Springer #fundie evolutionfairytale.com
Abiogenesis is proven to be impossible. Therefore, intelligent design exists in nature. Therefore, neo-Darwinism is demolished as a tenable theory because its fundamental assumption of atheism is proven false.
Abiogenesis is proven to be impossible. Therefore, intelligent design exists in nature. Therefore, neo-Darwinism is demolished as a tenable theory because its fundamental assumption of atheism is proven false.
Post flood live spans began to decrease due to the introduction of solar radiation but would for some time still be extensive compared to now. Methusala was the oldest pre-flood human recorded at near 1000 years.
the many varieties of skulls which have been portrayed as "evolutions" toward Human are able to be found on the shoulders of living humans now "walking the streets" of Earth. They are more common in third world countries where bone altering disease is more common.
The supposed Neandrathal children were long ago dismissed for reasons similar to my "walking the streets" statement, they were not Neandrathal, just sick. If I correctly recall the most common cause was Elephantitus. I am sure I spelled that wrong but Word did not know it either.
Of the few skulls/skeletons found which have been claimed as proof of human evolution none have passed the test of reasonable doubt. Many have been found to be non-human. One formed by extrapolation was later proved to have been extrapolated from a pig tooth. Those which were found to be human are more readily identified as humans with bone diseases but fully human (Homo Erectus). Look around, most of these “missing link" skulls are walking the streets of America today, though they are more prevalent in third world countries.
Another comfort is that kids these days don't come out of school learning or remembering to much about anything, so the lie of evolution being shoved into their ears, most likely will fall out the other ear.
This is a hoot..... :o Christians afraid of the truth???? You are kidding right....
Its evolutionists who are screaming when someone dares to mention that evolution is not a proven fact, and don't want there monopoply on public education challenged.
I think its evolutionists who are afraid of facing the facts, not christians/creationists.
Each specie relying on sexual reproduction is an example of “Irreducible Complexity” because the systems in the male and female bodies require their counterparts to be of a minimum design for success. The individual systems (male and female) are also examples of “Irreducible Complexity”. There is also the question of time. The incubating host (in most cases, such as human, the female) is more complex than the counterpart. A complexity of such degree that evolutionary standards should separate males and females into two species. It would take many more millions, billions (?) of years to produce a woman than a man if we had to wait for evolution. Can you imagine all those teenage boys who think marriage is a long time to wait? What if they had to wait for evolution?
Several religions are adopting the views of science. How can a non-religious thing become part of a religion?
Also, if those who are at the head of scientific things were remotely worried about science becoming a religion, they would not allow the mixing of the two. But I have yet to hear anyone complain in any written form to any religion that has done this. Which tells me that science, through evolution, wants to become as powerful as any religion.
When are you guys gonna wake up? What quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, is a duck. Or did science 101 teach you that? Because denying what is happening right in front of your eyes, is only denying what the truth of the situation is. For I challenge anyone to come up with a recent written letter by those who would control science and it's direction. Where they denied a religion from adapting to it's views of origins that science currently has.
I also don't really understand it. I guess people only pay so much attention to these theories because they assume that those scientists which come up with them know what they do.
What I noticed is that many atheists, I don't know if this is one of their tactics, are trying to make it look like evolutionists are simply too dumb to really understand the evolutionary theory and this is the reason why they think it's silly.
The Haeckel pictures are a joke and basically one more proof that atheists cannot be trusted! They even use lies to support their religion! I would never trust an atheist when it comes to evolution. All they want is to refute God and they use anything they can find.
Evolution is a completely imagined story, totally made up out of vain imagination, and they they try to explain their imagined story the best way they can imagine.
Anyone with half a brain, can see that we live in a created world.
The "big bang" theory is a major embarrassment to science. To think that a hypothesis based on such flimsy evidence could be embraced so readily by so many seemingly educated people completely boggles my mind.
Do evolutionists really believe that changes happen this way?
That for example flies first of all did not know that they have to fly away when something is coming fast their way. So the first flies always got mangled. And then over the time the flies finally started realizing that flying away to get out of the way of objects which are coming nearer at a high speed is a good thing and then they somehow "saved" this information as instinct on their genes? Is this how they imagine it? :lol:
You are grossly mistaken if you believe that evolutionists base their beliefs of objective science and creationists are ignoring facts and relying on theology.
In validating any scientific hypothesis, it is far more critical to look at the hostile evidence than the positive evidence. In mathematics, for example, a theorem can be disproven by finding one exception where it is invalid. It is not necessary for skeptics of evolutionary theory to answer every “positive” piece of evidence put forth by evolutionists. Rather, all that needs to be done is point out a fatal flaw in the theory.
[Re: big bang]
So, where did the matter come from that exploded?
For God explains that He is the Alpha and Omega. And has always been. But science has yet to explain how this matter came to be. How can you compress matter into something the size of a dot on this page, when it is well known that certain things cannot be compressed beyond a certain point.
Example: I'd like to see someone take the water in our ocean and compress it to the size of a dot (.) on this page. Anyone?
Is it reasonable to assume that the sun has remained in a constant state of heat outpul for the past 4.5 billion years? Given the second law of thermodynamic, i.e., the law of increasing entropy, I'm finding it very difficult to just assume that everything as been stable for that length of time. What sort of theory of stellar evolution would allow the Sun to be in a constant state for 4.5 billion years?... I think such a theory would defy all known laws of physicis.
Now, the reason why I believe that an infinite God exists is because it is necessary logically. The world had to have had a beginning, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says, and that fact demands that it have a Creator. If this Creator were less than infinite, He would have to have been created Himself, and so it would go on and on infinitely. But such an infinite regress is impossible with finite beings, so to avoid irrationality we must assume that there was an infinite Creator. [emphasis added]
There have also been many meteorites that have made it through. h*vind says if you get enough going in one direction, it'll create a cold current. (He's talking about a comet dumping ice on the poles and creating the "ice age." What do you think? If a big enough comet passed by, and had a bunch of it's mass ripped off by gravity, could it get through the poles by creating a cold channel?
Some evolutionists ask you to define a KIND, heres a classic answer.
A wolf, a fox and a coyote and a chicken all stand side by side, see if you can point out the one that is not of that KIND.
If you use the bibles teachings and cross examine them with todays scientific facts/operational science, you'll see that science supports the bible.
From much research on Darwin that I have conducted myself, my own opinion on him, is that he was just a confused man who had atheist idea's, and like many other people in the world, wanted to be his own god, so he tried to explain God away.
No one says that the design had to be perfect or that even if it started out “perfect” that it had to remain that way. Some critics will point out what they perceive as faulty body parts, that a real intelligent designer would have designed something better. But in the real world we see design compromises all the time and we also see design mess ups. History is littered with intelligently designed things that didn’t work and/ or were dubbed “engineering blunders”. So what? That is why we use the term intelligent design.
I think its pretty clear that women are not given the gift of pastor/teacher as far as scripture is concerned.
So Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology book changed Darwin's mind from creation to evolution. Charles Lyell was a known atheist who hated the creation story, and hated God. His book has these overtones written all through it. If Darwin would not have taken this book along on that voyage, he may never have come up with the idea of evolution. [...]
This is a perfect example of what has to happen to someone to believe in evolution. It takes you to lose your faith, if your a Christian. Even back from it's very beginning, where Darwin had to give up his own faith just to ponder the idea, and then write his book on it. And if you have never been a Christian, evolution requires you to take a stance against a God and His creation. Even though it is claimed that creation is not science, but a mere religion. So was fighting a mere religion taught in science 101? Or is the truth about science, and it's pet theory evolution, finally coming to light as a religion?
[On the looting and martial law in New Orleans]
I expect no international help. Stuck-up U.N. thugs....
The current model of Evolution is false because of its hocus pocus mechanisms. Early I read a thread in reference to bones and how non-boned organisms could develop into boned organisms through RM+NS [random mutation + natural selection]. The question was simple, what on a non-boned organism could be modified to become a bone therefore demonstrating common ancestry – descent with modification ?
I postulated this question to a pro-evolutionist and to my amazement I received the following answer, “it just happened”. Hardly scientific.
What IS very surprising is that there are people who cling to the notion that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to asexually reproduce- all via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes! Amazing indeed...
The Muslims in Indonesia wouldn't let the Christians celebrate Christmas in their city and when the Muslims sent all the Christians out BAYUM!!!
The tsunami hit.
Then you have the abortion pill, RU486. Which, by the way, says it can cause sudden death. Death in the unborn, as well as the mother. How? RU486 works like rat poison. You see, rat poison kills the rat by making it's blood so then, the rat bleeds to death internally. Ru 486 works the same way to kill the unborn child. Problem is, there's a 50% chance it may kill the mother as well. By making her internally bleed to death. And it has happened. Both mother and baby die, and for what reason? Money.
It is a pet peeve of mine when evolutionists equivocate on what evolution is. They equivocate on the word evolution by claiming micro-evolution is “evolution”, then essentially declare victory. Then we get the usual strawman arguments to follow. I find this to be one of the most intellectually dishonest arguments going, and never intended this forum to tolerate this kind of blatant equivocation.
50% of students in high school, will lose their faith for two reasons. One is what is being taught in "Science class". Two is peer pressure from others who have learned the samething.
Of that 50%, those who go to college, 70% will lose their faith. And those who do not conform, or act like the others to fit in, while in science class. Will fail the course because the professor will take a bias attitude towards them. Even encurage of classmates to make fun of them during class, for what they believe.
[After asking "what is space", and being referred to Stephen Hawking's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/055380202X?v=glance" target="_blank">The Universe in the Nutshell</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380168?v=glance" target="_blank">A Brief History of Time</a>]
I'd prefer not to read anything by Steven Hawking, but hey, what can it hurt? Maybe I'll learn something.
Well, I have a question. Is not our magnetic field (a planet or moon, generated magnetic field) required for us to survive? If we leave it, would we not die? And if not, NASA should already be doing test flight simulation away from our planet, and our moon. So that we know what to expect. But they have not, which tells me there's a problem.
They want to equate evolution with biology and biology with science, so that anyone who dares question evolution is an enemy of science. This is pure, undiluted nonesense. Biology does not need darwinism, is doesn't need the single common ancestor model, it doesn't need fossils, it doesn't need a lot of old dirt and rocks. Biology is the study of living systems, not dead relics and by the way, biology tells us nothing about our primordial past.
<p>They have made a radical and hotly contested suggestion to the Kansas State School Board that has evolutionists running for cover. Teach students biology and the other natural sciences and let them decide for themselves if it's God's handywork or pure chance. Just outragous.
It [stem-cell research] is the culture of death. The secular humanist left is only interested in maintaining the right to murder babies. Anything that seems to help their cause is acceptable to them because there is no fear of God before their eyes.
So, would you say they are lying about finding what is shown in those pictures [of frozen dragons]? Seems alot of trouble to do something like that. Guess it must have to do with realitivism, where you create your own reality and decide whether it's real or not.
[Fundie mistaking the fictional documentary "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real" as legitimate]
<p>If you want real proof that evolution is a fairytale, then watch Dragons on the discovery channel.
<p><a href="http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/dragons.html" target="_blank">http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/dragons.html</a>
<p>I watched the better part of it a week or so ago. It was a very elaborate story based on evolutionary ideology, and dragon myths. To be honest, if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the wonderful just-so-stories about the dragons came from our evolutionist defenders of the faith that frequent this web site.... [smiley] There really was no difference......
[After being informed the documentary was fictional]
<p>So, is animal planet into making hoaxs? And then take three years to do it? Looks like they went to a lot of trouble, or maybe they just did not want to get into any arguements with scientists would be bent on proving it wrong.
Here are the points why i think evolution cannot be true: [...]
<p>everyone can probably say that humans do have "souls" unlike any other animals. Evolution cannot develop "souls", which means they would either have to conclude all living things have souls, or nothing has souls. Personally, i think we do have souls. We do feel love, we do get bored, we do get entertained, we feel sympathy, we feel pain, we have hopes, friendship unlike any other animals.