical fallacy that is often, no, always made by Darwin's deluded devotees is the prior assumption that "Evolution" TM is an established fact. All subsequent data is then interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the other way around. They therefore assume that if this creature has a characteristic that is very similar to that creature, the two species must have had a "common ancestor" TM. This is like saying that an Italian sports car and a school bus must have a "common ancestor" TM because both have wheels and a transmission.

Kenneth Chang: The common ancestor had teeth, though, not beaks.

Rebuttal: And exactly how the frickety-frack do you know that? So, not only are we to believe that these "scientists" have established the existence of a "common ancestor" TM without any OBSERVABLE evidence as such; but now they claim to be able to tell us what physical characteristics that said "common ancestor" TM has or didn't have. And, not only is the transition from the "common ancestor" TM not OBSERVABLE, the fossil of what is alleged to be the "common ancestor" TM is also not OBSERVABLE.

Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes could teach these academic egg-heads a lesson in logic and sound reasoning.

Kenneth Chang: For oviraptorosaurs, the beaks were “convergent evolution,” when similar features evolve independently among different groups of animals.

Rebuttal: "Convergent Evolution," eh? Sounds like some seriously heavy "science" there. (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- Again, not OBSERVABLE --- Just new bullshit to prop up the old.

Kenneth Chang: One of the unknowns is what Tongtianlong and other oviraptorosaurs were eating.

Rebuttal: Aw heck! Let's just say they ate Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches. Why not? Everything else is made up.

Kenneth Chang: The six oviraptorosaur species discovered so far are also very different from each other, and the scientists argue that this shows rapid evolution of these dinosaurs.

Rebuttal: No, it just shows that breeds of the same species (a gene pool) can vary greatly. Just look at the differences in size, shape, fur and temperament among French Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Pit Bulls, Great Danes, German Shepherds and Chihuahuas.

Kenneth Chang: That runs counter to the assertion of some paleontologists that dinosaurs were already in decline long before they became extinct 66 million years ago, most likely from the global devastation following a large asteroid impact.

Rebuttal: How do these eggheads come up with this number of "66 million years ago" as the precise date of dino-extinction? (nice little Satanic touch with the 6-6 there) Did anyone OBSERVE the passage of "66 million" years of time? (Answer: No) -- Did anyone OBSERVE the killer asteroid, or even the hole that it would have left behind? (Answer: No)

Kenneth Chang: “One of the interesting things about these specimens that are coming out of southern China is that they show this diversity of body forms.”

Rebuttal: Yeah. So what? Dogs, cats, humans etc. also vary in body forms. And has it occurred to you geniuses that at least part of the reason for the variance could just be due to the fact that some of the fossilized specimens may have been small cubs; others were medium-sized adolescents, and still others were full grown adults?

Kenneth Chang: She was less certain about whether the rate of evolution is as fast .... because the scientists lack precise dating of the layer of rock hundreds of yards thick where the fossils have been found. “You don’t know if it’s a million years or 10 million years,”

Rebuttal: This nonsense about measuring time by correlating it to rock thickness assumes a steady rate of silt/sediment accumulation. In reality, a catastrophic flood can deposit as much sediment in a few days as normal conditions can over the course of many centuries. This magical method of time-keeping -- a work-around to circumvent the Scientific Method -- is again totally unscientific because there is no way to go back in time and OBSERVE if the wet-sediment-to-rock-time formula is accurate.

Furthermore, the bones would have dried up, turned to dust and blown away long before centuries of sediment accumulation and hardening could completely encase and petrify them. Try dumping your Thanksgiving Day turkey bones in a nearby wooded area are see how long they last before nature's elements and insects cause them to disintegrate and disappear -- months or a few years at the most!

How's the old funeral ditty go? "Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust."

Intact bones found inside of rock layers are evidence of a catastrophic, fast-acting, silt-depositing event such as a flood, volcano, landslide, tsunami, suddenly rising sea level or something else. Might that be how our Chinese "feathered" friend suddenly got stuck in the mud -- a mud which later hardened as it was soon buried under additional layers of silt?

1- Dog breeds differ greatly among themselves too. It doesn't prove that poodles "evolved" into dalmatians!
2- The "science" of rock dating is deeply flawed to begin with. Dating fossils from the erroneously-aged rocks then leads to circular reasoning.
3- Darwin's scam is thoroughly and humorously exposed in "God vs Darwin" by M S King. (here)

This cooked-up commie crap would actually be funny, were it not for the fact that millions of young malleable minds are being corrupted by the "theoretical scientists." For that reason, these diploma-decorated dorks need to be driven out of Academia and into the lunatic asylums by the thousands.

The Sacred Sandwich #fundie sacredsandwich.com

In a recent Steven Crowder YouTube video, Alexa, the interactive virtual assistant built into Amazon’s Echo, was asked the question, “Who is the Lord Jesus Christ?” Her answer was short and to the point: “Jesus Christ is a fictional character.”*

We may gasp at that shocking response, but the answer really shouldn’t surprise us. We live in a day and age where biblical truth is marginalized and the once-distinct line between reality and fantasy is blurred. Nowadays, a fetus isn’t a person, there are more than two genders, and Lucifer is a semi-fallen angel with a heart of gold on a successful Fox TV series.

No wonder Alexa can answer the question as she does. The existence of the biblical Jesus is up for debate in these wishy-washy times, so why mince words just to appease a fading orthodoxy in Christianity? Besides, any post-Christian church can still flourish these days without objective truth or a historical basis in fact. Today’s “spiritual-but-not-religious” people are more informed by their emotions than by an external revelation from the one true God. Jesus is now whomever they want Him to be, as long as it “feels right.”

Mark Steyn, in fact, gave the scathing opinion that many mainline Protestant churches, especially in Europe, have turned Jesus into nothing more than a soft-left political cliché. According to their sentimentality, Steyn writes:

“…if Jesus were alive today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally friendly car with an “Arms are for Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams.” ? America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.

So how did Jesus Christ, whose incarnation divided the world’s measurement of history, begin to be relegated to fictional status? The Bible has shown us that the attacks against Jesus have always been about tearing down His legitimacy in one way or another, and this is no exception. The current approach, however, is to lump the historical Jesus together with every “Christ figure” that mankind can conjure up in its imaginations. In fact, Jesus warns us of this sort of thing: “If anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Matthew 24:23–24).

Current signs indicate that we are allowing the real Jesus to lose His distinction among the mythological “Christs” of the present world. Therefore, who’s to say which Christ is hard fact and which Christ is idealized fiction? To be sure, Western society’s current obsession with mythology and other popular products of the imagination, both new and ancient, have brought us to a point where the biblical Son of God is no more significant than any other literary or cinematic character imbued with religious symbolism. Jesus, it seems, has become just another “archetype” among many in which to inform our postmodern spirituality.

The concept of archetypes, first theorized by Carl Jung, put forth the idea that universal mythic characters, or archetypes, reside within the collective unconscious of all humanity and have emerged through our art over the centuries. Not surprisingly, this Gnosis-based theory has so infiltrated the religious sentiments of the current population that a savior like Jesus Christ doesn’t have to exist in reality; it is only the internalized “idea” of what He symbolizes that brings one closer to enlightenment and divinity. Who needs the Son of God slain on the cross when we can find comfort in an imaginary archetype of sacrificial love and acceptance that allows each person to rise to the higher Self by their own power?

Sadly, the dependable eyewitness accounts of the New Testament now have to compete with the fantastical tales of the Marvel/DC universe, Hogwarts, Middle Earth, or even Narnia. In the end, the Gospel record is far too mundane for a world mesmerized by glowing screens filled with CGI candy. Jesus and the apostles, much to the chagrin of some, never wore superhero costumes, flew Firebolt brooms, or slew mythical creatures with swords or light sabers. Is it any wonder, then, that the mythic archetypes of our popular culture are considered more compelling than the real men of God who toiled in a ministry that often brought ostracism, suffering, and ignominious death?

The Confusion Of The Younger Generation

My immediate concern, of course, is for the younger generation growing up in this current crusade of make-believe and religious skepticism. It’s one thing for grown-ups to deal with these assaults upon truth, but young children are not intellectually developed enough to make a distinction between what is real and what is imaginary. Some people who are involved in early education, even in the most progressive schools, have found this to be true in their experience:

“A child who spends too much time in a world of fantasy may find it difficult to relate to others, to interact in a group, to be in the here and now. It can also be scary for a child… When a child under 5 or 6 hears a fairy tale with a wicked witch, they then also imagine this witch to be real as a child of this age has a very concrete understanding of the world. They visualize it as if it is real as they are not yet able to clearly separate fantasy from reality.” – Montessori And Pretend Play: A Complicated Question

This childhood interaction between fact and fiction can be even more complicated when you, as a Christian parent, begin to introduce your child to the real person of Jesus Christ. This should be an exciting and joyful truth to share with your little one as you begin the process of rearing your child under the instruction of God’s word, but it can oftentimes be a difficult education if Jesus has to compete with Santa Claus, Superman, or Harry Potter as the object of your child’s fledgling hero-worship.

Recent research has proven this confusion among children to be a real issue. Case in point, a 2014 research study at Boston University where it was discovered that young children with a religious background were less able to distinguish between fantasy and reality compared with their secular counterparts:

In two studies, 66 kindergarten-age children were presented with three types of stories: realistic, religious and fantastical. The researchers then queried the children on whether they thought the main character in the story was real or fictional.

While nearly all children found the figures in the realistic narratives to be real, secular and religious children were split on religious stories. Children with a religious upbringing tended to view the protagonists in religious stories as real, whereas children from non-religious households saw them as fictional.

Although this might be unsurprising, secular and religious children also differed in their interpretation of fantasy narratives where there was a supernatural or magical storyline.

“Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional,” wrote the researchers. “The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

– BBC News, Study: Religious Children Are Less Able To Distinguish Fantasy From Reality

The researchers concluded (as most college researchers are prone to do) that exposure to a religious education is probably the main culprit in a child’s difficulty in identifying fact from fiction. This conclusion, however, seems to indicate an anti-biblical bias that completely ignores the alternative possibility. Why is religion the problem? Isn’t it just as plausible that fictional stories involving magic are the real cause of confusion, especially when these fanciful tales, like Pharoah’s magicians, are the ones mimicking God’s miracles in the Bible?

In light of Scripture, this alternative conclusion is clearly confirmed. For starters, God is not a God of confusion. God’s word will not return void, but will accomplish what He pleases and will prosper in that thing for which He sent it. Over and over again, the Bible confirms that scriptural instruction from the word of God is essential to a child’s proper upbringing. It keeps them far from folly, equips them for good works, and makes them wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (Proverbs 22:15 / 2 Timothy 3:14-17).

The one thing that is likely to undermine this God-ordained training is when an unaware parent interjects inappropriate fantasy stories from movies and literature as a compatible resource for their child’s development. This misstep is compounded when the parent’s reason for doing this is not because Disney movies or similar entertainments have any legitimate educational value, but because they don’t want their children to miss out on what the popular culture has to offer, even if it contains unbiblical content. To be blunt, raising children with such an indiscriminate use of worldly influences is almost a cultural form of Moloch worship which the faithless Israelites succumbed to when they delivered their infant children over to paganism for the sake of their temporal prosperity (Psalm 106:34-39).

Think about the possible consequences. Should we really be surprised when little Suzy suddenly has trouble maintaining the reality of Jesus walking on water after watching Luke Skywalker use the Force to levitate himself? And what should Suzy’s parents do after this happens? Do they let Suzy try to figure it out for herself or do they attempt to adequately explain the unexplainable to a kindergartner? And does it really matter at this point?

Some may suggest (and rightly so) that we can’t always shield our children from the world’s influences and the confusion these things might engender. Surely this is part and parcel of the average childhood and will no longer be an issue once they grow older and gain the intellectual capacity and religious understanding to correctly divide fact from fiction or right from wrong.

This is a valid point, and yet not particularly the issue at hand. The concern is not so much in how such exposure might temporarily affect a child, but how it might impact the child later on and into adulthood. A childhood immersed in “make-believe” might well lead to a misguided adulthood that finds more “truth” in paganism or occultism than in the Bible. It might also lay the groundwork for the idea that God’s word is just another fairy tale of human invention. And eventually, these adults might find themselves falling into the ditch of full-blown skepticism or atheism.

This possibility, in fact, was recently explored in a research study titled, Make Believe Unmakes Belief?: Childhood Play Style and Adult Personality as Predictors of Religious Identity Change. Published in 2014, the study looked into the relationship between childhood imagination and religiosity, finding that people who intensely engaged in pretend play as children were more likely to change their religious identity later in life, with apostasy being the largest category. As reported by Merrill Miller:

“The study assessed the role of ‘pretend play’—creating and acting out imaginary scenarios in made-up worlds—in the childhoods of individuals… and found that individuals who did not change their religious or nonreligious identification were less likely to have engaged in pretend play. Converts and switchers, however, were more likely to have played pretend, and apostates were the most likely to have often engaged in pretend play.” – The Humanist, Are Nonbelievers More Imaginative? A New Study Suggests They Might Be

Why were children who actively pursued a fantasy world more likely to abandon their religious upbringing as adults?

“The study’s author, Christopher Burris speculated that the higher correlation for apostates is because of the shift from structure — common among religious institutions — to unstructured — that is found in pretend play. ‘The realm of the nonbeliever is much less structured than the realm of belief is,’ he explained. ‘People’s cognitive, intellectual and emotional needs are not met sufficiently by faith traditions, so they strike out on their own way.'” – Massarah Mikati, Deseret News

The Biblical Approach For Christian Parents

The Bible, of course, has already anticipated the possible spiritual fallout from cultivating a child’s wild imagination instead of grounding them in reality and the clear instruction of God’s revelation. The biblical remedy?

Train up a child in the way that he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. – Proverbs 22:6

This is not to say that Christian parents shouldn’t encourage their child’s emerging creativity. But it should be grounded and fostered in reality. To truly instill an active and abiding love for God and neighbor, a child’s imagination must be connected to this real-life task and to exposing the child to those faithful people in their lives who emulate Christian duty in their various talents and occupations.

Even without the benefit of this biblical insight, Dr. Maria Montessori made the academic observation that reality was the key to a more profitable imagination:

“The true basis of the imagination is reality, and its perception is related to exactness of observation. It is necessary to prepare children to perceive the things in their environment exactly, in order to secure for them the material required by the imagination. Intelligence, reasoning, and distinguishing one thing from another prepares a cement for imaginative constructions… The fancy which exaggerates and invents coarsely does not put the child on the right road.” – Spontaneous Activity in Education p 254, Chapter IX

Don’t misunderstand this point. Pretend play is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is an activity meant to assist children in processing the real world around them. “For example, if they see an excavator at work in the street,” writes one teacher, “they may then be attracted to working with a model of an excavator, to reading books about construction vehicles and to play based on this. This is a child’s imagination at work.”

The fact is, even children themselves would much rather engage with real-life activities when possible. Many educators are well aware that a child is much more excited by helping Mom or Dad prepare a meal in the kitchen than pretend-cook with a toy stove. And Scripture finds great wisdom in this approach. Notice how God instructs His people to teach their children in the course of their daily activities:

You shall teach [the words of God] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. – Deuteronomy 6:7

Here we see no significant time set aside for daydreaming or chasing after empty phantasms. This is an all-encompassing lifestyle that weaves God’s truth into one’s daily labor from dawn to dusk, and from childhood to adulthood. It is the command from Genesis and throughout the Bible to bear fruit in every good work and increase in the knowledge of God (Colossians 1:10) “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).

Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. – 1 Corinthians 14:20

The Mature Approach For All Christians

Where is this maturity of which Paul speaks? Truly, one of the problems with American Christianity today is that too many professing believers have failed to see the importance of sobriety and maturity as a biblical imperative for discipleship. They twist the meaning of Luke 18:16-17 and simply refuse to grow up. They see their childlike fascination with games, fairy tales, and the playthings of their youth as a crowning virtue instead of a possible impediment to spiritual growth. In turn, these parents immerse their children in the same enthrallments and find great satisfaction in molding little ones into their own image, forgetting that the Bible instructs them otherwise.

On the contrary, God is the only object of wonder we need to focus on:

We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. – Psalm 78:4

I ask you: How could anyone fully submit to this sacred task if Jesus is only viewed as a mythological “archetype of Christ” or a good teacher who said wise things but never really existed except in our collective unconscious?

Any confusion about the reality of the Son of God is never going to serve this dark world, especially in an age where fantasy is actively usurping real life. As Christians, we have a holy calling to go into the world to make disciples, not to go into a fantasy-land to do so. God’s word and the Holy Spirit have shown us the only mind-altering vision we need to ignite our passion. We need to humbly submit to our Lord’s charge to deny self, follow Him, and stay true to our Gospel witness and testimony for the sake of the lost.

We know, of course, that shielding people, young or old, from the counterfeit fictions of this world won’t guarantee their eventual conversion. Ultimately, it is only by God’s grace and power that hearts are changed and the lost through faith are saved. Yet, we also know that if salvation does come to an individual, it won’t be because of fairy tales or myths, but despite them. Our job as Christians is to stay on point with the pure Gospel message, and not capitulate in any way to the world’s insatiable desire for an alternate reality. To give in to that desire does nothing more than bring confusion and cast doubt on the existence of the living Savior and the faith that brings eternal life.

The next time Alexa, or anyone else, dares to tell you that Jesus is a fictional character, ask them what the Bible says about Him. Why? Because the biblical answer to that question is the only response that truly holds the power of the Gospel to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives, recover the sight of the blind, and set at liberty them that are bruised (Luke 4:18).

“Whom do you say I am?” – Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:15

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Boys and Girls and Geese

Use This Evolutionary Children’s Book To Teach Your Kids the Fairy Tale

Imagine a dad sitting down with his children to tell them a story. He begins, “Children, did you know you are related to every moose, every dog, every goose, every finch, every tortoise and every cat?”

The dad continues, “But it’s not just animals you are related to. You are also related to all living things, every plant too.”

Can you then imagine the children’s questions and the dad’s answers?

“Dad, am I related to a banana?”

“Of course, Son, you are related to everything—bananas, tapeworms, ticks, bacteria, flies, ants, bees, camels, pigs—yes, every living thing is related to you.”

Another child responds, “But, Dad. That’s a fairy tale—it doesn’t make sense.”

“Well, children, I have this new book that I’ll read to you called Charlie and The Tortoise.1 The author tells a story about a man named Charles Darwin who popularized an idea to explain how living things arose by themselves. Let me read you the story.”

Yes, there is a recently released children’s book that tries to indoctrinate children into believing that a fairy tale is true!

Notes about Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species are found at the end of the book. They include this statement:

His book showed how all living things are connected, and how animals and plants adapt over long periods of time!
The children’s book states the following:

After years of study, Charlie taught the world, that we’re all connected, every boy and girl. Every horse and every moose. Every dog and every cat. Every finch and every goose. Even tortoises that chat!
Now, what is the author’s main evidence to show children that all life is related and that all boys and girls evolved from ape-like creatures?

Well, it’s depicted in this diagram:

image

Now, isn’t that powerful evidence? Isn’t it obvious that different species of finches prove that all life is connected, and that boys and girls are related to all animals and plants? Unfortunately, generations of high school and college students have already been led to believe that speciation in finches is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

Following the finch illustration, the book shows a diagram of reptiles supposedly evolving into birds, and ape-like creatures evolving into humans.

image

From variation in finches to reptiles becoming birds, and from ape-like creatures becoming humans! Actually, I think I might use this book with my own grandchildren to help them see that evolution is simply a fairy tale! Then I will take our grandkids to the Creation Museum and show them our display of Darwin’s finches, plus an exhibit on our dog skulls.

image

I would explain to my grandchildren that there is actually more variation in species of dog skulls than in finches. Then I would talk to them about the fact that finches remain finches and dogs remain dogs. I would then read God’s Word in Genesis out loud, where we are told that God created each kind of animal after its own kind. According to the Bible, we would expect each kind to produce its own kind—and that’s exactly what we observe in nature.

Sadly, many parents will read this new Darwin book for children and present the evolutionary content as true! To counter the massive indoctrination of evolution in popular books and videos, public schools, media, and museums, Answers in Genesis has made a large range of books, DVDs, and other resources available to help parents teach children the truth of Creation, the Fall, and the saving gospel.

What are the implications of teaching generations of children that they are just animals who are related to all living things like animals and plants? The more such a view permeates their thinking, the more they will see human life as nothing special. This would have an effect on how they view abortion, for example. After all, humans are just animals—if you can get rid of an animal you don’t want, why not also get rid of a child in the womb? It would also have an effect on how young people view suicide. After all, if we are just animals and we cease to exist when we die, what’s the point of living anyway? Unfortunately, there is an alarming increase in teenage suicide (as reported recently). Also, why not kill fellow humans if you don’t like them, as they are just animals anyway in a survival-of-the-fittest world?

Now don’t get me wrong. A young person will not wake up one day and say, “Oh, I’m just an evolved animal; therefore, I’m going to abort a baby, or kill someone, or commit suicide.” But in reality, what they are being taught concerning atheistic evolution will permeate their thinking. Over time, they will begin to act consistently with this evolutionary mindset that has saturated their worldview.

Indeed, evil ideas like atheistic evolution have evil consequences.

I urge you to do your best to raise up generations of children who understand that they are special—made in the image of God. But at the same time, we need to share with them that they have a problem called sin, and that’s why God sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sin so that the relationship with our God can be restored. After all, God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only Son to provide a gift of salvation for us.

No, we’re not related to geese, finches, dogs, cats, or bananas. We were created in the image of God, separate from all living things (Genesis 1:27). That’s why God sees us as so valuable, in fact, so much so that He Himself paid the price so we can be saved and live with Him for eternity.

To help your children understand the true purpose and meaning of life, bring them to the Creation Museum and take advantage of our More Kids Free program through June. Also, visit the Answers in Genesis online bookstore and obtain resources that will teach your children the truth about who they are, where they came from, what their problem is (sin), and what the solution is in Jesus Christ. And plan to bring them to the life-size Ark that opens July 7 here in Northern Kentucky and teach them the truth about God’s Word and its accounts of the Flood, Ark, and Christ coming to earth to offer salvation.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

MB #fundie baptistboard.com

Eviloution !
It is nothing more than tired scientist who have grown tired of looking for the elusive missing link they will never find because it does not exist. So they all got together in there rocking chairs and decided together to simply state evilution as fact with out the facts. So they pesent what they claim are facts which in reality is nothing more than old dead bones they can't extract DNA from and claimed the missing link has been found. They simply have done this to save face instead of admitting they are defeated by there own lies. Not to mention simple math proves the world isn't old enough for evolution to exist. For instance if the world was 150,000,000 years old the world would be so populated there would not be enough room on the planet to be stood on.

Gabriele Kuby #fundie gabriele-kuby.de

TEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST HARRY POTTER

1. Harry Potter is a global long-term project to change the culture. In the young generation inhibitions against magic and the occult are being destroyed. Thus, forces re-enter society which Christianity had overcome.

2. Hogwarts, the school of magic and witchcraft, is a closed world of violence and horror, of cursing and bewitching, of racist ideology, of blood sacrifice, disgust and obsession. There is an atmosphere of continuous threat, which the young reader cannot escape.

3. While Harry Potter appears in the beginning to fight against evil, in fact the similarities between him and Voldemort, the arch-evil adversary in the tale, become more and more obvious. In volume five, Harry is being obsessed by Voldemort, which leads to symptoms of personality disintegration.

4. The human world becomes degraded, the world of witches and sorcerers becomes glorified.

5. There is no positive transcendent dimension. The supernatural is entirely demonic. Devine symbols are perverted.

6. Harry Potter is no modern fairy tale. In fairy tales sorcerers and witches are unambiguous figures of evil. The hero escapes their power through the exercise of virtue. In the Harry Potter universe there is no character that endeavours consistently to achieve good. For seemingly good ends evil means are being used.

7. A (young!) reader’s power of discernment of good and evil is blocked out through emotional manipulation and intellectual confusion.

8. It is an assault upon the young generation, seducing it playfully into a world of witchcraft and sorcery, filling the imagination of the young with images of a world in which evil reigns, from which there is no escape. On the contrary, it is portrayed as highly desirable.

9. Those who value plurality of opinion should resist the nearly overwhelming power of this peer pressure, which is being accomplished through a gigantic corporate and multimedia blitz--one which displays elements of totalitarian brainwashing.

10. Since through the Potter books faith in a loving God is systematically undermined, even destroyed in many young people, through false "values" and mockery of Judeo-Christian truth, the introduction of these books in schools is intolerant. Parents should refuse permission for their children to take part in Potter indoctrination for reasons of faith and conscience

Garvan Ellison #fundie garvanellison.blogspot.com

The Absence of Transitional Forms
This is one of the most potent arguments against evolution I have ever come across. It has never, to my knowledge, been effectively countered by any evolutionist.

Basically the evolutionist believes that transitional forms happen "all the time" throughout history. So we don't actually need to look at fossil records to establish evolution - all we need to do is LOOK AROUND US and OBSERVE all the billions of transitional forms and species which - according to the evolutionist - should be running about the day. Since, according to the evolutionist, change is slow and gradual, then we be able to observe many forms which things like three legs, half a fin, one wing, etc.

So why can't we see them? Did evolution grind to a sudden halt over the past 150 years since Darwin declared its existence? That would be a bit odd, would it not???!!!

So, evolutionists, show me the evidence. Who needs to concern themselves with the fossil record when according to your own THEORY transitional entities should be ALL AROUND US - walking, swimming, crawling or flying.

James L. Melton #fundie av1611.org

Over the years, being hard-pressed for real evidence, the evolutionists have managed to conjure up a number of "proofs" that Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. This so-called "evidence" is worshipped by all evolutionists, while all contrary evidence is ignored. Let's consider some of their evidence.

VESTIGIAL ORGANS are believed by evolutionists to be parts of the human body that are no longer needed. Therefore these useless body parts must be "left-overs" from our ancestors, the monkeys. These "useless" body parts include the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), the pineal gland, the plica semilunaris, the tonsils, and the ear lobes.

Naturally, the facts are ignored. Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather.

Another "proof" for evolution is found in the field of BIOCHEMISTRY. This is where scientists mix genes and chromosomes in their effort to prove relation between man and animal.

Is there any conclusive evidence? No there isn't. Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys! There isn't one ounce of real evidence anywhere in the entire field of biochemistry which proves that men and animals are kin--just theories and wishful thinking.

EMBRYOLOGY is another field of study. This is where unborn embryos are studied in order to detect the preformed shape of humans and animals. This is the field where we find Haeckel talking about "ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY" This is the belief that every individual passes through the many evolutionary stages while still in the mother's womb. That is, you body took on the shape of an amoeba, then a paramecium, then a jelly fish, then a fish, then a bunch of other creatures during the nine months prior to your birth. Of course, this theory ignores the fact that respiratory systems develop LATE in the human embryo. So how did early mammal life exist without breathing? They've also ignored the fact that the head of an unborn baby is larger than the body, which is NOT the case with fish.

Professor Waldo Sumway, of Stephens Institute of Technology, says that "There is never a time in the development of a mammal when it could have been mistaken for a fish or reptile."

Now we come to the wonderful world of TAXONOMY, where cartoon charts are used to artificially classify bones in order to "prove" evolution. This is where evolutionists develop a "disneyland" mentally and construct a chart which shows the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Then they proceed to divide this chart up into various time frames containing hundreds of millions of years each. As new discoveries are found, the scientists conveniently place them at selected places on the chart.

This would be a dandy little system, except for one minor problem: THEY'VE NEVER PROVEN THE ORIGINAL CHART! It's nothing more than blind guesswork. No one has ever proven that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The chart is NOT scientific. In fact, many scientists believe that the earth isn't over 6,000 to 10,000 years old! Of course, all opposing views are ignored by evolutionary scientists, for they need a nice big time period in which to place their new findings. You've heard of people "buying time?" Well, evolutionists just DREAM IT UP.

Another "proof" for evolution is COMPARATIVE ANATOMY, the belief that similar bone structures prove animal kin through evolution. That is, if two different animals have similar bone structures, then they must have evolved from the same original ancestors. Of course, this is more

nonsense. Any scientist knows perfectly well that many such bone structures are produced by entirely DIFFERENT GENES, thus proving that they are in NO WAY RELATED! In fact, if similar bone structure proves anything, it proves that these animals were created by the same God!

The sixth argument used to support evolution is the so-called FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The evolutionist believes that the fossil record proves a progressive evolution of the species over millions of years, beginning with non-living matter. This non-living matter supposedly evolves into protozoans, and the protozoans evolve into metazoan invertebrates, which evolve into vertebrate fishes. The fishes evolve into amphibians, which evolve into reptiles, which evolve into birds. The birds then evolve into fur-bearing quadrupeds (animals with 4 legs), and these quadrupeds evolve into apes, and the apes evolve into man.

Now for those who actually believe such a fable, we have a question: WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? If all of those life forms survived by changing into higher life forms, then would someone please show us one living example of this today? Where can we observe a reptile who is slowly changing into a bird? How about a bird who is turning into a four-legged animal? This is one of the strongest arguments against evolution: NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. Even Darwin realized this in his "Origin of the Species" when he said that "this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it." (Vol. 2, 6th Ed. p. 49)

Yes, it certainly is. The more the fossil record builds, the weaker the theory of evolution becomes, because the needed transitional forms are NOT BEING FOUND to link the species! They never will be found, because the species are NOT LINKED (I Cor. 15:38-39).

The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

caamib #sexist rantsofanincel.wordpress.com

Lon, your fairy tales are just that – fairy tales. They have little to do with an actual state of most human beings. Simply put, if feminism made all the men in the world incel they’d quickly tear the system down and massacre those responsible. They wouldn’t listen to middle-aged men who have given up telling them to “let go of hate”.

Feminism is hate itself. It can only be defeated by hating it even more. Men most forgo some “consent” crap as long it isn’t defined in it’s sane form – as a differentiation between a married woman cheating or a married woman being raped. The OT often didn’t even make the distinction between an unmarried girl being raped and her just fooling around. It mattered very little to the consequence, which was that the guy was to marry her. That’s how a man is to think. You can’t think in any other way.

Also, your loaf of bread thing is also incorrect. At times, dealing with women can inflict worse pains that simply never having any experience. I was basically a feminist until I got more experience with women and saw what they really were – animals. Now I have more experience exactly because I ditched feminism and treated them like the animals they are. I wish it weren’t so but the only culture where women do behave is a patriarchal civilization where men guide them to good behavior.

Christopher J. E. Johnson #fundie creationliberty.com

It's the tale of an ancient land mammal making its way back to the sea, becoming the forerunner of today's whales. In doing so, it lost its legs, and all of its vital systems became adapted to a marine existence -- the reverse of what happened millions of years previously, when the first animals crawled out of the sea onto land... Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal."
-Evolution Library, "Whale Evolution," PBS, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2001, retreived Feb 8, 2012, [www.pbs.org]

That quoted article, along with many other public school text books, claims that Ambulocetus is a "missing link," from 50 million years ago, between land dwelling animals, like a cow, and sea dwelling animals, like a whale. Here is some typical textbook propaganda trying to convince students that a land-dwelling mammal evolved into ambulocetus:

Ambulocetus is constructed from a few skeletal fragments discovered by Johannes Thewissen during a dig in Pakistan in 1993. In the following image, side by side, you can see the typical display of ambulocetus by evolutionists (constructed by Thewissen), and just below that are the bones that were actually discovered.

To get the full description of recovered skeleton, see J.G.M. Thewissen, J.G.M., "Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete whales," Science, 1994, Vol 263, p. 210–212

Before we go any further, we need to clarify that no fossils can possibly be considered as evidence for evolution. If a scientist finds a bone in the dirt, there is only one thing he knows for certain: It died. He doesn't even know where it died--he only knows where it ended up getting buried. There is no way for a scientist to prove that the bones he found in the dirt had any children that lived, so he can't say that it is the ancestor of anyone. (i.e. Arranging things in order does not prove evolutionary relationships.)

Next, taking a look at how much of the skeleton was found, anyone can see that there was not enough found to tell what that creature looked like. Even though all they found was a few fragments of bones, elaborate artistic images are displayed to deceptively convince students that ambulocetus is evidence for evolution. How do you get these interpretive drawings when no pelvic or legs bones were ever found?

"Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today." -Evolution Library, "Whale Evolution," PBS, WGBH Educational Foundation, 2001, retreived Feb 8, 2012, [www.pbs.org]

See how they avoid mentioning anything about the skeleton that was not found? Yet, they show computer-generated models of a complete animal, calling it an evolutionary link.

"But what is not revealed is that Ambulocetus, illustrated as a possible transitional 'link' to the modern whale, is missing its key body part, 'since the pelvic girdle is not preserved.'"
-Brian Thomas, refering back to Johannes Thewissen's 1996 documentation, "Museum's 'Science' Exhibit Leaves More Questions than Answers," Institute for Creation Research, Jan 11, 2010, retrieved Feb 8, 2012 [www.icr.org]

Not only are they assuming much about the functionality for mobility without the proper skeletal model, they also assumed the tail on the evolutionary model from finding one fragment of tail bone 5 meters away from skeleton. Of course, they had no choice but to assume the tail because they already assumed it was a whale, so they had to put a tail on it to make it convincing.

"Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found. Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus."
-Dr. Angela Meyer, "The World of Whales," Answers in Genesis, also featured in Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine, Dec 1, 1996, retrieved Feb 8, 2012, [www.answersingenesis.org]

So why are we having to pay to be taught the assumption of an evolutionist as if it's a fact? It shows the desperation of the evolutionists to believe in their religion, and some evolutionists think if they can get a majority to believe it by lying to the students, evolution will somehow magically become true.

Evolutionists will complain about this article with the argument that many more skeletons of this creature have been found, but they still will not admit that the initial discovery was based on pure imagination, and many alterations to the general model have been made since it was first discovered. The bottom line is still that no fossils can be used as evidence for evolution. Those calling ambulocetus "proof for evolution" do so by assuming that evolution is already true before they examine any evidence, which means it is a lie that comes from the religious imagination, not scientific data.

anyathesword's Avatar anyathesword #fundie christianforums.com

•Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
•There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are “uphill” (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
•Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
•Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
•A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
•There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
•The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
•There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for “the” missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
•Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
•Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
•Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
•Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is “fatally flawed”—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
•Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth’s lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
•Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
•Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."

In other words, "To hell with those diploma-decorated fools. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?

The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:

image

Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends and the hypothesis goes into the garbage. Now, let's plug "Evolution" TM into the step climber and see what we get.

Step 1: Ask a Question

OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How did we all get here?"

Step 2: Do Background Research

Gather data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.

Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis

Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own words:

"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

What Darwin observed is nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living 10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have much in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin "hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?

Darwin himself even admits that there is no data to support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself should never have been put forth in the first place. Again, from his own mouth:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?

We meet with no such evidence. and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."

That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond scum to modern man did not exist in the 1800's, nor have they been pieced together to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis Step' of Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass" to the next step.

Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove" that great-great-great grandma[x] was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural" experiment, so to speak.

But here again, there is nothing to observe. The reality is that trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed, neither in nature nor in the fossil record. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of observation; let alone constitute evidence that great-great-great grandma[x] was single-celled pond scum. The same goes for your desperately hyped-up finches, peppered moths, 'super rats', platypuses etc.

And speaking of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!), a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to two-cell bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that our common one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma[x] "evolved" into the modern day human, elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree etc.

Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.

The Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable. Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!

Bottom Line: According to any honest rendering of the Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science!

the Truth is stranger than fiction... #fundie youtube.com

(Context: This man is a Flat Earth Preacher and has a whole YouTube channel devoted to that ministry. These are two comments in a video in which he responds to a CREATIONIST refuting Flat Earth)


Comment One: You think Lisle has "spend most of his life doing actual research"...???? Your comment here actually highlights one of the main false assumptions that is central to this whole affair, the false assumption I am actually taking aim AT... Did Lisle actually discover or confirm any of the claims of Copernicanism by way of conducting his own experiments? Challenging the status quo? Weighing what was being taught by the mainstream against what the Bible says, and seeing if observation might show the mainstream to be false? No. The only aspect he has had the courage to question is the vast stretches of Evolutionary time. Yet he turns around and regurgitates everything the same cosmic evolutionists teach about vast stretches of space. Lisle did not get his Phd in astronomy by questioning if modern astronomy was as much of a pseudoscientific lie as Darwinian evolution is. I am not judging him "as a person". I am pointing out the glaring bias present in someone who's entire professional existence is predicated upon the assumption that Copernican astronomy is true. But since you mentioned it, I have done my own research. Both Biblical, and empirical, and unfortunately I can simply no longer accept the indefensible claim that the Bible actually teaches the Copernican model. Nor can I accept the assertion that humans have been into "outer space", or walked on the moon. I have made dozens of videos now which chronicle the progression of my research. Where's yours??

Comment Two: You're correct. The original Hebrew cosmology is not a flat pancake floating in space. Coincidentally, this is not what modern FE'ers believe either. There is no such thing as "space" at all. You have not done a shred of actual research, as neither has Lisle, who for the record, was not being "attacked" via ad hominem. It is hardly a "personal attack" to simply point out the ridiculous degree of bias an individual like Lisle has when it comes to questioning Copernican astronomy. The proof for the Flat Earth is extensive. The proof for the globe is assumptive reasoning and circular arguments based on shadows in wells, and fake NASA pictures. Fake as the pictures of Evolutions' celebrated "missing links' in fact. It's all one big Evolutionary fairy tale. All of it.?

Bro. Randy #fundie teens-4-christ.org

[Why do you choose to not believe in the fact that is evolution?]

The only 'fact' about evolution is that it is a myth concieved in the bowels of hell by Satan.

[Why would you rather believe in fairy tales?]

No, I do not believe fairy tales. That is why I do not believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or evolution. It is so strange to me that so many people can look at the world around them, see the evidence of creation, then take a leap of faith to believe such a massive lie.

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

I did. And by the criteria of atheists, a goat could have just as easily changed into a human as an ape. Afterall, what is entailed in animals changing into human beings, is tails dropping off, standing on 2 legs and using the other 2 for arms, developing a human brain, all of which is nothing short of miraculous. So since it would have been a miracle, then any animal could have changed into a human using the cretieria of atheists. Sorry. It's all a fairy tale and not even a good fairy tale because atheists calim it's true. That's the most irrational thing of all.

Wyatt Junker #fundie fstdt.com

And let me reiterate. Nihilism, in order to be pure, must be continuous. Otherwise, its not nihilism. Its psuedo-nihilism. BREAKING NEWS: We exist. Oooops. Nihilism just got compromised. As did atheism. Because if we die and go into atheism's pithed fairy tale land of nonexistent emptiness, we're gonna have to eradicate this life entirely of its molecular reality also. Either nihilism is linear or its not. Otherwise, it can't be nihilism and then... oh no... ahtheism doesn't have a home.

D Daskalos #fundie answers.yahoo.com

(there's much more stupid where this came from)

"Oh this Evolution crap again!!!

How many times has it been proven that an amoeba's genetic system no matter what mutagenic substance it becomes exposed to won't mutate into that of a nematode, for crying out loud! I just can't imagine this crap becoming a theory in the first place. it shouldn't have gone past the hypothesis level. Since transforming one genetic system into another will probably never be accomplished in the laboratory, anything that this evolution crap assumes as an amoeba "evolving" into a multicellular organism should only be taken as mere speculation and nothing more.

And these evolutionists even have the guts to classify Latimeria sp. as a "Lazarus taxon." HAHAH LMFAO. What? Something resurrected from the dead? HAHAH LMFAO. The bewildering resurfacing of the coelacanth (Latimeria sp.) is what i think to be the proverbial nail that seals the coffin of this "theory" of evolution. This lobe-finned fish and its cousins were thought to be the source of the missing link for fishes & amphibians. they first appeared during the Devonian Age and thought to have been extinct since the Cretaceous 6 million yrs ago. Unfortunately for evolutionists & atheists, a coelacanth species appeared off the coast of S Africa in 1938, after a long, long absence from the 'evolutionary' stage, amazingly unchanged after millions of years of existence, proving that its genetic system has remained stable through all those years. I'm sure a lot of evolutionists have been scratching their heads ever since. HAHAH LMFAO

The theory of evolution is just a HOPELESS DELUSION of atheists. I'd like to be counted as one among many who strongly advocate that this alleged "theory" be only taught to graduate students of SPECULATIVE BIOLOGY! It's really nothing more than stupid religion for those with "amoeboid consciousness." HAHAH LMFAO"

Mr Garrison?

Is that you?

deciple #fundie atheistforums.org

The way i understand evolution is that out of nothing some kind of single celled organisim sprang and then that evolved into a two celled organism then that eventually turned into a fish, the fish turned into a lizard the lizard branched off and turned into a bird and a mammal and then from that we get monkeys and they turned into people. If that is true wouldnt it be possible to take something that already functions such as a wristwatch and send it off to a distant planet that resembles the conditions here on earth and have some kind of mars rover put it in the dirt and over millions of years shouldnt it turn into something? No it will still be a wristwatch in the dirt.

Slash Gordon #fundie flickr.com

***Shiny mirror award?***

Princess +frog+kiss=Prince (fairy tale)
frog+millions of years=man (adult fairy tale)

Evolution is only a process, imagined and concocted by ppl, who don't like the thought of answering to a holy God, for the wrongs they've done, after they die.
An over active imagination will never destroy the existence of the Biblical God.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

The atheist's RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth--the ol' ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

If you try to tell 'em the truth, they say "Shut up!"
stick their heads in the ground and shout--

"There's nobody there,
there's nobody there,
there's nobody there, I tell you!
See, I can't see 'em!"

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity. God is not dependent on you in any way. Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there's Jesus. And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." --Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:44)

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody's enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We'd just be deluded people.

Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to "prove" that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn't have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades--but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don't know if he got saved or not. When it's time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren't should be terrified.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ. I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions. Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don't let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these. He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell-fire and the wrath of God. The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like ...

You were spontaneously generated from a rock,
a monkey is your daddy,
a fish is your cousin,
you have no hope,
you should just live for today,
when you're dead, you're dead.

pistache #fundie rr-bb.com

I saw it[Brave], and liked a lot about it, but I'm not sure that I would take a child to see it - at least without discussing it. Parts of its message are really anti-biblical. The animation is fantastic, and Merida's beautiful red hair is mesmerizing! I also liked the theme of the importance of the famiy bond and forgiveness - particularly between mother-daughter.

But it was FILLED with spiritism and darkish magic, to the point that I felt it was preachy. It's set in pre-Christian era Scotland - with all their druid type culture. Merida learns to follow little blue lights/apparitions called wisps that lead her to her fate, where she meets a witch in a magical stonehenge-reminiscent setting (which her horse wouldn't enter into). The witch then casts a spell that is the catalyst for Merida's journey in the movie. It's taught that you should trust the wisps to lead you to a safe place and you can trust them. While I like a good fairy tale, these apparitions seemed strangely occultic, moreso than your typical "fairy godmother" or other such fairy-tale characteristics.

mdblf #fundie jogreen76.newsvine.com

I am posting so that i may get a response on your science, history, geography, etc., that "supposedly proves" the Bible is wrong. Where can we find such facts, or is this just another lie promoted by those that believe in the fairy tale of evolution?
I will enclose my comment I posted last night as it does happen to have scientific and historical evidence, whereas your message ironically contains none.
Evolutionists like to assume those that believe in a creator are ignorant and dumb. Theory of evolution provides no answers, just more questions. Interesting to note that i could take my science books from my school days and expose many things that have been revised because of the errors in their "scientific beliefs". This would mean that these things ARE lies. Just because someone doesn't know they lied when they taught it doesn't mean they didn't lie. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I for one, tend to be a little sceptical after I know that I have been lied to. I don't just then ignorantly accept the next lie, because it makes they're fairytale sound better.
Here is the comment I posted>
After reading some of this debate, I have come to the conclusion that many 5 yo's have more knowledge than these professed evolutionists. They will proclaim it took hundreds of millions of years for one thing to change into another, yet they provide no proof. My 5 year old can show you a caterpillar that transforms in three days into a butterfly, a maggot into a fly in one, a tadpole, etc..... How's that for scientific proof. The evidence is right before you're very eyes, always has been. It takes days, not millions or even billions of years. Yet this is exactly what they were CREATED to do. Why don't you evolutionists go believe some more of your fairy-tales that provide not one single bit of evidence to support them? My faith is in God, yours is in your "scientists" that have lied and still continue to lie to you. You wanted proof, there it is, DAYS NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS. This is pretty elementary. Matter of fact this is true science, because this is backed with fact not some fairytale. Most of you forget that your poster-child scientist (Einstein) believed in God. Go figure, huh? He stated, "God does not play dice with the universe". Where does your "random chance" come into play here? Where does your chance come into play in the cocoon of the butterfly? It doesn't, every time it remains the same!

Grant Williams #fundie google.com

The Official Pokémon Handbook states:

‘Just like people, Pokémon don’t stay the same forever. As they learn and grow they change form—they evolve.’

Pokémon creatures can have up to three stages of evolution and ‘evolve’ at different levels in the game. These higher forms, into which the original characters evolve, are larger and more powerful.

In the mythic Pokémon world, these exotic creatures evolve differently from how life forms supposedly evolved on Earth. Darwinian evolution is not presented here; chance and mutation are not part of the process.

Where the Pokémon live, evolution proceeds through conscious choice! After a Pokémon has fought and won enough battles, the next evolutionary step can be taken to produce a fiercer, more powerful Pokémon. You can choose to evolve your character at that time or you can even ‘devolve’ your Pokémon if you wish.

Some characters need a ‘stone’ to help with the process. For instance, the cute little mouse-character named Pikachu needs a ‘Thunder Stone’ to evolve into Raichu, (a mouse with big pointy teeth that you wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alley!).

In this make-believe world where Pokémon flourish and evolution is carefully scripted, ‘higher’ life forms are created through the aid and choice of outside sources. No need for Darwinian chance; you just need a few good battles to take the next step. (You don’t even need death in the land of Pokémon because if a Pokémon is defeated it doesn’t die; it just faints, ready to rematch at a later date.) Want to become the pinnacle of your evolutionary kind? Find an appropriate ‘stone’ and the next evolutionary step is yours!

In science fiction terms the Pokémon game seems plausible, so evolution may have found another ‘credibility niche’ through the workings of children’s games. While not teaching evolution at a rational level, it does tend to condition children into accepting as ‘normal’ the idea of massive biological change. (It’s a bit like the slippery ‘bait-and-switch’ definitions that evolutionists used for the word ‘evolution’.)

In the real world, of course, such transformations are not observed. To change one type of creature into a radically different type requires a way to generate totally new genetic information. Evolutionists have still not found any mechanism whereby evolution could pass this unassailable hurdle.

Perhaps Pokémon has finally provided the answer. Is evolution observable, testable and repeatable? Yes, but only in the world of the Pokémon.

Jonathan Sampson #fundie drdino.com

Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

SonicBOOM #fundie christianforums.com

[From a thread full of atheist-bashing]

I don't know how much I agree with [atheism], but I don't think many professing atheists know that the theory of evolution was first regarded as a joke even among it's experts. I quote "evolution is so absurd it will be regarded as one of the great jokes of the universe in future generations".

Infact the whole theory's absurdity is blinded by eloquent speech and popular belief.

First off the theory that we developed from apes is based upon nothing but mere speculation. If this isn't true than why do we keep searching for that oh so elusive "missing link" that may or [surprise surprise] may NOT exist!

Second evolution doesn't even explain the whole argument! it explains matter [very poorly btw] but that's about it.... what about time? Space? What about the freaking beginning!? Therefore evolution, even if it IS true, is incomplete by nature.

I really could go on....

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

Do show the data from a million years ago showing the decay rate, complete with atmospheric and other conditions, then show the records on anything from a comet, to whatever that may or may not have affected the radiation levels from day one to the present.
"Why would we need to know the 'starting amount of radioactivity'? What does that even mean? Do you think radioactivity comes in liters?" *SIGH* The radiation levels of the rock at it's creation, you know what it started with to determine how much has actually decayed.
"And then the oldy but still-not-deceased strawman of 'evolution happening by accident and random chance'. Come on Oboehner, you can do better than that. Why not use the second law of thermodynamics? Or why are there still monkeys?" Instead of this useless psychobabble, why not fill me in on what really happened from the beginning, show pictures of the observable, testable repeatable "science" at the beginning. Was there an exploding dot like it says in high school textbooks or what?

TB777 #fundie mbd.scout.com

BTW, microevolution, sure, no problem.

Macroevolution? Uh, no. No proof at all of this, and nothing in nature showing it to be true. A big ol fairy tale repeated often by the church of Evolutionary Thinking and the Church of i am.

It would be easier to believe Jim Tressel could become Charlie Weis if only given enough time and let volcanoes, sun spots, radiation, gravity, meteors, and cows passing gas do their work. That wouldn't even be macroevolution since they are the same species, but you have to admit pretty unbelievable for Jim to ever become Charlie.

crackerwv #fundie youtube.com

lol...There is no "fossil record." That's a made up fairy tale that evolutionist use just like they use the geo-ILL-logic column. Evolution is pure comedy and anyone with any common sense and powers of observation knows it. It should be a dead issue but the desire to replace God with science is too tempting for men of evil and fools like Richard Dawkins who cling to credibility with their severe delusions of grandeur via fraud and ignorance of the intricacy of God's design. ?

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

In Acts chapter 17 we read of a people called the Bereans. In this passage (verses 10-15) that they appear in (very little of the Bereans is mentioned in the Bible), it shows them take the words of the apostle Paul and examine them in relation to the Old Testament scriptures (quite possibly the Septuagint, certainly the Tanakh if not the Septuagint).

In verse 11 we read the following quote:
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV)

The Bereans were the people who lived in the ancient city of Berea (also known as Beroea), the city is now called Veria and is situated in Macedonia in Northern Greece.

Many people will listen to something they are taught and will take that as truth. However the example the Bereans set in this verse is that we should check the validity of what we are told and examine those things and check that they are in line with what the Bible tells us. There would’ve been no doubt people in that time who reacted when they read this and expressed outrage, saying something along the lines of, “how can these people dare to doubt the words of the apostle Paul”. It may sound like a harsh response, but it’s often what we see happen today, in fact many atheistic arguments are based on similar logic, “who are you to disagree with the words of Stephen Hawking (etc)?”. That kind of logic in of itself proves that it is of man and not of God. The principle outlined here in Acts 17 with the the Bereans is an important one and it is something we can glean something from.
So in this post I’m going to outline a few ways we can test something said in the Bible or even an interpretation of a verse someone references or just simply the outlining of a belief that someone has, and test it in such a way that does justice by God’s word and doesn’t mire it in our eyes.

So without further ado, let’s get into it:

Go To God’s Word First:
You’ll have no doubt heard someone ask the question, why are there are so many contradictions in the Bible? This argument is actually rooted in a seed of deception that goes back to first century AD, in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we are told that the god of this age (who is Satan) has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers so that they will not see the light of the gospel. The word we see in the original Greek language where we see the word unbelievers is the word apistos. The word apistos means unfaithful, faithless, incredible, unbelieving or incredulous. So this statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 almost seems to have a Ronseal principle to it (does exactly what it says on the tin), however I think it goes a little deeper than that. In John 3:16 we see the word pisteuo and it means to be persuaded of something or to completely trust in something. I think Paul is hinting at the reverse of this very principle outlined in John 3:16, so 2 Corinthians 4:4 isn’t just referring to those who haven’t committed their lives to Christ, but also to those who doubt the ways and the truth of God. This could be part of the reason why Paul tells the Church in Corinth a little later in the letter to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

But back to the “contradictions”. Any so-called contradictions that we run into in scripture are either born out of man-made teaching or simply out of a lack of understanding of scripture as a whole. What we need to do is cross-check with what the scriptures say and the Bereans had that principle nailed, they cross-checked a statement or a principle we now find in the New Testament with what was written in the Old Testament.
NB – Check out my post called “The 2 Timothy 3:16 Principle” for more on the subject.

Now this means a couple of things, first we actually need to read the Old Testament. Some people don’t like reading the Old Testament because they find it confusing, or they believe it paints a different picture of God than of the one we see in the New Testament. In response to that let me say this, the human mind is an incredible thing, but our heart is even more powerful than our minds. In fact the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (note this in reference to human works) and he asks the question who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9) However we read in Ezekiel 36:26 a promise from God where we are told that He will give us a new heart, removing our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (not to be confused with the flesh Paul often speaks of). So if our hearts are polluted then it is entirely possible for our hearts to convince our minds of something that is contrary to what is the truth. This is part of the principle behind the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when He told us to deny ourselves daily and to take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Where we see the word deny in this verse in Luke it is the Greek word arnesastho which is very closely linked to a word we’ve discussed before on this blog, arneomai. As we’ve talked about in the past the word arneomai means to deny, disown or contradict, so in this verse in Luke it’s saying that we have to literally give up ownership of ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. So we need to read the Old Testament.
The other thing we need to do is to see if it fits with the overall picture that scripture gives us (so reading the entire Bible). For example, does what we see in Psalm 1:2 where we are told that our delight is in the law of the Lord and on that law (the word of God) we should meditate on it day and night line up with other verses in scripture. We are told in Joshua 1:8 to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, it’s the exact same principle. And just to show that this is not a ruse or anything like that, let me ask you what you’re reaction would be if I told you that there was over 400 years between the writing of these two verses. You see Joshua chapter 1 would’ve been written in about 1406 BC and Psalm 1 would’ve been about 979 BC, now if those two dates are exact (I have no reason to say they’re not), then that puts these two verses 427 years apart. But I’ll get into timelines a little later on.

What we need to do when a preacher preaches a sermon or a Bible study leader explains a passage or a verse is to go away and read the scriptures and check if it all lines up.

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

Now, I know that history isn’t everybody’s cup of tea however when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible it can be quite key.

However please let me briefly explain why history is important when it comes to testing the validity of God’s word. You see what it simply boils down to is the fact that when it comes to the historical claims of the Bible (creation, Jesus, the ark, the exodus, etc), none of us who are reading this post were alive when those events occurred. So the question then is how can we know they’re true historical accounts? Is there evidence for such events in the Bible? Well to answer the first question, there is an amazing wealth of evidence for the events that the Bible outlines, we have found the ruins of the city of Jericho we also have massive evidence supporting the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 (you can see more on that here) and there’s a more than all of that, but I’ll leave you to do your own research (I’ll give some recommended sites to start with for doing that). And the answer to the second question, is yes, there’s lots of evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

So let me encourage you to look into things such as Biblical chronology, and Biblical history. Some of the stuff you’ll find along the way is fascinating. For example I’m currently reading a book called “The Discovery of Genesis” by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, the book looks at examples of how the Chinese language links in with the accounts of the book of Genesis. It is a truly fascinating book, in it we see examples such as the word for boat relating to the flood, when we break down the symbols that make up the word boat we can see that the word boat points to a vessel for eight people. So reading into some of this is not only fascinating but can help us to grow stronger in the faith.

...

History is important to the events of the Bible, because if the events of the Bible did not happen then the Bible is not infallible, and because of the claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed, then if even 1% of the Bible is false then the entire Bible is compromised.

However let me say that although history is important to understanding the validity of the Bible, by all means this does not mean you have to be an expert in the subject. One of the best things to know as a Christian when it comes to any question that arises in regards to the Bible is where to go to find answers to those said questions.

...

Little Bit:

Did you know that one of the most common objections that critics of the Christian faith make, is that the Bible apparently tells us that the world is flat? An example of where this comes from is found in Revelation 7:1 which makes reference to the “four corners of the earth”, however the Bible states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is a circle, remember though the obvious understanding (before some misinterprets the word circle) that a sphere is a 3D circle and the earth is spherical in nature.
Science tells us a lot about the truth of Biblical history, for example did you know that the mitochondrial (from the mother) and y chromosome (father) both trace back to a single ancestral sequence approximately 6,000 years ago (more on that here), this is something that you may not get taught in a science classroom today. Science is very important to know about in regards to defending our faith today, as it is highly likely to be one of the first areas you will be challenged on about your faith, bearing in mind the myth that is running around rampantly that says “science has disproved God”.

Again like in all of the other subjects, you don’t have to be an expert in the field, again I’m most certainly not although I do enjoy reading into science, but it is helpful to know a little bit on the subject and more importantly to know where to go to find answers to the questions you’ll get asked.

Now the Bible does make some scientific claims, such as we all come from two people, Adam and Eve. The thing we have to look into is whether or not science supports the claims made in the Bible, I touch on the Adam and Eve question a little bit a couple of paragraphs before this one. But looking into science is pretty important in this day and age to understanding the validity behind the Bible, but again you don’t have to be an expert on science but having a basic understanding of it and knowing where to go to find some great answers is definitely valuable.
One other thing I think is worth mentioning is that understanding the difference between historical and operational science, the reason why I say this is because very often at the minute the lines between the two get blurred particularly when you’re talking to evolutionists. We often see the claim that creation is pseudo-science and evolution is science, however both evolution and creation are historical science, they are versions of history that haven’t been observed through operational science that we either accept or don’t accept and then use operational science to look for evidence that supports the historical science that we accept. But in a basic way of saying it is historical science is conclusions that we form from things that we see from the past (historical records, archaeology, etc), whereas operational science is the testable repeatable and observational methods that we can use today, such as carbon dating for example (check out this article for more). So knowing enough about the difference between historical and operational science is of a great benefit in helping us tell the difference between the two, but again you don’t have to be an expert on the subject, but know where you can get the information from that you need to answer the questions.

In Closing:

So that’s all I wanted to say in this post eally. When it comes to testing what the Bible has to say to us, we need to start with the Bible and cross-check it with what it has to say in other parts of it. Look into a bit of history, look at what evidence we find that supports the accounts in scripture.
Read a bit into the original languages look at what the original words were in their original languages, find out what they mean and how they correspond to your understanding of what you’re reading. And finally look a bit into science, go and look into whether or not science supports the Bible or not. But don’t worry about being an expert in these things, you don’t have to be one, again I’m not one.

I hope you’ve found this post both interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your thoughts, as I mentioned I’m going to post some links below that may help with looking into some of these things, so if there’s any extra ones you can think of just drop them in the comments or send me them over through my Facebook page and I’ll update the list, I may even create a sub-page here on the site of useful links, let me know if that is something that you would want.

I’ll be posting again soon as I have a lot of posts in the draft que currently being edited.
But until next time I’ll leave you with the links below.

All the best,
Mark

Bob Triez #fundie quora.com

>> Why is dating expressed as AD and BC, yet scientifically speaking the Bible is just fiction ?

So you have some scientific proof that the Bible is not true ? Please do show me what it is.

If you're going to make an outrageous claim like that, at least show what proof there is to support a claim the discredits the Bible or Christianity. Because neither myself nor anyone else who believes in Creation instead of your religion of evolutionism has ever been given proof.

We are always told to take their word for it that it happened- and that's not science…that's also a religion because it is something you believe happened but have no proof that it happened.

So dazzle me please with all this copious amount of evidence you have to prove the Bible is not true. And I am talking about real science - something that is observable, testable and repeatable which neither big bang cosmology or evolutionism is. So merely staying “evolution is my proof” or “the big bang is proof” is not acceptable since no one has ever seen it happen.

See, the problem is you have faith in your beliefs and I have faith in mine. You think your beliefs are science and mine are religious but they're not…they're both religious because nobody has ever seen the big bang happen and nobody has ever seen evolution happen.

You believe it happened because somebody told you it did. And that's religious, not science.

So cough up your evidence that the Bible is fiction. And I want proof you can show without refering to some else's work. Just your own proof because if you use somebody else's work, that makes it religious because now you have faith that what they are telling you is real even though you've never seen it. So I need to see some proof that you've come up with all on your own please.

( And I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting an awfully long time for this because I know for a fact that you don't have any proof. All you have is a belief that the Bible is fiction. )

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

Science is observable, testable, and repeatable.

On the other hand, your evolution mythology is none of the above. yuk yuk.

By the way, America was founded by Bible-believing Christians called Puritans who accepted the Bible and who rejected your evolution mythology. So if you don't like Bible-believing Christians, then logically you should get the heck out of America right now, and take all of your darwinist ilk with you

Jeff #fundie news.yahoo.com

(Commenting on an article about an asteroid killing the Dinosaurs)

"This is not "science." Scientific fact comes from things that are observable, repeatable and testable. This is conjecture based on an athiestic, evolutionary worldview."

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Who wants to know the secret behind Alex Jones and why the Illuminati picked him to the Anti-NWO mouthpiece

The Jesuits picked Jones because Alex Jones was previously incarnated as the Nazi Ernst Rohm

image

Mister Jones.. and the NWO.. tell each other fairy tales..

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

[...]

Ernst Rohm and Himmler did NOT get along

Trin there is a reason why you and AJ don't vibe

It goes back to a previous life relationship

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

Darwinists will always be on a never-ending wild goose chase - with no proof whatsoever for any of their outlandish claims - because they are trying to fit the reality of what happened at the dawn of time in our Universe into a box that it cannot ever fit into.

Since the Universe and life in it were not, in reality, created by natural processes, it will never be possible to legitimately explain either the origin or diversity of life, or the Universe, using natural processes. There will never be any testable, repeatable, or observable evidence for the outlandish claims of Darwinism/evolution, because that reality has never actually existed, other than in the hearts and minds of Darwinists.

Darwinists are puzzled about why they haven't truly won and never will. They don't understand why the controversy remains despite them having insidiously infested every area of educational institutions and media; having a veritable monopoly to become propagandists and promote their opinions as 'facts' to everyone with inescapable, relentless bombardments of it at every turn. What is stated in the above paragraphs is the reason their endless Darwinist propaganda ultimately fails on enlightened persons, (although sadly, it does 'succeed' in socially engineering many to believe in Darwinism/evolution ) several decades after Darwinists though they had won. It is the reason why Darwinists can never truly win, and achieve a 100% belief rate/hivemind; which they wish and strive for.

Bottomline: You CANNOT legitimately - or with any proof - explain the origin or diversity of life & the Universe with natural processes since natural processes were not used to create it. So just stop trying.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

"Karen" #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

You asked how I got into witchcraft (and yes, absolutely, it DOES work!)--well, it's in the family to begin with. All women in my mom's family were witches from day 1. She's German (a war bride) and lived thru WWII. Her hatred of God is unbelievable. She would always tell me her war stories when I was growing up--imagine telling a 4, 5 year old kid about shot up people and bombs and bullets going off everywhere. Her favorite one is where the street melted from the heat of the fires and bombs...a woman was stuck in the melted street holding a baby up high trying to save it from the flames. There was no way to save them and she cried out to God to help them. Nothing happened. She watched the woman and baby burn up before her eyes. As she tells the story, you can see evil taking over her. She shakes her fist to heaven and says "where was God?". Of course that proves he doesn't exist.

Well, it wore me down and by age 8, I had had enough of this "God" that either (a) did not exist or (b) was so unimaginably horrible, I would hate him too. That night I cursed God (age 8) and decided I would follow Satan. Don't laugh--my entry point into the occult was fairy tales. I studied those things and learned about trolls, magic wands, fairies, elves, witches, spell casting...all from fairy tales. Spirit guides were assigned to me by age 12 and I really took off. Yes witchcraft works. It's all about power and control and the power is INSTANT. Immediate gratification.

The price is high. I had an abortion on Walpurgisnacht 1979 (my present husband's baby). I didn't schedule the appointment for that date--it "happened"--a Satanic present. And I had a D & E. It brought me to my knees 5 years later, calling on a God I wasn't even sure existed. I asked to be sent to hell because I deserved to go there and serve my lord Satan for killing a baby. I have never in my life experienced such an agony and literally "breaking" of my heart. The sobs were uncontrollable. I felt something gentle and warm "washing" over me like water, but I wasn't wet. There was a calm and peace that entered me.

I knew I had to get rid of my occult things so I threw away everything--books, jewelry, tarot cards, toys I bought for the kids (He Man, My Little Pony--I even stripped the sheets off the kids beds because of the pictures on them). I went wild cleaning house--there were 19 trash bags out in front of the house next day. I got a King James Bible and devoured it. I read most of the day. After I read the Bible thru once, I began again. I lived and breathed Jesus Christ.

Here I am 14 years later and I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for cleaning me up and setting me on my feet and covering me with himself. Thank you Lord Jesus! I am free of Satan!

NOTW #fundie christianforums.net

Darwin's theory while interesting, is way off and is in fact missing many links includeing transitional fossils. Scientists are tired of sitting by the swamp waiting for a single cell to emerge from mud that will recreate all life as we know it. It's just not gonna happen period! When i grow some wing's, i'll fly over your house and we can chat about this in person!

Bonigee #fundie uk.youtube.com

This is how Evolutionist start their fairy tales..."Once upon a time billions and billions and trillions of years ago"....and we all fell for it. The fact is this earth is a young earth and the bible indicates how old it is. but evolutionist reject the true age of the earth because then they might see the designer that made the first human being....Then theres the fossils they keep finding which indicates a world wide flood recorded in the bible which some refuse to consider.

The Penitent man #fundie sciencemag.org

Actually the core of the argument is that speculation replaced science. We have no evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution, none, zero, zilch. Now it's about word games and rhetoric. Speculation is king, along with some really neat computer generated graphics and the Discovery channel to sway young, impressionable minds that all life emerged from nothing and that it rained on a rock and life sprang from the chemical stew (abiogenisis).

We've experienced fraud to back up fraud (Miller experiment) and entire textbooks that sound more like fairy tales (millions and billions of years ago...) then anything remotely scientific. What frightens us is that delusional people who believe in such fantasies control the entire mainstream establishment and use that power like Lenin and Trotsky.

Anonymous Gossiper #conspiracy givemegossip.com

History today asks the question
Why nobody in the middle ages noticed either avery
Or Stonehenge until a one man did.
In the whole of the roman histories no roman historian gives mention of it
And in John Aubrey's own time no one was aware of it.
He is famous for discovering it, literally discovering it.
In light of the above evidence of photo fraud and clear evidence of first construction in the 1950's from a empty very flat surfaced cleared area,
Isnt it also suspicious that it was only in the 1970's John Aubrey and his work was given any acclaim whatsoever, before this he was discarded and considered a nutter into psychic phenomena inaccurate biographies, and "folklorist"
Why was it that he was suddenly brought out as a great scholar in the 1970's , with his published works fallen into obscurity and with accusations of his own works changed by his fellows, how can we in fact trust anything he purportedly wrote?

[link to www.historytoday.com]

Is John aubrey The Man who discovered stone henge A reliable SOLE source for the existence of an old stone henge??
He was the first source or something nobody previous to him had ever noticed!
Of was he even a source at all?
After all, it was only the 1970's after what we know was the real building of stone henge in the 50's that his name was dug up and his alleged work of "discovering" out of the obscurity and the supposed myths of England ,the great unmissable stonehenge henge that the romans didn't even notice even though they camped near there, that Aubrey was made publicly known as the first archeologist and discover of the unmissable Stonehenge that nobody noticed except for myth stories that could have been forged into older histories, or merlin making stones fly out of Ireland!
lol

What some who knew him well says of his character

"a shiftless person, roving and magotie-headed, and sometimes little better than crased. And being exceedingly credulous, would stuff his many letters sent to A. W. with folliries and misinformations, which would sometimes guid him into the paths of error".

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Such a man , discarded a obscurer until so long, until needed in the 70's
Who wrote books on Aubrey's papers also included "Architectonica Sacra"; and "Erin Is God" ???
An occultist no doubt , i contend could have gad his works altered
By the same gang that built stone henge in the 50's
As thry could have altered the myth histories and made up stories of merlin and his flying stones, because the fact is NOBODY NOTICED STONE HENGE IN ANY WAY UNTIL AUBREY WAS SAID TO AND ONLY THEN IT WAS IN THE 1970's that anyone saw his writings !

What AUBREYS reputation was in regards to his published works.

The only work published by Aubrey in his lifetime was his Miscellanies (1696; reprinted with additions in 1721), a collection of 21 short chapters on the theme of "hermetick philosophy" (i.e. supernatural phenomena and the occult), including "Omens", "Prophesies", "Transportation in the Air", "Converse with Angels and Spirits", "Second-Sighted Persons", etc. Its contents mainly comprised documented reports of supernatural manifestations. The work did much to bolster Aubrey's posthumous reputation as a superstitious and credulous eccentric.

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Why was Aubrey not noted until the 1970's
WE ARE MEANT TO BELIEV EIN STONE HENGE
HE WAS THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED IT
YET IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 1970's he was DUG UP AND NAMED AS THE MAN WHO DISCOVERED IT
Why?
Why?

And then we have a real proven promotor of forgeries!
Promoting the forged myth itself!
I contend the actual idea of an ancient myth is a myth!

Stukeley, William, 1740, Stonehenge A Temple Restor'd to the British Druids. London

Stukeley was also involved with Freemasonry and instrumental in British scholarship's acceptance of Charles Bertram's forged Description of Britain.

William Stukely the anglican catholic freemason stooge , and promotor of forgeries and fairy tale druid temples

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

So with men like this dug up to prove a myth that we know was built from scratch in the 1950's and stone henge being such a massive unmissable structure on a flat plain!! that nobody before them ever noticed
Apart from merlin myths that are forgeries themselves
How can any sane person believe in stone henge
Stone henge built by idiots for idiots in the 20th century of vatican idiocyA history of forgery forgers quacks and the practitioners of the occult
Who rule over idiots

Don't be an idiot
Believe in jesus christ the son of the living God
And be wise enough to forsake your conning fraud making thieving pagan overlords who produce only fake stone temples of idiocy for you to marvel at like idiots.

JC33andDivine #fundie bibleforums.org

Hitler was one sick puppy and managed to brainwash millions of people into his sick ideology. It is my contention that Hitler was demonically possessed by 5 or more very powerful demons. Sounds like a fairy tale to you, but for somebody who has had encounters with these things it makes perfect sense.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Woe unto all liars! You couldn't pay me a billion dollars to teach the blatant lies of evolution to anyone! God knows that I mean that! Evolution is such an obvious hoax! These fake NASA scientists tell us that the earth and moon came from two rocks crashing into each other! That is a complete and wicked denial of the Holy Bible! It's also ludicrous! Only an idiot, or a very wicked person, could embrace such a bizarre and non-plausible hypothesis! It makes perfect sense that a divine God created the universe, especially in lieu of the Holy Bible which God has authored and given to us, to teach us these precious truths. Theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking (1942-2018), is now burning in Hell forever, sadly, because he died in his sins without the dear Savior (John 8:24; Revelation 20:15; John 3:36). Evolution is a lie created by the Devil, to blind men's minds from seeing the glorious light of the Gospel, lest they be saved (2nd Corinthians 4:3-4).

Anyone who teaches evolution ought to be ashamed! It's not science, not in the least. The bogus claims of evolutionists are not testable, repeatable nor verifiable in a scientific laboratory nor in nature. It's bad science at best! True science studies what already exists, like the wonderful creation around us. Two rocks colliding couldn't have produced such grand beauty. A “BIG BANG” billions of years ago couldn't have evolved into the awesome universe as we know it today!

The righteous moral nature of the Holy Scriptures (Romans 7:12), and the unrighteous immoral nature of the world in which we live (1st John 5:19), is further conclusive evidence that Creation is true in the Holy Bible. Psalms 145:17, “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Romans 7:12, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” People who love to live in their sins, often hate God and His Holy Word (Romans 1:28)! Any honest person who has read the King James Bible, knows that it is God's inspired Word; and any thinking person with an honest heart knows that the claims of evolution are a lie! If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Were some of the monkeys retarded? The Bible teaches that the flesh of man is man, and the flesh of animals is another. Humans are not animals, as wicked evolutionists allege. I thank and praise God that I know THE TRUTH about Creation, and am not brainwashed or deceived by Satan to believe the obvious lies of evolution!

Richard Quenneville Richard Quenneville #fundie quora.com

Is Jesus from the Walking Dead TV show actually the real Jesus?

No, there are multiple ‘saviors’ on the TV Show, but only one in real life.

Not being familiar with this series, I can’t tell whether there are good moral lessons.

It may be helpful to examine just who Jesus was. A man who could say, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” or “I AM the Resurrection and the Life,” but also weep publicly at the death of his friend Lazarus, is no ordinary mortal. If HE was the Messiah, he certainly fulfilled all the prophesies about HIM.

Why would we need the Messiah? Because Adam & Eve disobeyed their Creator, ate of the fruit of the Forbidden Tree, thus committing the Original Sin; a sin so serious that it destroyed grace in their souls, closed Heaven, and was passed on to their descendants. Since the offense was directly against God Himself, it could only be repaired or overcome by a Divine Person, and that Person was Jesus Christ!

Sounds like a fairy tale? No one knows the particulars—what did Adam & Eve look like, [hint: they certainly did not ACT like apes]; what did the Garden of Eden look like; what did the Serpent look like; what kind of fruit did they eat; what did the Tree look like? Or is this some kind of myth produced in order to explain why humans are so different from the other living creatures on this Earth?

There had to be first parents. Of all visible and living creatures, we seem to be the only ones with Free Will. Humans invent, anything from automobiles to pins; brute beasts do not. Humans build houses and skyscrapers; brute beasts build nests and beaver-houses, but each species seems to make the same kind of house—except humans!

Jesus Christ came in order to repair the damage caused by Original Sin. Does the TV show do that? Jesus is called ‘savior’ because HE alone suffered and died for mankind, thus saving us from our sins. Does anyone do this in the TV show?

Hope that helps!

Mr. Answer #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Evolutionists will say no. But the truth is that the monkey came from the giraffe.

Evolution is utter nonsense. In the 40's and 50's evolution scientists and other proponents of evolution claimed that life developed in a primordial ocean soup as a single cell and then the cells miraculously decided with their little cell brains to join together to make complex multi-cell organisms and then these multi cell organisms started to make blood systems, nervous systems, hearts, eyes, mouths, teeth and then these lifeforms decided to climb out of the sea and become lizards, birds and even man. This is the BIGGEST FAIRY TALE of ALL TIME. Now prominent scientists are trying to distance themselves from the obsurdity of this evolutionary theory. Evolutionists now claim that they DO NOT and NEVER DID teach that cells climbed out of the ocean to make man and all other land based lifeforms. Evolutionists are liars. Just pick up any evolutionary text book from the 50's and read it!

Please note in the article below that has just hit the news wires that the "scientists" have discovered that the "fastest-known evolving animal has NOT CHANGED PHYSICALLY over LONG PERIODS of time! Now the "PROOF" for evolution is that the DNA is changing. Yea right. . . More fairy tale evolutionary nonsense!

And the tuatara is the FASTEST EVOLVING ANIMAL! I guess 200 million years isn’t quite enough for a significant PHYSICAL CHANGE! The tuatara should have developed wings by now!

Yvonne Pelchat & Rayburne Winsor #fundie facebook.com

*Yvonne Pelchat Levene*: God and evolution can’t both be true. I believe in God. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God said it and I believe it so that settles it.

*Brant Watson*: okay no nonsense for you then. Scientists simply do not need god’s intervention.

*Tomas Matiev*: Not correct. God basically is the "why", evolution is basically the "how".

*Yvonne Pelchat Levene*: true science agrees with the Bible. The Bible was not written to be a science book. If science doesn’t go along with what is in the Bible it’s not the Bible that is in error. The Bible is the why and how. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son.


*Rayburne Winsor*: That's right, Yvonne, God and evolution both can't be true. They are diametrically opposite. "Goo-to-you" evolution is development over eons of years, whereas Genesis 1 is special creation (Genesis 1) is supernatural creation by divine fiat (spoke Word of God) ex nihilo (out of nothing);

My Poem about Evolution.

Once upon a time certain chemicals interacted in a primordial goo,
as the result of a lightning strike just suddenly out of the blue.
Which miraculous spontaneous generation of life is supposed to explain the origin of evolution “from the goo, through the zoo, to you.”
No wonder why some scientists call this a curious conundrum,
and it has stirred up quite a sensation.

Since one must explain how nature fabricated the first digital information processor—the original living cell—which wrote its own software and self-reproduced,
though matter, energy and physical laws cannot create genetic information.
cientists now know the internal structure of a cell is far more complex than the infrastructure of a large city.
And because they reject any notion of an outside, super-intelligent Creator-Designer,
their molecules-to-man explanation is really to be pitied.

Now acclaimed atheist Richard Dawkins will grant you this much,
he believes the little green men did it.
He explains that aliens planted the seeds for original life,
and that we all had better get with it.
Well, that’s like saying that because people claim to have seen UFOs, they must be real or something.
The SETI project has tried to find signs of intelligent (extraterrestrial) life for years,
And they have come up with nothing.

Then, you have the fossil record that shows all life-forms appear abruptly and fully formed,
without evidence of evolutionary ancestors (transitional fossils) in the geological strata underneath.
All of which makes the creationists smile,
but the evolutionist squirm in his seat.

There are a few fossils highly disputed even among evolutionary scientists to be intermediate or “in transition.”
Like Archaeopteryx (“dino-bird”) alleged to be intermediate between reptiles and birds,
which bird experts like Paleo-ornithologist Alan Feduccia,
show is nothing more than science fiction.
Evolutionists would have us believe that some reptile running along the ground felt it needed faster locomotion.
So, it evolved feathers and took to the air,
And caused a “flying reptilian monster commotion.”

Yes, evolutionists cling to their “flying monster sensation,” though it is totally absurd.
Because Archaeopteryx possessed large wishbone, elliptical wings, perching feet, fully-formed feathers and unique avian lung design and inner ear--
--all features of a true bird.

Well, to move up the branches on the evolutionary tree is to go from one phyla or kind to a totally different kind.
And, despite the conspicuous absence of billions of transitional fossils in between,
most evolutionists still think their theory sublime.

Just believe in this fairy tale for grown-ups with all your mind,
and there will be no need for the princess to kiss the frog,
the frog will become the prince over eons of time.

No wonder kids today appear oftentimes bewildered and confused,
and set their hearts on things below, and not above.
They don’t know where they’re going because they don’t know where they came from,
nor do they know the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ to be a God of love.

So, what can we do to reach this “lost” generation and be part of the solution.
We can teach our kids early in life that they were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27),
not by a process of unplanned, mindless, accidental, naturalistic evolution.

We can let them see by our words and deeds that we have Christ in us, the hope of glory.
So, that we can be channels of God’s grace and love to tell salvation’s story.
That God so loved this ungodly world that He gave His only begotten Son to die for undeserving sinners, such as you and I,
and His invitation to partake of the water of life freely is for all who will receive Him as their Lord and Savior today (John 1:12-13);
it will be too late after we die. God bless.

funmudder #fundie rr-bb.com

We look at it like this: We tell our little children who believe their parents completely that there is a Santa, when there is not, that there is a tooth fairy, easter bunny, *add fairy tales of choice here* and then we also tell them that God gave His son who died and came back to life! So believe believe believe!
As they get older the fairy tales fall away one by one. As we see it, we just refuse to even let the true history of Christ even near the catagory of unseen wonderful beings that they one day find out and discover were lies.

Rayburne F. Winsor #fundie considerthegospel.org

On the basis of the accumulated evidence (I.e. scientific, extra-biblical/secular, biblical, etc.) the Genesis Flood of the Bible is surely one of the best confirmed events in history. Expressions emphasizing the universality of the Noah’s Flood and its effects occur more than 30 times in Genesis 6 through 9 (I.e. Genesis 7:21-23; Genesis 6:17; 7: 19-20, 22; etc.). There are almost 200 non-biblical historical accounts of a gigantic flood that nearly destroyed all humanity from tribes and nations all over the world. The most detailed accounts come, as we would expect, from countries nearest to Ararat, where the Ark landed (Genesis 8:4). Other versions turn up in Persia (modern Iraq and Iran), India, Burma, Indonesia, Sarawak, New Guina, Tahiti, Hawaii, China, Japan, Siberia, Australia (among the original inhabitants-the aborigines), and New Zealand (Maoris) , Alaska (Eskimos), North America (Red Indian), South America, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Congo, South Africa, Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Finland, Lapland, Wales and Ireland. This agrees with Genesis 9:19: “From these [three sons of Noah and their wives] the whole earth was populated.”

Of course, now the Bible has come to all these countries, but the flood “legends” (I.e. The Epic of Gilgamesh) were independent of the Bible, passed down over the centuries in scores of tribal legends. Some of the details are especially interesting; for example, Lxtlilxochitl , the native historian of the Aztecs, says that the world lasted 1716 years before it was destroyed by a flood (This figure is only 60 years different from the 1656 years which the Bible gives by addition of the ages in Genesis 5–taking into consideration the overlapping of each subsequent generation by birth. The Chinese character (symbol) for a large ship is a combination of a figure 8 and the symbol for “mouths” or “persons” (Noah + Shem + Japeth +Ham + their wives = 8). The Hottentots of South America believe they are descended from “Noh” and the Hawaiians report a flood from which only “Nu-u” and his family were saved. Very intriguing!

Over 75% of the earth’s surface is overlaid by up to several miles of layer upon layer of sedimentary rocks, which according to scientific consensus are formed under water. These massive sedimentary deposits contain billions of fossils of all life forms, both complete fossils buried in a certain order (I.e. shell fish with shell fish, animals that can climb above those less mobile, etc.) and disconnected skeletons and broken bones , such as would be expected of violent upheavals of the earth’s crust during a global flood (I.e. volcanism, tidal waves, and earthquakes). There are huge fossil graveyards on every major continent–evidence of rapid and mass death, burial, sedimentation and fossilization of life. Animals are commonly found buried in an attitude of terror with heads arched back, , mouths open, etc. (Cumberland Cavern in Maryland, U.S.). the Karroo formation of Africa contains an estimated 800 billion vertebrate fossils animals! (fossils). The Old Red Sandstone in England covers thousands of square miles and contains millions of fossilized fish (estimated more than 1000 per cubic yard) in contorted and contracted positions with spines sticking out and fins spread to the full, as in fish that die violently in convulsions and agony. One of the most famous fossil graveyards is the Geiseltal lignite deposit in Germany where a great mixture of plants (in some instances, leaves till green) , animals, and even insects from all climatic areas of the world are found buried in one common, mass grave–evidence that they were buried deeply and quickly by water-laid sediments to seal them off from the atmosphere and bacteria that cause decay and decomposition.

Add to this the fact that large scale fossilization is not occurring anywhere in the world today and you have a serious problem for uniformitarian geologists who believe these fossils were buried gradually over millions/billions of years. Uniformitarian explanations of slow and gradual deposition/erosion over millions of years fail to offer a reasonable explanation for such important geologic features and formations as the Tibetan Plateau (thousands of feet thick and over three miles above sea level), the incredible lava Columbia Plateau in northwestern United States ( approximately 200,000 square miles) and the flat, featureless Colorado Plateau . They do explain the rise of mountain chains several times faster than erosion; yet, they contain much “ancient” sedimentary rock. Evolutionists allow enough time to erode the continents many times over; yet they are nearly everywhere covered with sediments–evidence that they were shaped by a lot of water over a little time, not a little water over a lot of time. Witness the tremendous geological work done in minutes or hours by local floods (Tsunami that hit India and Sri Lanka, Mount St. Helen’s explosion, hurricane and flooding in Louisiana, US and typhoon in Philippines, etc.). It is ironic that NASA scientists accept that there have been “catastrophic” floods on Mars that carved out canyons although no liquid water is present today. But they deny that a global flood happened on earth, where there is enough water to cover over 71% of the earth’s surface.

This clearly demonstrates how the biases of mainstream evolutionary scientists affect their interpretation of the evidence according to their evolutionary framework/paradigm. I am willing to bet that if a global flood was not clearly taught in the Bible, they would have no problem with the idea of a global flood. God bless.  No evidence for the flood? Obviously we have another Bill Nye here. Did you ever hear of the Mt. St. Helens Explosion that practicallt revelutioned every thing geologists learned in university about uniformitarian geology, especially the rapid work of flooding in canyon making, the rapid and massive deposition of water laid sediments, the transformation of volcanic ash, silica and the bark of tress into the perfect geometry for the formation of peat and coal in days and months, not hundereds of thousands of years? What about mass fossil graves on every major continent of the world containing fossils of animals and fauna from every climatic area of the globe. Or the world’s tallest mountain ranges that contain mile after mile of sedimentary rocks that scientists concede form only under water.

What about the Cambrian explosion and recently the “Avalon Explosion, Mistaken Point, NL? The historic Mistaken Point, Newfoundland has drawn much attention (Queen’s University ) regarding its important fossil assemblage, but could it be that, like the name of the location (“Mistaken Point”), that evolutionary scientists are as mistaken about this “Avalon Explosion” of a variety of new creatures without any evidence of ancestral fossils as they are about the famous Cambrian explosion of a vast variety of fully formed fossils that appear abruptly and suddenly in the Cambrian without any trace of ancestors in the geological layers underneath–hardly evidence for gradual evolution “from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution (Thesis of Common Ancestry) that absolutely requires evidence of transitional or intermediate fossils (“missing links”) to be true. As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (PH.D. in physical chemistry) capably points out in his must-read book Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, “Surely some of the intermediates (Transitional fossils) leading up to the hard, mineralized animals would have intermediate partial skeletons that could have been fossilized? Indeed, research on Precambrian formations has discovered conditions so favorable for fossilization that many soft-bodied creatures have been found (i.e. Mistaken Point or “Avalon Explosion). Even though many Ediacaran fossils [at Mistaken Point] included soft bodied organisms, none are ancestral to the Cambrian creatures.

So this hardly solves the problem for evolutionists; namely that about which Stephen J. Gould, considered the world’s foremost evolution, said, “The extreme rarity of transitional fossils in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology.” Here is what recent scientific research had to say about this “Avalon Explosion: “A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage–the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)–already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace.” ( Shen, B., Dong, L., Xiao , S. and Kowale wski, M., The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacara morphospace, Science 319:81-84, 2008). So this hardly solves the problem for evolution–rather, they have two unrelated explosions or discoveries of new creatures with no evidence of evolutionary ancestry” (the Cambrian Explosion and the “Avalon Explosion). God bless.

JavidanOfTheWest #fundie reddit.com

You're forgetting the fact that it was prophesied that people will mock God in the final days before He returns to prove them all wrong. The root cause of the problem is that atheists, throughout the centuries, have sought to substantiate Atheism through many means, but were always unsuccesful until Darwin's theory came about. As Dawkins wrote on page 10 of the blind watchmaker: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The problem isn't creationism; sure, creationists help keep the divide alive, but the divide itself was created by those who oppose the existence of God. Creationists are simply those who are still fighting the good fight where truth of God matters more than abandoning it to conform to the majority opinion (of the deceived).

People have appealed to science to oppose religion for the longest time. Creationism, as a concept, has also been around for a very long time. In fact, even the concept of evolution is just an ancient pagan argument placed in a modern jacket. There are ancient writings from early Christians who refuted these exact ideas way back in their time. For example, Theophilus of Antioch already stated that those who believed that we come from the stars are fools.
It's true that many scientists were religious until the last century. That changed because of Darwinism and the philosophy of reason (Reason was deified before atheism could be sustained through Darwinism).

Nowaday it's considered to be bad for your career to be religious, because people judge you as gullible and stupid, and that is not the fault of creationists. In the eyes of many, any form of belief apart from materialism is superstition. So the root cause once more isn't the creationists. The real problem is the belief that every smart person should be above religious conviction. It has nothing to do with creationists. For example, people love Jordan Peterson, and most of his videos feature at least one top comment from a guy stating something along the lines of, "I love that he is so intelligent, but how does he not apply his immense wisdom to religion and reject it?", which already reveals the notion that many people have about religion being something that no smart person should engage in.

You've been deceived into thinking that science is objective. After all, how can science be objective if it is an attempt to confirm the preconceived notion of naturalism. Creationists should be honored; not blamed and insulted. If you want to engage me, then I can also point out why the pseudoscience that Creationists oppose is really far-fetched and merely an attempt to sustain scientific atheism. Evolution is a fairy tale. Creationists are simply blamed by other Christians who, in fulfillment of 2nd Timothy chapter 3, want to appease others because they've succumbed to social pressure.

Mattwerk #fundie cseblogs.com

She was confused about Creation, he converted her to Evolution, leaving her more confused, but more worryingly, doubting the Word when it comes to Creation. And you know, once you have “reason” to doubt part of the Bible, what is stopping you to doubt any other miracle or unthinkable feat that our Lord has achieved? (like our former Methodist minister, who believes Jonah wasn’t swallowed by a fish, it’s a fairy tale!)

Tyler Snotgern #fundie christianforums.com

I have believed in evolution for many years but now in my 60s and starting to have doubts. I mean if we look at fish they have always been fish, I have never seen a fish turn into a bird. Also when I went to the zoo a few weeks ago I asked myself if we evolved from monkeys then why are these monkeys still here, surely if evolution was true then monkeys wouldn't be about? But they are, so it now makes sense to me that man did not evolve from the monkeys.

I am also skeptical about ants, was there really a common ancestor, if so what was it? A mini ant? But ants are already small. Also it's hard to vision sea plankton evolving from a rock because that's what evolution says, it says organisms came from matter and rocks originally. Sounds like a fairy-tale to me. I used to be an orthodox Christian but now I'm a spiritualist. There are cases of ectoplasm spirits telling humans in the séance room that evolution is a hoax. Am I on the right path? Are the spirits right and evolution is a hoax?

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

The great and the good of the “intelligentsia” assure us that all “educated” people accept Charles Darwin’s Evolution as a indisputable fact of science that is "not open for debate." Oh those superstitious "straw-men" bible-thumpers portrayed in the propaganda film Inherit the Wind may have a hard time accepting it, but even the slightest doubt can never be tolerated within the elite confines of the academic cool-kids club. Woodrow Wilson Warmonger of World War I fame, a former Princeton professor himself, put it this way:

“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

And yet, neither Darwin, nor Wilson, nor the Communist ACLU Attorney Clarence Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy), nor any other “scientist” (bow your head in solemn reverence when you say that word) has ever adequately addressed the gaping holes of Darwin’s Dogma. The best rebuttal the "smart people" can muster consists of scorn, ridicule, charges of "stupidity" and even government force -- but never any true scientific substance. Many of these holes are blown wide-open in the book: “God vs Darwin: The Logical Supremacy of Intelligent Design Creationism” (by yours truly). But for this particular piece, let us focus on what is perhaps the single biggest flaw of all regarding trans-species “Evolution” – which should not be confused with minor variations / adaptations of existing characteristics already present in a gene pool (Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, stickleback fish, "super rats" etc.) We refer to this gaping hole as the “complex integration” of multiple parts that is found in all living organisms (even “simple” single-cell bacteria).

Darwin and his deluded devotees maintain that tiny “imperceptible” and "innumerable" blind and random mutations, favored by environmental circumstances, added up over very long periods of time to the point that an evolved species (such as us humans) became unrecognizable from our direct lineal “ancestors” (single-cell oceanic bacteria). Apart from the obvious fact that none of these transitions from millions of years ago were observable, how do the Evolutionists explain away the “complex integration” of our body parts? One part of any given creature could not have blindly “evolved” without so many other parts coming into existence at the exact same moment in time. How can hundreds or even thousands of complex parts -- functioning in sync with one another in a scientific symphony in which each component can only function if all the others are in place -- have “blindly” appeared, without intelligent guidance, one piece-of-the-puzzle at a time, over “millions of years?”

To better illustrate this problem, let’s have a closer look at the integration of the digestive system.

To start the digestive process, we need an oral cavity -- that is, a mouth to put the food in. The mouth needs teeth, both upper & lower sets, deeply anchored into our gums, which are attached to a jaw-bone, which is attached to a skull which is etc., etc., etc., Without all of this in place at the same time, the first step of the digestive process comes to a halt. But our gums and 32 perfectly-matching teeth alone, which come if different shapes and sizes for certain functions, won’t ensure survival. We still need saliva to begin the breaking down of the food, as well as the preservation of our teeth and the gums which hold them. And we also need mucous producing cells in the mouth to help form the saliva mix.

Remove any of those elements (oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw-bone, salivary glands, mucous) and humans (and many other animals) never make it out of the box. Each of the elements is part of an integrated system in which one element cannot function, and serves no purpose, without all of the others already in place. Then of course there is the tongue – a complex multi-faceted organ in its own right, which is vital for chewing and swallowing food. In the back of the mouth, the tongue is anchored into the hyoid bone – which itself is anchored by various muscles and ligaments. Once swallowed, the pre-digested food passes through the pharynx (part of the throat) -- which is lined by more essential membranes and muscles – and moves down to the esophagus (food pipe).

Let’s review the pre-digestion process: oral cavity, teeth (upper & lower), gums, jaw bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, muscles, and esophagus. That’s 15 systems in all, each of them also highly complex, and each of them integrated with the other systems. Remove just one, and there can be no digestive system and hence, no species. Therefore, the elements of this grand orchestra had to have come into play at the same time – which implies, no, proves deliberate design. But we’re just getting started.

1. Just the individual contents of the mouth alone form a complex integrated system in which each part is useless without all others in place. 2. Complex Integration: Remove just component, and the whole structure becomes non-viable. 3. For that reason alone (although there are many other flaws) Darwin's ridiculous paper gets an "F."

Moving right along, gravity and contraction (more muscles) push the mix into the stomach where digestive enzymes really begin to break down the food. To block these powerful enzymes from literally “eating” the stomach itself, membranes called b]gastric mucosa produce a protective coating of mucous which lines the stomach. How genius is that? On to the duodenum -- the first section of the small intestine which leads to the large intestine. Along the journey there are more enzymes produced by the pancreas. Then it is down to the colon, (there is an ascending colon, a descending colon and a sigmoid colon) rectum, anal canal and out the anus -- where Darwin's stinky work-of-fiction truly belongs. Assisting the expulsion of bodily waste is the diaphragm -- a sheet of internal skeletal muscle made up of no fewer than a dozen different parts. Though it is mainly part of the respiratory system, the diaphragm also generates the pressure needed for waste disposal.

Key contributions to the process are also rendered by the liver, the gall bladder, the spleen, the cecum, and many more muscles and many more glands to numerous to name. And holding those muscles in place are a complex system of more ligaments fastened to more bones which are fastened to other bones etc. etc. etc. As for the liquids that we ingest, that speaks to a whole other complex integrated system of complex integrated systems involving kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis etc[/b. Of course, all of this digestion is pointless without blood-flow to carry the food's nutrients throughout the body – which means that even more complex systems had to have been be put in place at the same time: blood, veins, arteries, capillaries. But the nutrient-carrying blood can’t flow through the vascular system without a pump and an oxidation system already in place, right? You need a set of heart & lungs which are the basis of the cardio-pulminary system -- an incredibly complex integrated structure made up of countless essential components such as the -- (well, you get the point -- we can go on forever with this --)

So, let’s take it from the top, boys and girls. All of the following complex elements must come into place at the same time in order for digestion to work:

oral cavity, teeth, gums, jaw-bone, skull, saliva, mucous, tongue, hyoid bone, muscles, ligaments, pharynx, membranes, more muscles, and esophagus, more muscles, stomach, digestive enzymes, gastric mucosa, duodenum, small intestine, large intestine, more enzymes, pancreas, ascending colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, rectum, anal canal, anus, diaphragm, liver, gall bladder, spleen, cecum, more muscles, more glands, more ligaments, more bones, kidneys, renal arteries, renal veins, urinary tracts, collecting ducts, bladder, pelvis, blood, veins, arteries, capillaries, cardio-pulminary system, a bunch of other intregrated items and systems too numerous to list here and a partridge in a pear tree!

Each necessary component "blindly" evolved and integrated with all the others by itself --- one at a time, without design? Ha ha ha. --- "Intelligent and educated," my foot!

This mind-boggling complexity, -- which cannot be reduced by even a single element lest the species cease to exist -- becomes even more integrated and more complicated when studied on a molecular level --- the complex "4-digit" DNA “computer coding” behind it all. The mere suggestion of these integrated systems blindly “evolving,” one component at a time, independent of one another, in an “imperceptible” manner over millions of years is absurd on its face. As a matter of fact, St. Charles Darwin himself, in a pathetically futile effort to explain away the “problem” that integrated parts posed for his theory, admitted that his idea sounded “absurd in the highest degree.”

From his Origin of the Species:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

After objecting to his own theory (so that he can control the debate), Darwin proceeds, in the very next paragraph, to lamely explain away the "absurdity" of attributing the integrated complexity of the eye to random evolution. But his "solution" to the problem amounts to nothing but a diversionary debating trick.

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."

Darwin is using an old lawyer's trick here. He states the objection, then casually explains it away by using a bizarre and totally irrelevant analogy to astronomy. He also adds a theatrical touch of Latin mumbo-jumbo to impress the easily-impressed. We're not talking about the sun and the earth and "Vox populi," Chuckie! The subject here is your admittedly "absurd"-sounding claim that the integrated complexity of organisms and body parts came about blindly, randomly, and one element at a time without any intelligence involved. Explain it for us!

Plato warned us to be on guard against the type of empty diversionary rhetoric that Darwin used to explain away the massive holes in his goofy theory of self-creating life coming blindly from non-life, and then putting its own integrated parts together.

Darwin continues:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

More slick sophistry and silly semantics -- An "if", followed by another "if," then a "can be," then an "if further," then a "should be," and a "could be," then a "though," and finally a "should not be." If elephants could fly -- If I could live forever -- If dogs could speak. If, maybe, perhaps, and, though, coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, but, but but, if, if, if... This then is what the academic cool-kids club refers to as "science?" This non-observable and wild speculation about "numerous gradations" of the eye's integrated components amounts to pure rhetorical manipulation -- not true science. Read it again closely. Darwin totally dodges the question and explains NOTHING to solve the mystery of complex integration -- a mind-boggling phenomena that is observable in all living creatures and even "simple" single-cell organisms.

As it is with the many essential integrated systems of an automobile -- each one absolutely necessary for the car as a whole to function -- (engine, transmission, wheels, axle, spark plugs, gas tank, battery, hoses, belts, ignition, alternator, steering wheel, gear shift, accelerator, carburetor, braking system, drive shaft, oil, coolant / anti-freeze, transmission fluid, containers for fluid, radiator, chassis, pistons, nuts, bolts, welded parts, etc.) -- only the existence of an eternal designing force without origin, permeating and communicating through every living cell of existence, possessed of freakish intelligence and power, and far beyond our lowly human "pay grade" to ever fully comprehend, can adequately explain the complex integration of multiple systems that neither Darwin nor his sci-fi cult of diploma-decorated dick-heads have ever been able to, and never will be.

Can you?

1. The 20th Century discovery of DNA codes which program our physical traits makes Darwin's problem of explaining away integrated complexity a million times even more complex. 2. Imagine car parts blindly "evolving" one at a time and "randomly" integrating themselves during a billion-year tornado. That is essentially what "educated" evolutionists, without a shred of observable precedent, believe to have happened in the living world. 3. You may be a whiz at mathematics and rhetoric, professor. But you're as bloody frickin' stupid as you are crazy!

TonyN #fundie iidb.org

>If your god gave me free will, then get the fuck out of my >life and don't try to convert me......Your god will hate you >for an eternity for trying to remove my free will. My free >will is to not believe in fairytales.

But, dear Earl, God did not give you free will. Free will is a fairy tale.

That's good you don't believe in fairy tales. So you should believe in God and Him sending His Son to save you.

TheLowlyTortoise #fundie christianforums.com

As for the argument that believing in natural selection is believing in evolution, there seems to be a bit of flawed logic there. Natural selection is [basically] adaptation, genetic learning if you will. There's a big difference between the vast random changes required for the accidental life theory of evolution and the fact that change happens over time whatever the speed.[...]

I found it pretentious when scientists found the most recent 'missing link' fossil that 'shows' the transition from sea to land animals. The fossil shows structure both for living on land and in water, somehow that must equate to evolution when adaptation to its environment is all that can be established as fact.

antigravity213 #fundie youtube.com

Evolutionism is based on Greek Mythology.
evolution has nothing to do with the being of life as we know it.

As for evolution, that's what's taught in 3rd world countries as a way of censoring knowledge.

Even atheist like Ricard Dawkins will admit to I.D.

So we have to look at all the facts.
If evolutionism is real then where's the missing link, and the millions of transitional species?

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron #fundie assistnews.net

“Intelligent Design versus Evolution” is a new board game that was designed by actor Kirk Cameron and best-selling author Ray Comfort, to help fight against the what they maintain is the brainwashing of an entire generation.

Cameron said, “We are very excited about this game because it presents both sides of the creation evolution argument, and in doing so, shows that the contemporary theory of evolution is perhaps the greatest hoax of modern times.”

Comfort explains, “Intelligent Design Versus Evolution is unique in that the playing pieces are small rubber brains. We used the brains because want players to use their brains. The incentive is to play for ‘brain’ cards, and the team or individual with the most brains wins. There are brains all over the game, because we want to make people think deeply about what they believe.

“This is because the average person doesn’t know that the evolutionist lives by a blind faith in an unscientific theory (a theory that one scientist called a 'fairy-tale for grown-ups’). Through the game we show the irrational nature of evolution, using their own beliefs and quotes. This explains why evolutionists have a special language, something we call ‘the language of speculation,’ where they use words like ‘We believe, perhaps, probably, maybe, could have . . . ’ They can’t speak of their theory without it.”

Cameron adds, “To believe in evolutionary ‘transitional forms’ is to hold to the belief that one species evolved into another. However, there is no scientific evidence of any species evolving into another—not in creation, nor in the ‘fossil record.’ Most people don’t know that."

FrankBeMe #fundie rr-bb.com

[In reference to UK astronomers announcing a project to map out the "inception and formation of the galaxies". Ready your irony meters...]

They'll never accept that Genesis is all they need to know the origins of everything....those 35 weeks would be much better spent reading the Bible instead of making observations based on false assumptions and fairy tales.

Umm_Hanzalah #fundie ummah.com

All species have variation within them. Natural selection, therefore can occur within species but it doesn't cause them to turn into different species. Since when has anyone seen a fish turn into a lizard or a lizard turn into a bird for example.

The theory states we all formed from single celled organisms from which all life came evolved, into different species. This is not scientific as it has never been observed. Where do you see the transition species? Like where are the ape looking humans that would exist between between the fully formed apes and fully formed humans? and I'm not talking about fossils real or not, because that doesn't prove anything. Why are all the transitional sepcied fossils anyway?

Has evolution stopped that we have to look to fossils and not live species? All of this happened randomly and by chance apparently. If the theory of evolution was true, we would see this. But it's nothing but complete rubbish and completely unscientific. It's like dropping pots of paint randomly and by chance onto a piece of paper and expecting it to form this amazing portrait with the most amazing detail ever.

It's ironic that those who worship science, the very foundation of their belief is far from scientific,

Ausvegan #racist dailystormer.name

*On an article about complaints that fantasy movies are "too white"*

Bloody inappropriate. Fairy tales are a Nordic tradition, I’ll be damned if the fairy tales I read to children are tainted with negro blood.

I’m less resistant, however, if a black person plays:

The Big Bad Wolf
The Evil Queen (Snow White)
The Cannibalistic Witch (Hansel & Gretel)
Dame Gothel

You get what I mean.

PaigeWhitley #fundie rr-bb.com

We are experiencing it even in our home. My youngest son has heard frightening noises almost every night for 10 days, and this out of no where and soon after he was baptized. We told him that he is under attack, and that if he refuses to be scared then that makes satan angry at his demons/fallen angels and that he needs to focus on NOT being scared. He comes into our room in tears, telling us of the lizard like sounds he is hearing, bare feet walking on waxy floors, lizards with slime on their tales walking around, and sometimes people talking. He knows he's hearing things that aren't there, but he is just too young to not be scared.
I've seen spiritual warfare in my home before when i was a child as the evil ones would torment my younger brother. It's harder now to see it in my own home and with my own kids.
Come Lord Jesus!!

livin_in_the_Son #fundie raptureforums.com

Every once in awhile I let my 4yr old watch cartoons, and she loves Max and Ruby, the two children rabbits that may live alone cause they never show a parent (except for the occasional grandma rabbit). Well, today's show was about Cinderella, Ruby and her friend were pretending they were both the fairy tale maid-turned-princess, while the brother rabbit was doing stuff. Long story short, the grandma came over to find the real cinderella (i.e. whom ever's foot fit in the glass slipper), and lo andbehold, it fit only on the brother rabbit (not the girls).

I have now cancelled my cable.

Dave Armstrong #fundie ncregister.com

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms.

The natural “laws” that we observe somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist/materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

Atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to silence any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). We may entitle this belief Temporalism.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Yet in Atomism, each person is a god, too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (devout, faithful Atomist need to realize that others of different faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever imaginative – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the “unnecessary” addition of mere explanation.

“Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck, awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is regarded as senseless and “intrusive.”

We can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan!

Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads online, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.

In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity, if nothing else.

Like much of modern philosophy, however, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe that self-contradictory beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.

Note: the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious.

Backronym of the Year

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

We have all heard of the "Super Rats" - those "miracles of Evolution TM" that have "mutated" into indestructible creatures immune to even the deadliest of rat poisons. With breathless enthusiasm the disciples of Darwin hail these creatures as smoking gun evidence of "evolution on steroids". How pathetic that the 'Super Rats' phenomenon is the best "evidence" the Evolutionists can muster in support of Darwin's 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' delusion. Here is a typical example, from the London Telegraph, of type of tommy-rot that passes for "science", and "journalism" these days:

New 'Super Rats' Evolve Resistance to Poison

Rats across Britain are evolving a resistance to poison that makes them almost impossible to kill, scientists have warned.

"Genetic mutations have produced a new breed of "super rat" with DNA that protects the vermin from standard toxins, according to Professor Robert Smith at the University of Huddersfield."

And this from PBS (Propaganda - Bullshit -Sophistry):

Pesticide Resistance

"The chemical arsenal we have developed in an attempt to rid our homes of rodents and our crops of insects is losing its power. We have simply caused pest populations to evolve, unintentionally applying artificial selection in the form of pesticides. Individuals with a higher tolerance for our poisons survive and breed, and soon resistant individuals outnumber the ones we can control."

And on and on the fallacy goes; promoted by the press, taught in the schools, enforced by the state, never questioned, and never challenged. The most frustarting part feature of this big lie is that is so simple to debunk. All it takes is a bit of thought and some common sense, yet the lie rolls on and on. Now you might say, "Wait a minute Mike. The Super Rat phenomenom is very real. The rats without immunity die. Those rats lucky enough to have the immunity survive, and the offspring of those survivors inherit the immunity. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Well, there is nothing hard to understand about that; and nobody disputes the existence of Super Rats. But the phenomoneom only demonstrates natural selection (or, in this case, artificially-induced natural selection). But the rat remains a rat! Nothing changed. Nothing "evolved TM". Nothing "mutated". Not a single additional line of complex genetic code was added to the overall rat gene pool that wasn't already there to begin with. The surviving rats were already genetically immune to the posion. The dead ones were not. What type of insane "scientist" would make the galactic leap-of-faith from this common-sense example of natural selection, all the way to the 'simple first cell - to amoeba - to fish - to amphibian - to ape - to man' scenario?

The bottom line remains: trans-species evolution TM- let alone trans-genus, trans-family, trans-order, trans-class, trans-phylum, trans-kingdom - has never been observed; neither in the fossil record, nor in the current natural world. And anyone who tries to use the 'Super Rats' as a means to circumvent this Darwinian difficulty is either a criminal, an insane person, or just someone who hasn't given the matter much thought.

image
Atheistic Evolutionists have yet to prove a single case of trans-species Evolution TM, yet, on the basis of 'Super-Rats', we are expected to jump all the way up the biological classification ladder to trans-Kingdom Evolution TM - which holds that both the lovely woman above and the inanimate rose that she is smelling have the same great grandmother [x].

To better dispel the Super Rat Fallacy, for the sake of those who still don't see through the scam, let make an analogy to biological weapons. The technology for engineering race-specific biological weapons does indeed exist. Let us all hope and pray that the weapons themselves do not exist in some secret laboratory! But suppose that some evil clandestine group were to poison the reservoirs and springs of Japan with a biological weapon that was lethal to people with a certain gene specific to Asiatics. (that's the analogy to the rat posion).

What would happen? Obviously, all of the Asiatic inhabitants of Japan would die after drinking the poisoned water. But what about the tiny minority of White expatriates, tourists, missionaries etc, present in Japan at the time of the great poisoning? The biological weapon wouldn't kill them. The "Whites of Japan" would survive, unchanged, and pass on their genetic immunity to the bio-weapon on to their offspring. (the analogy to the Super-Rat). One hundred years later, Japan could be a thriving island nation of 10 million White people.

Now, what type of deranged crackpot mad-scientist would then dare to hypothesize, no, declare, that the Asiatics of Japan "mutated" into White people? See my point? And yet, this is exactly the type of madness that the great and the good of Academia are shoving down our throats as they denounce doubters as "uneducated" and "anti-science". Dirty rats!

1TrueDisciple #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

[i agree that your interpretation of the gospel is a fairytale.
who said that the ascension is a metaphor?]

I think I just figured out the mindset that creates the atheist: everything you don't personally witness is a fairy tale!

That leads me to my newly found disbelief in history. History is a fairy tale and no one currently alive can prove that anything happened in the distant past. I am now an ahistorian. Maybe ahistory could become a future discipline for study in the schools; imagine how interesting it would be to teach kids that nothing happened in the ancient past.

Chick Publications #fundie chick.com

Does Your Bible Have Doubting Footnotes?

Issue Date: July/August 2016
Most people don’t pay much attention to the notes in their Bible. But they were put there to be helpful, so, what do you think when you read this in your Bible:

(New International Version 1984)

[The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.]

Or this:

(New King James Greek-English Interlinear)

[(16:9-20) NU brackets vv. 9-20 as not original.]

Or this:

(New King James Version)

[16:20 Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.]

So what are we supposed to think? The first one is pretty simple: Mark 16:9-20 is not reliable. The second and third ones are less direct; filled with unintelligible gibberish that only the highly initiated can decipher.

If we common folk get curious, what could we learn? First, I want to know —who says? Who is raising this doubt about this important passage that tells me about Christ being raised from the dead and His ascension? This even chips away at the Great Commission!

You say: “The Scholars!” Well, it was “scholars” who gave us the “theory” of evolution. And are they really being helpful here? This is my BIBLE! My eternal destiny depends on this book. And the scholars don’t know if these verses belong in it!? So, what else do they want me to doubt?

It gets worse. Author David W. Daniels says that when you research deeper into these scholars’ thinking, they claim that Mark was the first gospel written (about 80 AD, years after Mark was dead!) and these verses were probably added later by the “church.” Furthermore, the other three gospels were written even later, by who-knows-who, and based on Mark, so maybe they did not originally have anything about the resurrection and ascension, either. Luke 24:51 contains the only reference to the ascension of Christ in the Gospels, and it’s missing from Sinaiticus, as well!

See where this goes? All behind an “innocent” little footnote. But it gets even worse. The third example mentions the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is ¾ of a Bible written in Greek that was “discovered” in the mid-1800s. Vaticanus was held by the Vatican, seen by almost no one, until after Sinaticus was published. Again, the “scholars” decided, on dubious evidence, that they were really old, like around 300 AD.

Well, modern technology has given us a whole new look. Please notice that the third example states that “nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain this.” Would you believe all 618 other Greek manuscripts? Why would TWO out-vote 618? The clue is in the first example: “the two most reliable early manuscripts.” The “scholars” again decided that these two are more reliable, simply because they are “early.” The assumption is that the closer you get to the “original autographs” that the apostles wrote, the more accurate. (Please remember that they believe the gospels were not written by the apostles, but someone later after 80 AD.)

Would you believe that almost no one was able to see the whole Sinaiticus until about 7 years ago? Pieces available were scattered from England to Russia. But now someone combined it all on the internet. And what Daniels has discovered looks very suspicions —but complicated. He has laid out a series of YouTube videos that raises serious evidence against the assumed age of both manuscripts. But, if they are not “oldest,” can they still be the “best?” No, because their being “reliable” depends on the fact they are so close to the “originals.”

But when Daniels looks at “best,” he learns that there are thousands of other discrepancies like the one in Mark 16. One-fourth of the books are missing from the Sinaiticus and both include the fairy tales called the Apocrypha, used by the Vatican to support some of its pagan doctrines.

This short article cannot cover the details of this monstrous plot against your Bible like Daniels has done in his Vlogs. As he has peeled back the layers, he has shared his research journey on YouTube. His earlier books, Look What’s Missing and Why They Changed the Bible were the result of his early findings. Visit David's Vlog page to see the videos.

[No name given] #fundie whatisacult.com

The theory of evolution, which is taught as a fact in our public school textbooks, tax-supported parks, museums, and public television programs, is actually not a harmless theory but a dangerous religious belief. People need to learn the truth in order to expose evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world. Evolution as it is being taught is dangerous for several reasons. At stake is the credibility of Jesus. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matthew 19:4). Evolution and creation represent worldviews that are polar opposites – one of them is wrong! Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Real science, not evolution, should be taught in the science classes. Teaching the religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. It has never been proven, as such, it remains a theory.

Government should not sponsor religion. It take just a much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in intelligent design. Teaching the theory of evolution as fact in tax-supported schools violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Why should all taxpayers support one religion over all others in our schools? Efforts must be made on all fronts to inform people that evolution is only a religion and that tax-supported institutions should not teach it as fact.

Facts About Evolution

FACT 1: Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

FACT 2: Evolution has never been proven, as such, it remains a theory.

FACT 3: It take just a much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in intelligent design.


Do Creationists fight against science?

This question is amusing since all major branches of science were started by creationists. There has never been one advancement in any field of science that the evolution theory has helped. The evolution theory is useless. I don't know of any creationists who fights against science. Most creationists that I know love science and only fight against evolution. You may be confusing the evolution theory with science. Some think the two go together. This is a common mistake due to the intense evolution propaganda campaign of the last 50 years. There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal. We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution. Please don't accuse me of being against science. I am only against the false teaching of evolution as science.