scientists would know about it

MBC H #fundie answers.yahoo.com

NO! not if you believe in MacroEvolution!
Microevolution is the Variation WITHIN genetic boundaries; even our own children have different variations in eye, hair and skin color - a better name for microevolution would be micro variation!
However, it is NOT evolution at all because the genetic material and variations already exist.
A worm cannot turn into an eagle! That would be true evolution or what is more commonly known as macroevolution.
When we hear about a frog turning into a prince we KNOW that’s a fairytale – yet when scientists seeking only to be right, not absolute truth, tell us that a salamander turned into a human millions or billions of years ago – we call that Macro evolutionary science instead of Science fiction, which is the more accurate term!
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism invented by the mind of man!

Curiosity Killed The Cat. #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Open QuestionShow me another »
Believers and non-believers in God- why debate over Him so much, when the evidence of His existence is clear?
Do we constantly debate that electricity doesn't exist, or air doesn't exist, or thoughts don't exist, or time doesn't exist just because we cannot see them? Or that the heat of the sun isn't true- just because our limited minds cannot comprehend such intense heat, or that the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) would take 100,000 years to cross just our galaxy, the milky way, that our minds cannot truly comprehend such speed- do we reject such truths, just because we cannot fully comprehend them? Illustration- scientists do not fully understand all the genes that are within the living cells of the body, nor do they fully comprehend the intricate functioning of the human brain- yet they do not deny that the body and brain exist.
Should we really expect to know everything about God who is so great that he brought about the existence of the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?
Great to get your thoughts on this :-)

Scott Guenther #fundie talkorigins.org

As a biology teacher and a creationist, I find that all of the fossil evidence and radioactive dating that supposedly supports the evolutionary theory, actually can also be used to support a seven day creation with an earth that is less than 12,000 years old. As God made the earth, He obviously made a mature earth.
[...]
There is also the probability that oil deposits existed and they would seem to be millions of years old, though they were just made less than one week ago. Fossils could be part of the makings of this old earth. As most most scientists desire to know everything they can, it is difficult for many of them to admit that there are many things we humans will never know. Belief in God and in creation forces one to accept that fact.

Not Perfect, But Forgiven and 4TheLight #fundie rr-bb.com

4TheLight:
More dellusion for the end times. I personally beleive bigfoots are real but have something to do with the nephilim. There are alot of accounts of people encountering these creatures around the same time they see ufo's.

Not Perfect, But Forgiven:
I am leaning towards what you are saying. It could be a nephilim hybrid or some kind of unholy creature. It makes me wonder what people are going to dig up next, you know? What about the loch ness monster; I think it could have survived the flood in certain parts of the world?

Dinosaurs and people were created at the same time, so it's not unthinkable.
What if it's the same animals, but they have survived for so long having been created before the curse struck the Earth? That may explain their rarity. I am very interested in what these "scientist" turn up. However, if it's a hoax, I won't be surprised in the least. Scientists have gone to unbelievable lengths to fabricate "evidence" for evolution, basically trying as hard as possible to keep God out and be accountable to Him.

After the rapture and Bema seat, I'll be sure to ask Jesus about all those weird creatures we people were curious about and what they really are. That would be pretty cool.

speakout #fundie christianforums.com

You are walking for a nice leisurely walk in your local mall area you are approached by two eighteen year olds in white shirts calling themselves elders, seventeen year old elders? Welcome to the surreal world of Mormons but you might ask what has this going to do with evolution? Do you not know that the Church Latter Days Saints are evolutionists?
But at least I would credit them with telling the world exactly what they believe and having worked out what our friends the pseudo scientist have not yet thought about: they want to be gods.

Now let me take this opportunity to ask my friends evolutionist, if you sincerely believe in the evolutionist theory, what will you then evolve into? You cannot surely become a chimp , you have to be more refined than you are currently.

You might need to come to your senses and admit that evolution is a mystery religion which advocates that godhood is in sight, men can evolve into a higher being. There you are: Evolution has joined the ranks of mystery religion and is now teaching Freemasonic philosophy and Catholism.

Gabriel #fundie joystiq.com

Atheism is just as much a religion as anything else. How is it the same text books discuss Pasteur's discovery that life can't come from non-life and then claim that at some point life did come from non-life for some unexplained reason at some unexplained time? As for the spontaneous generation of a single cell, even if proteins formed first, the chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 4,450,000th power that a cell would spontaneously generate from those proteins. Also, the big bang is complete bunk as people know it and has to be adjusted, though I believe there was a similar occurence to the big bang. But the belief that there was about an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in a singularity is ridiculous since the two can't exist together. The universe would have destroyed itself from day one. Over 70% of scientists, most of them evolutionists, because of problems like these, believe in God. They don't like intelligent design because science is only the study of the natural world and cannot study the supernatural. Science also only works with finite numbers, so anything that theoretically existed for an ifinite amount of time is impossible for science to study. You can't rationally come to an atheist conclusion through science, though. The furthest you can go is agnosticism.

Crown Of Christ #fundie crownofchrist.net

[This whole site is a complete crock of wall-to-wall fail! Enjoy!]

The EARTH is not a PLANET

1. THE SUN IS A PLANET !

What is a "Planet"?

The Greek root word "planao" means to go astray, wander or roam about. The Bible warns about false teachers who deviate from the truth of the Christian Faith. They are "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" (Jude 13).

Early astronomers chose the word "planet" to describe celestial bodies that seemed to deviate from simple rotation about the earth. According to modern theories, the earth is the third planet from the sun. The sun is just one mediocre star among billions. We live on a speck in a vast, impersonal universe. Really?

How do "Scientists" know that the Earth is Moving?

You tell me. Infidels scoff at the Bible by saying that the stars could not move quickly enough to circle our world daily. Well, if the globe is spinning rapidly, why doesn't our atmosphere spiral off? Atheists tell us that the earth is spinning, circling the sun, rotating with the galaxy AND rushing away from the big bang. And neither you nor I can
feel any motion!

The Senses don't Think!

Modern "science" is based on the false assumption that our five senses are the only path to truth. This is called "empiricism". But one does not think with his nose or eyes - not even with his brain. It is only the MIND that forms hypotheses, develops experiments and defends conclusions.

The Latin word scientia simply means "knowledge".(5) It is a prideful lie of modern unbelief that knowledge comes only through the senses. "...Avoiding ... oppositions of science falsely so-called" (1 Timothy 6:20), let us remember that "We have also a more sure word of prophesy; whereunto ye would do well to take heed, as unto a light that shineth is a dark place..." (1 Peter 1:19). The Bible is the manual prepared by our Creator to explain His universe to us. We should not ignore it to follow the fables of foolish men.

Toidiedud #fundie forums2.battleon.com

God Made Us and he judges us...after your name is blotted out on the book of life you go to hell unless you are in the lambs book of life then heaven...book of life is the record of every human being and your name is blotted out when you die...the lambs book however is every person who beleives in him and is born again...


I dont see how any sane person would belive in anything else...I dont know if this is off topic but someone is bound to bring these up...

Evolution-No proof whatsoever...microevolution and adaptaion sure but for one species into another?No...it goes against the scientific method...they arnt observing it and they arnt following the scientific method when they "Study" evolution and then of coirse the very idea itself is just stupid...it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Christ...

The Big Bang-Um...again goes against scientific methods AND a law...Energy cannot be created nor destroyed right?So um...how does nothing ecplode into the universe?It dosnt it goes against everything science thinks...so The Big Bang theory is for idiots...

And just a tidbit...I dont remember the names but two of the worlds best scientists two of the smartest people were asked where we came from...heres their answers...

Aliens...yeah...

And Organisms piggybacking on crystals...he never would say anything else...

Thats from a Documentary...I forget its name...Ill think of it...

Oh and this is all from a college proffesor I know...he went in to much more detail though...

YYYYYYY #fundie answers.yahoo.com

"Christians, How can you believe a book that has so many scientific errors/contradictions"

Self righteous retard, how do you know the world DOES move? How do you know it's NOT the stationary centre of the universe, and that everything revolves around it? Think about it--the Earth is God's single best creation, so it's only logical that it would be the centre of the universe.

Oh, let me guess you base your assertion on no real evidence except for believing what a stupid fancy-pants scientist says. They should have killed that Galileo faaaaaag

TheRavenMother #conspiracy indigosociety.com

Scientists are eager to do a new project in regards to the moon.
They want to mount lots of mirrors onto it, claiming that it would be great for many things— one main thing would be, to make it like a giant flashlight to earth at night by reflecting the sun to us – meaning, in affect, possibly 24 hour sunlight— now, I don’t know about you— but to me, that seems like a real dumb ass idea.

Because I see that as a problem to add towards global warming— however, scientists claim it will have the reverse effect, I don’t see how!

The other good idea about this, according to scientists is, by using it as a flashlight to communicate with extraterrestrials, via a kind of flashlight Morse code.
So, this means they know there is life out there, obviously?

But what concerns me is the fact they want to put onto the mirrors flappable photovoltaic cells, which means that the mirrors will beam, microwaves back to earth!

I don’t know about you, but this all doesn’t sound like a great idea, in fact it sounds like the quickest way to kill our planet off— what are your views?

f22raptor #fundie boards.historychannel.com

Yes, you too can know the Almighty God for yourself. This
is within reach of anybody who want to know God. The answer is right before your eyes if one would drop their pride of this`know it all attitude.` If they can dismiss their arrogance of nobody can tell them anything unless it's under a microscope\telescope via see, hear, feel, smell and taste. In the secular, great swelling pride has prevented the brilliant scientist, philosopher, doctor, educator from where life really count.

There is this stupendous information God gives to mankind if he would only submit that he doesn't know it all instead of trusting in a culmination of combined knowledge over the centuries where they'll earn a few placards, papers, awards, degrees etc..He certainly isn't opposed to wisdom, power and wealth but knowing God is superior.

God said to the prophet Jeremiah 9:23,24 "let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understand and know Me, that I AM the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord."

God reveals Himself in this manner that He isn't the hard, ruthless God some has portrayed Him to be. Some will post in here juvenile responses fit for adolescents of which reveal their true heart and easily detectible simply because they just don't understand and know God. I have heard the best of them and they reveal to me just what they don't know, you can see right through them.

Dinger #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[Question on Yahoo Answers]

Can evolutionists answer this?

When and why did evolution decide to punish women for having multiple partners?

Within the last few years (I don't know exactly when) scientists found a link between a womans reproduction system and her immune system.

The first time she has intercourse, the DNA is imprinted. after this when a mans DNA is injected, it is checked against the imprint. If it is the same, everything is ok. If it is different, the imprint is removed and the knew DNA is imprinted. This can only happen 2 times. Even if the 3 DNA is the same as the first, it still is the 3rd imprint. After this the immune system will attack the next 3 mens DNA, even if one is from a previous man. then the immune system will step down a level. I do not know what that means exactly, but I do know it means the woman can get sick easier, and recovers slower.

This link serves no purpose if evolution is true, and would in fact hinder a womans ability to have babies from different fathers if anything happened to the first one.

Gideon #fundie flyleaffans.com

The sun has gives off ultraviolet rays
doesn't it?
And it has been proven that humans in fact, need the nutrients
of these rays in order have healthy skin, and so on. But when
a human has too much UV, the effects have proved harmful. Knowing
this however, He decided to create the ozone layer and a magnetic
field to shield us from such radiation. Also, while the
earth rotates it is slightly tilted as it hangs, and with good
reason: If that tilt was even 1 degree higher or lower than it is now
earth would suffer through unstable seasonal change, orbital change,
and much more... also making it impossible for us to live on it.
As we know, scientists do not just analyze they also have
the ability to create; a scientist does not only make observations.
So God therefore that would make God a perfect scientist
because he knows everything and can create anything
(like the examples shown above) perfectly, unlike us human scientists.
And so you see, God uses logic even for these basic things. Did that make sense?

parhamreza #fundie stumbleupon.com

[About this comic:]
image

The difference between atheists and theists is on the "why" not the "how". Religious people know full well that scattered light causes the sky to appear blue, in fact, theistic scientists originally came up with the idea. A fairer, more logical cartoon would have the Atheist dad replying "The sky is blue, just cause it is"

Gideon #fundie flyleaffans.com

I know the evidence; even if a human's DNA is 98% identical to an ape (or any other type of animal like that) it doesn't disprove the fact that God created everything. And considering that He did make everything and that He has all-power, why couldn't He make us identical to an ape while we still could be different from them? And what in the Bible HASN'T been recently proved as reliable?!

And I also agree with Goku and everyone else who has said that God could make the Earth look as old as He wanted to while it stays only 10,000 years old or a trillion years old?!

[..] But it all boils down to this:

Everything that exists was created by God. God IS a scientist, and He made things very complex and with purpose.

I don't remember the name (sorry) but remember the principle (not created by Christians or Creationists) that determined that nothing can exist without something else; this principle is just as solid as gravity and applies especially to Creation.

That means in a nutshell that you couldn't evolve because in order to do so you would have to lose the most vital parts of yourself (like parts of your DNA/RNA!) overtime in order to gain a new one, which is not possible because your body would simply stop functioning altogether.

n2motocross #fundie scary-kittencat.livejournal.com

[Edited my ownage out of this. I'd like to see what you guys think of this fucktard]

Well congratulations of working toward your computer degree offered from The Univ. of Phoenix Online.

Liberalism is a mental disorder:

Liberals support:

Ripping babies from the womb ie: partial birth abortion.
Animal rights....... but no rights for the unborn.
Homosexual marriage. I guess you don't know what happened to Rome.
Multi-culturalism......... A nation of tribes.
Euthanasia.....ie : Terri Shiavo
Pornography.
Socialism
Oppressive taxation
Welfare for the able-bodies
needle exchange programs for drug abusers
Muslims, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccans.....but have hatred toward Christians
Oppose War....even if it meant our own destruction. But care more about how we are liked globally.
Global Warming.......21,000 Scientists worldwide disagree
Environmental treaties that would destroy the U.S. economy.......but exempt China. ie: The Kyoto protocol.
Condoms on cucumbers....public school sex ed.
Obama, even after knowing his associations with known terrorists. ie: Ayers and Dorhn
But, demand any Republican be removed from office with even the slightest contact with anyone they don't approve of.
Overlook voter fraud, except when it is on the other side.
Fairness doctrine: Air America failed because no one wants to hear emotional whining so they want to penalize conservative talk radio and force the broadcasters to employ liberal views.
Radical Islam just because they hate George Bush.
ACLU
NAACP
AFL-CIO
Urban league
HUD
Trail Lawyers guild.

I could go on...... but I'm tired of typing.

Creation Tips #fundie users.bigpond.com

Babylonian Ark fails test
The ancient Babylonians had a flood story too, and it may have been a corrupted version of the biblical account. The ark in the Babylonian story was shaped like a cube, which would had made it unseaworthy.

This shows the difference between truth and badly recorded legends. The Bible's Ark was able to carry all the animals God sent to Noah, it was wonderfully seaworthy, it landed on a mountain that is still identifiable today, and the whole story is credible scientifically.

Because of this, there are many thousands of scientists who believe the Bible's account of the Ark and the worldwide Flood, but none (as far as we know) who seriously defends the Babylonian story as scientifically trustworthy.

(unknown) #fundie scienceblogs.com

I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design.

I think species should have evolved first with only one eye. After realizing that one eye cannot create depth perception, nature would have generated another eye following thousands of years of evolution. We know this is not true. Someone or something already knew that one eye would not be enough.

Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?

MySweetLordJesus, aka VenomFangX #fundie youtube.com

[His video: "A simple way to prove the existence of God"]

If I promised to give you a chocolate bar after an infinite amount of time, would I ever give you the chocolate bar? No. Because we would never reach the moment when we could say "Okay, an infinite amount of time has passed, pay up the chocolate bar".

Next question: Could there have been an infinite amount of time before now? No, otherwise we would have never reached this moment in time. So we can conclude that time started a finite amount of time ago, [...] and before that there was no time.
Scientists say matter can't be created or destroyed. [...] So the question is: has matter always existed? And I'd say no, it hasn't, because we've already determined time didn't always exist, but you can't have matter without space and time. If you have matter, where do you put it -space- and when do you put it -time-?

So here's the problem: we know there wasn't always time, and thus we HAVE to conclude there wasn't always matter. [...] So we don't know what created matter, time, and space, fair enough. But what we do know about whatever it is that we don't know, is that it's immensely powerful, I mean there's lots of energy in this world and it had to come from whatever created it, so, immensely powerful, and extremely intelligent, because we can look around and see it created enough stuff to sustain life, create all the elements we need to go about our daily functions, breathe and eat, and all that amazing awesome stuff, so we can conclude it's awesomely powerful, incredibly intelligent, and suddenly the picture starts to, you know what I'm saying?

Ah, yeah. There's no way to argue this. There's nowhere else to go. I got you cornered. You can comment on this and say "Ah you're a fool, I don't believe in God", but, you know, you might have to change your beliefs a bit. Some people don't wanna believe in God cause that makes them accountable to their creator, and, they don't want to deal with it.
Check out my other videos to learn what God expects of you, and how to restore a relationship with him, I'd be happy to take you through it.

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."

Peter Dolinski #fundie theontarion.on.ca

Re: Faith Vs Atheism by Adam Morris, p 5, Ontarion April 10, 2008

I was pleasantly surprised by the respect that Adam Morris shows in his letter towards those with whom he does not share the same point of view in the ongoing debate of creationism vs evolution. I would like to bring some points to the debate I hope readers will find interesting.

There is a lot of purely scientific material that while not proving a creationist view strongly questions or refutes the concept of Darwinian evolution. Sadly as in the days of Galileo anything that challenges the day's dogma gets dismissed. There is no surer way to get vilified or lose funding than to challenge evolution. And no need to mention God once.

I could list here dime and a dozen questions that have been never answered properly, including those two, one of which got me an earful from a respected evolutionist.

1) How could an animal reprogram its DNA to switch from gills to lungs with all that it entails knowing well that a gradual shift is impossible?

2) Who was T-rex's ancestor?

To terminate a current observation. With the extinction or near extinction of a specie today, be it animal or plant, scientists deplore the fact that along the subject so will its genetic information go the way of ... the dinosaurs. Information that might be pertinent to fight some disease or weather some climates. Hmm... If evolution, creation, no pun intended, of new genetic information, was true then would it matter less... To question is to progress.

Peter Dolinski

Darwin Was Wrong #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why do people believe a meteor that hit only one little section of the planet killed ALL the dinosaurs?
Seriously, wouldn't a global flood be a more reasonable explaination? You know, because it's GLOBAL, meaning it covered the entire planet. Surely that would kill off every dinosaur on earth, not some meteor, which big or not, still didn't cover the entire planet. How can scientists be so smart but yet so stupid?

Spartanfe2 #fundie forums.gametrailers.com

the Bible will never be debunked, and let me give you one little story to prove it. You know the thing that we landed on the moon with? You remember the circular feet on the bottom of the landing gear? Ok, here's what they were for. The scientists at NASA designed those because the moon's surface has accumulated dust on its surface since almost after its existence. The scientists realized that if they landed the lunar whatever on the moon without these special "landing pads" that the ship would sink into the billions of years of moon dust they figured would be on the moon because of the billions of years that supposedly happened because of evolution. However, when the ship landed, only about six inches of moon dust was present on the surface, not 6-12 feet or more that they were expecting. Even using their own data, they figured the amount present could have only been about 6000years worth of moon dust, but out of those 6000 or so years, one day was missing. A Christian working at NASA remembered something he had read in his Bible earlier that week. The passage being referred to talks about a battle that the Israelites were going into, and God told Joshua, the Israelite's leader at the time, that as long as it was sunlight, He would give them power to win the battle. So Joshua asked God to hold the sun in the sky, and God agreed. God held the sun in the sky long enough for the Israelites to win, which was the span of one extra day. Given this story explains the missing day, the facts line up and the Bible is true and will NEVER be debunked.

guitjoc #fundie youtube.com

I am Christian and I go to a Christian college. So I may be biased. But I know for a fact that an artifact has been found on Mt. Sinai that SCIENTISTS HAVE proven to be Noah's Ark. The dates and details match that of the description given in the bible. Look it up. If this guy had any argument against Christianity he would know what he was saying. He obviously doesn't.

Cameron Ramirez #fundie facebook.com

lol tell me of one scientist that knows exactly what happend back then that you should give oh SO MUCH respect to them, uhhhhhooo NOOOOoo..... ohhh noo.... I said that they just come up with hunches.... oooohhh noooo.... mind-bogglingly stupid and ignorant posts, dude I love ya bro, tell me how an explosion would occur with no oxygen. Acutally dont, this is so rediculous, dude we are the generation when Christ is going to come back for us and when he does your going to remember this message I sent you and your gunna reap what you sow, just flat out facts. DUDE i love you bro, no joke, the best thing is helping and seeing a lost sheep come back to the herd with the Shepherd. Duddde Remeber this and when the time goes, I hope you will have changed your life and way of thinking. I'll pray FOR YOU!!

metmom #fundie freerepublic.com

And tell the GLBT community here to stop it’s immoral, life threatening behavior.

The people in Africa are bearing the consequences of that irresponsible behavior. The AIDS/HIV research isn’t about them anyway. It’s a liberal PC push to allow gays to continue in their lifestyle without bearing the consequences of their behavior.

Most of the rationale behind the funding for this isn’t to help the victims in Africa and it will likely be decades before any over there even have hope of seeing it. That’s why we’re simply calling it as we see it. It’s about promoting a consequence-free homosexual and drug lifestyle.

It’s nobody else’s fault the disease is still around because a cure hasn’t been found but that of the gay and drug using community. They are the ones responsible for it. They are the ones who can stop it dead in it’s tracks and they are responsible to do so. It’s reprehensible that they would continue behavior that they know will result in the deaths of others.

It’s wrong to continue that, demand funding, and then lay the deaths of innocents at the feet of scientists and researchers for something they failed to do.

bride_of_christ's #fundie rr-bb.com

During a discussion on "Scientists Create Artificial Black Hole"

Let's push 'em in the the black hole. It would make a great new home for all of their whacked out theories and experiments.

Could you imagine having no more Scientists!!!!!!!

Sorry, getting excited prematurely. While it may not be the black hole that swallows 'em up, I know they'll soon be done away with. In the meantime, I shall pray for their Salvation.

watchman_2 #fundie factnet.org

Fact No. 1 - God's existence can be proven. Life exists; therefore, God exists.

There are only two possibilities for life, evolution or God. Evolution, having been proven false, leaves the only other possibility for life -- God.

Fact No. 2 - Evolutionism is every bit a religion as any other religion. In fact, you were participating in the debate as evolutionism was proven to be a cult.

Fact No. 3 - Evolutionism is not based upon science. The theory takes underlying scientific discoveries and combines poor exegesis to postulate that all life originated from bacterium, which, itself, originated from a bolt of lightning into the primordial soup of chemicals. Yet, there is no observeable evidence to support such postulation nor can scientists duplicate the process in any means.

Fact No. 4 - Science has proven evolution false. The process of genus/species change has been labeled 'natural selection'. It has been proven that extinction would be impossible if 'natural selection' were true since all precursor species, including the bacterium, would also have to be extinct as well.

Fact No. 5 - Evolutionism is driven by the socialist left. Scientists know that evolution is an unproven theory. Yet, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that it would be proper to teach the theory of evolution along side creation in public schools. Such a position is not scientific, but is driven by the leftists' hatred of Christianity and the religious right.

Lord Thomas Drake #fundie forums.cybernations.net

[In a thread labeled "What you need to know about creation"]
1. Population statistics—If man appeared over one million years ago, the present world population would be thousands of times greater than it actually is. In fact, our entire galaxy could not provide the needed space for so many. The present world population is around 6 billion. Assuming the average life span to be 70 years and the average generation length to be 35 years, then starting with one family, the present world population would result in about 30 doublings. These doublings would carry us back in history from today to around 3500 B.C. This date is suggested by several creationist scientists to mark the time of the flood. Thus, the creation model dovetails beautifully with known world population statistics. But what of the evolutionary model? Dr. Henry Morris writes, “Now, if the first man appeared one million years ago, and these very conservative growth rates applied during that period, the world population would be at present 10 (27,000 zeros following) people. However, no more than 10 (with 100 zeros) people could be crammed into the known universe.”

(Scientific Creationism, Master Books, 1974, p. 154)

arunma #fundie christianforums.com

Actually, Huckabee's belief in creationism is one of the reasons that I'll be voting for him, despite the fact that I despise the Republican party with quite the passion. Whether or not evolution is a religion, the fact is that it is treated as such by many atheist scientists and non-scientists alike, who venerate it as some icon of atheism.

Sure, he doesn't have that great of an economic policy. And his plan for Iraq is horrendous. But I figured I'd vote for him for no other reason than to break down an altar to Richard Dawkins. And besides that, why would I listen to "the scientists" position on political issues. What do they know about politics anyway?

Follower #fundie teens4christ.org

[What I was saying was that Einstein was not a believer in Christianity, so Christians should probably avoid using Einstein to support their religious beliefs. I'm pretty sure if I didn't say anything, Follower would try to claim Einstein for our team.]

Absolutely not. I know of Einstein's evil quotes, and as far as I'm concerned, he's a great example of a scientist. I don't want those kind of people on our side. The less "education", the better.

Edicius #fundie forums.narutofan.com

i think evolution is false cuz it hasnt been proven yet. darwin wrote a book about how he thinks man might have come to be and everybody believes him.
if i were a scientist and i wrote a book about how vegetation can communicate with ppl telepathicly would u believe me? also evolution contradicts itself. i dont know wat its called but there is a certain beetle that is so odd they could not find anything it could have possibly evolved from. there have been fossilized footprints found of a mans footprint stepping on a small animal (again i cant remember wat its called i'm not a scientist) that shouldve been extinct millions of years before man came into existence. also if man was so simple and were prehistoric cavemen when they first came into existence why did the fosilized footprint have shoes? also in the bible (might i remind u the bible is not a religious book but is instead a history book written over one thousand to four thousand years ago) the book of Job chapter 40 verses 15-19 it mentions dinosaurs while man was existent. there is no real proof to evolution being real. so if creationism isnt real, find a new theory cuz your wrong.

there the christian has answered.

supersport #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

"We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.

Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about."

Josh Greenberger #fundie associatedcontent.com

According to the Bible's account of Creation, God did not create man and woman as infants and wait for them to grow up. God did not create the first plants and animals in early stages and wait for them to mature. Why should cosmic rays have been any different? For God to have waited billions of years for cosmic rays to reach their intended destinations would have been inconsistent with the rest of Creation. Thus, for cosmic rays to have been created in a "state of arrival" should not seem that far-fetched.

Besides, can you imagine God creating an entire universe in six days and then waiting billions of years just for cosmic rays to fly across the universe? Sounds a little absurd.

Of course, when considering an act of Creation of an entire universe, there is another possibility. During the Six Days of Creation all the laws of nature, as we know them, were obviously not yet in place. The fact that light travels at the speed of light is only a law of nature in our completed universe. It is quite conceivable that before all the laws of nature were put into place light travelled at a far greater speed than it does in today's universe. Consequently, a distance which may take many light-years for light to traverse today may have taken only seconds during Creation. Was this really that complicated for this scientist to figure out?

[He goes on for six pages, denying the Big Bang, black holes, antimatter, and insinuating a global scientific conspiracy]

nagius #fundie ubuntuforums.org

["How on earth is belief in God the default? Infants don't have a belief in God until they're taught to believe in God by their parents or someone else. Would you say that belief in pagan woodland spirits is the "default" as well?"]

Who told the parents and some else?


Infants don't know any better, and even if no one tells them they will come (later in life) to the conclusion that there is a creator if they search deep in reality.

Don't you see that most humanity has come the logical conclusion without God say anything.

You are the one in a fantasy world were there is no proof of no creator, if there is no creator there is no beginning in time.


Scientist and many philosophers agree time is finite and there was a beginning in time, meaning that after all there is a creator. Someone higher that ourselves, and this is just I of the reasons to believe. Why is there any doubt because you have not seen God? Of course you have because you are alive!!


You can also be taught not to believe. Is the world round ? sure it is. have you seen it? no. only in pictures.

esther #fundie teens4christ.org

Yeah, they [scientists] think theyre so smart. Like they've got the whole world figured out. Sometimes I think the world would be better off if we ignored science altogether. Obviously they dont know what theyre talking about if they dont think God ever existed.

Meggsie #fundie gaiaonline.com

Actually, recent scientific evidence points more to Intelligent Design.

As for Darwin's Theory of Macroevolution, it HAS been proved WRONG. Now, Microevolution, the evolution we see taking place in everything life (eg. within a species for example, genetic changes down a generation) is everywhere around us. The Bible and Microevolution geld perfectly into each nothing, nothing wrong with that. The reason why so many Christians are against Macroevolution is because Darwin was saying that ALL animals came from the SAME ancestors (humans, monkeys and fruitflies are all linked), and that natural selection ALONE created us, hence putting God out of a job. However, he was wrong.

According to Darwin's theory, nature makes no big changes. He had no evidence but he was positive that future fossil finds would prove his theory. Ideally, fossil record should how a whole string a fossils from waaaayyyy back with minimal changes every few decades (since his theory of natural selection meant no major changes). HOWEVER, many discoveries later till the present day, the fossil record instead shows an incredible phenomenon (known as the Cambrian Explosion) that can't really be scientifically explained. There is no long string of fossils that leads to modern day, instead, in a short span of time (short relative to the millenia that earth has been around of course) EVERY major species (the group they belong to that is) just sprang up! And this is not due to any gap in the fossil record at all, for there are fossils found all along the timeline.

Conclusion: The fossil record disproves Darwin's theory.

In fact, there is NO evidence for the theory at all. I know many say 'of course, it's just a theory, no one says it actually FACT' but the fact is in schools worldwide Darwin's theory is being taught as a fact. All the pieces of evidence used to support his theory have been disproved too. For example, the pictures of Haeckel's embryos were faked. There is NO 'Java man' or caveman findings that show early Man was stooped and ape-like, since there were NO fossils to proof that. The supposed 'Java Man fossils' were just one skullcap, one thighbone and 3 teeth. The skullcap didn't belong with the femur either. And the skullcap was exactly the same as that of modern man.

Contrary to what many are saying about how Creationists are believing lies in favour of God, for the past half of a CENTURY is has been atheist scientists who are grappling at straws to avoid the theistic truth behind the whole matter.

All that said, anyone have any conclusive evidence to bring up for Darwin? That hasn't already been disproved, exposed as false or been countered that is.

EndWelfareToday #fundie freerepublic.com

[The Sun converts hydrogen in to helium and then that gets converted into higher molecules. We know this from spectrophotometer observation of the sun.]

And what data are you using to compare the results found while using the spectrophotometer? Surely you are speculating that between here and the Sun there are no phenomena that could skew your results or perhaps you are speculating that there are no other gases or chemicals or ??? God only knows what that closely resembles the results junk-scientist claim to be fact isn't this correct?

Forgive me but I'm tired of egg-heads stating as fact "theories." Theories are nothing more than glorified hunches and until actual evidence (like a physical sample of the material burning on the Sun collected off the Sun) that's all this "hunch" will be.

I'd appreciate it if people would make their statements in an honest manner instead of trying to brainwash the general populace into supporting causes that are full of hot air.


1humblesheep #fundie rr-bb.com

Science is a fraud!!! the Bible is 100% truth

The dictionary describes science as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
I define it as "a desparate ploy to discredit the Bible." I ask all unbelievers, "why, why does everything have to be proved!" Can't something just happen without us needing to "see" solid proof before we believe it. We're supposed to lead by faith. Is it such a hard thing to do. Even Thomas, upon seeing Jesus for the first time after being resurrected, didn't believe till he placed his hand and fingers in His wounds.
The biggest thing I can think of right now, that not even scientists can explain, is when dinosaurs lived. 65 million years ago. Not even close. Genesis says that the Earth started being created 5 days before man was created. Beasts of the Earth and man were made on the same day. Dinosaurs would seem to fit in there somewhere, hmmm? "But the layers of the Earths crust have formed over millions of years?". You don't say?. Maybe, just maybe, God intended to make it that way to confuse people. His way of saying "Live by faith, or live by proof." It's not that hard to imagine that dinosaurs and man lived cohesively. But after sin entered the world, they started to turn on humans. God knew it wouldn't turn out good for humans, and eliminated them. If he could do anything, why not that. Just look at the tribulation. His way of getting us to turn to Him and rid the world of evil (at least for 1000 years.) You know the rest. Anyone needing a quick pick me up-Jn.20:29. Hopefully my little rant isn't off the deep end. There's plenty relavinces out there, and are very easy to spot, if you look right. Anything to discredit where the real credit should go too!

TongueSpeaker #fundie iidb.org

[And so far, all the evidence collected fits the ToE very well indeed.]

But what is the theory then? Why don't we have a single page say on Wikipedia that formally defines what evolution is and what it isn't.
Because for Evolution to be something we must obviously know what it is not. Presently every person has his own adhoc defenition and that person can't tell me how he got his particular version.

Your whole quote is according to you. You say so. There are other atheists and scientists who differs from your view. You are stateing it with some sort of authority. I am not looking for Arguments from Authority. I want to know who has formally established The Theory of Evolution, Theory of Change or Theory of Everything on the same level that Kepler established his laws via Astronomia Nova 400 years ago, without which we would not have http://www.youtube.com today.

Alena #fundie talkorigins.org

YOU are such an idiot whoever wrote about Kent Hovind being a fraud and his proposal of 250,000 being something tricky. YOU are a fool. The only reason you are getting hung up over this guy is A. He's right. B. If you had proof, you would show it C. You can't do anything about his offer cuz you got nothing pal. You know he's right that all scientists will offer is micro evolution proff Cuz you guys got nothing else to sit your butts on! everything else you simply believe and "infer" that it somehow all had to work out. Stop being a wuss! and picking on somebody that you can't even do anything about, all you can do is write a page on the website about how stupid he is, look at yourself buddy, who's the fool?

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?

JediMasterPikachu #fundie freerepublic.com

Creationism

* Every Christian should be a Creationist.
* Creationism is at least as defensible as Macroevolutionism from a scientific standpoint.
* Macroevolution requires at least as much religion as Creationism.
* The primary reason Macroevolution is so popular is because it is the dominant viewpoint of the origin of life presented to the populace, and not because it is grounded in good science or common sense.
* Both Creationists and Macroevolutionists can be smart, competent scientists.
* Creationists should know about at least the basic tenets of Macroevolution. You should know your opponent. Ignorance is rarely becoming.
* Similarly, it would be good for Macroevolutionists to know about Creationism, and not receive all their information on Creationism secondhand from anti-Creationism-biased sources.
* Macroevolution is an inherently racist doctrine, even if individual Macroevolutionists do not wish to be racist. If there were races which evolved, one race would be the smartest, one the strongest, etc. There are NO races of humanity. There is one human race, and it is imperative that all Christians, even those who insist on being Macroevolutionists, agree with this. Christ died to save Christ's family, the family of Man.
* The origin of Man explains why Man needs a Savior. This is why Christians should be adamantly Creationist, and is also why atheists are just as adamantly anti-Creationist.

KettleWhistle #fundie israelforum.com

What is called 'Science' today and 'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology... nothing good has ever come from 'science' --- In fact, technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: "Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane." By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth!

The Fact the Earth is Flat is not my opinion, it is a Proved Fact! While all we need to know is that the Bible says the Earth is flat (Is.40:22, Ez.7:2, Dn.2:35; 4:10-11,20, Mt.4:8)... but for a second can you imagine what these so-called 'scientists would have us believe --- If the earth really was round, that would mean there arre people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards! LOL! What foolishness! TheWHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe!

Also, be sure to know the Sun and Moon are about 3,000 miles away are both 32 miles across. The Planets are 'tiny.' Sun and Moon do Move, earth does NOT move, whirl, spin or gyrate (1 Sam.2:8, 1 Chr.16:30; Job 9:6, 38:4-6; Ps.96:10, 104:5, Is.13:10, Mic.6:2). Australians do NOT hang by their feet under the world... this is a FACT, not a theory! Also a Fact the Spinning, Whirling, Gyrating Ball World Planet, Globe Idea is Entirely 100% now and at all times in the Past, a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE... a Blind Dogmatic Article of Faith in the Religion for the Blind unreasoning beast of prey. No earthly reason for a Sane, Upright Member of the Elite True Christians to subscribe to it. Also a Fact, today the Elite of Earth ALL live on the Flat World. Only the illogical, unreasoning "herd"... prefers the way-out occult weird theology of the old Greek superstitution earth a spinning ball! Both Copernecious and Newton, the inventors of the "modern" superstitions (400 year OLD modern) have said: "It is not possible for a Sane reasonable person to ever really believe these Theories." Thus sayeth Newton-Copernecious. What sayeth THOU?

JohnR7 #fundie christianforums.com

[Certainly you know that only a very few fringe scientists reserve acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. As theories go, it's very well accepted.]

The Bible is also very well accepted. Up to 97% of the people accept the Bible. More than what accepts the theory of evolution.

The difference is if you accept man's theory of evolution, then you have low standards. If you accept the Bible, you have high standards because God sets a much higher standard for us then we would set for ourselves. Evolution is false simply because it is a man made theory.

FHardison #fundie richarddawkins.net

Hello all. Frosty E Hardison here. Yeah it's really ME!

On something as simple as faith? You either have it or you don't.

On something as simple as having a testimony that Jesus Christ has taken an active part in your life? You either have one or you don't. If you don't have it, you walk around in life an empty shell – often times you don't even know it! Once you are filled with HIM and the unconditional love that He is all about? You KNOW what it was to be empty and you want to help others discover the truth too. Scientists can't measure that.

On something as simple as the age of the earth? I can do the math, the lineage provided in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 that give the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary) places us at what right about 12,000 years today?

As far as science goes? Observational science and speculation of new ideas? Oh yeah, what we see is what we get. Or is it an optical illusion? I have no problems keeping an open mind for new ideas, perspectives and sources of information— the thing is, even under strict circumstances: Can we as fallible humans be mis-interpreting the data that is being read? As a data and systems analyst I have to ask that question all the time. Same goes for the carbon 14 factor. Where do the calculations come from that the world is several billions of years old when carbon 14 data is only good for a few thousand years? Then when you look at the methodology of HOW carbon 14 itself is produced you come into several variances to consider as well. Under what circumstances are there fewer occurrences of C14 being produced – what increases and what decreases it? Is it steady? Is it stable? What factors produce the absorption rates into tissues, fossils and specimens we are looking at? Do they differ or vary by diet, climate, solar variances? As a hobbyist in science myself, I at least still ask those questions.

I would rather have a human witness to cross examine than a machine of any kind – any day. Neither are infallible, but at least one of them can reason, think and extrapolate a conclusion weighing ALL the evidence rather than a preprogrammed set of line codes that can be out of calibration at any given time.

And if you want a spokes person for global warming – I would have chosen Ben Stein! Not AL Gore. Have a wonderful day.

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

A thread in which our beloved Carico stumbles from one disastrous misconception to another:

"...what caused the order of the universe, the position of the sun that just happens to give the appropriate amount of heat and light to the earth for life to exist, the moon & stars that "just happen" to be in the right path of the sun to reflect light to the earth at night?"

Later:

"Do you understand that if the sun were one fraction of a centimeter closer to or farther from the earth, that life cloudn't surive on earth?"

And later, after being challenged on it:

"That's hogwash. All you have to do is ask any scientist what would happen if the sun were a fraction of a centimeter closer to or farther from the earth. Even people with common sense would know what would happen."

Keith #fundie talkorigins.org

If I was to say that I was a scientist with amazing true data then I would be published unless......... I supported the FACT that God created the earth. You evolutionary people think that since some fossil looks old you can say that it is somewhere between 3.3 and 3.8 BILLION YEARS OLD. WHAT are you doing saying that this is true. No way do you know that this is true at all and you should be ashamed to try and make these statments. I for one am very offended by your lack of intelligence and wasted efforts in trying to support something that you have no evidence for. Please reconsider your efforts into something more worth while. Also, if you say that something is close to 3.3 billion to 3.8 billion years old (or so) that is proposterous. No way on earth is this a scientific statement. Think about how massive this statement is. It is just plain not good science. If we say trust in God because he is close this to this good and almost right and we don't quite have the evidence then you would laugh at me. At the very least do not state your things as fact. Say this is our theory and this is another theory. Never should you say that any of your stuff is fact unless you have 100% proof like we have in the BIBLE. Sorry but you SCIENTISTS make me laugh so much it is embarrassing.

supersport #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Evolutionists have dreamed up a whole theory based on mutations. Millions of them, we are told, have arisen randomly, for no reason -- without any beneficial direction -- only to be chosen later by natural selection. This dogma has been forced down our throats ad nauseam. But you would think, being so-called scientists, that evolutionists would have tested this assertion. Wouldn't it only be logical to test to see if the so-called "fit" mutations actually had deleterious effects on surrounding molecules? Well, I think that would only be fair. But have evolutionists bothered to test and/or report the details to the uninformed public in their books? Of course not. And do you know why? It's because the evolutionary scientific communtiy is largely immoral and simply cannot be trusted. Period. Their little pet theory is like an emotional security blanket to them, and they don't want people -- especially Christians -- taking away their nite-nite blankey.

Mike Jones #fundie forum.myspace.com

Ok evolutions have said alot of things in this forum, but they really have not refuted any evidenced used against there theory. What i have basically heard from the evolutionist is "creationist are morons and scienctist have dated the world older than what the Bible says.

Well......maybe. The problem is Scientist over the past 50 to 60 years have used a number of dating methods. Well, if the first dating-method worked then why would they have to keep coming up with new dating-methods. The problem is none of them work. I would like to speak about them all but I don't have enough time, so i will just speak about the most common, Carbon-Dating.

The carbon dating method uses the amount C14 in the atmosphere. C14 is radioactive C12(regular carbon). By the way there is very small ammount of C14 in the atmosphere, like .00014, I think.
Well what happens is the sun's rays hit the atmosphere and turn some of the C12 in to C14. Following that, C14 will slowly change back into C12. It has been proven that C14 takes about 5, 700 years to decay back to C12. Meanwhile plants are breathing in CO2 and some of it is radio active C14. The animals then eat the plants and the animals die then turn to fossils, which recently has been proven it only takes a year to fossilize something. Anyway back to C14, well once the animal or plant dies to C14 continues to decay , in the fossil, back in to C12. When they find a fossil they will compare the amount of C14 left in the fossil to the amount in the atmosphere. Then they will use math to get the exact date. That is how the method of Carbon dating is used, but there are errors in it:

Error 1: back in the 1960s scientist wanted to know how long the atmosphere would take to reach a stage called equilibrium. Example of equilibrium: If I told you to fill a cup with water, however I put a hole in the bottom of the cup. Eventually the cup would fill up to a certain point where the amount of water going in is equiling the ammount of water coming out and you cant fill the cup up any more, that would be equilibrium. Where you cant put any more water in because the same ammount is draining out. Scientist tested the atmosphere and found out that it would take 30, 000 years for the atmosphere to reach equilibrium. Well, here is the problem. There is still 27% to 35% more C14 being added to atmosphere then is decaying out. Proving that the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium and the earth is less than 30, 000 years old.

Error 2: If the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium then compairing the amout of C14 in fossils to the amount in C14 in the atmosphere would be pointless because there is more C14 coming in then decaying out.

Now if you are a evolutionist, don't just say Im stupid and wrong, PROVE me wrong. Do you homework and come back to me with a strong point against the method of Carbon-dating.

[Note: FSTDT.com did their homework, and Googled for 2 seconds and discovered carbon-14 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14" target="_blank">decays into nitrogen-14</a>, not carbon-12 again.]

Next page