Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Before I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Before I give you proof, you must tell me what kind of proof you are seeking. Since we have a different understanding of proof since you are a pagan who claims ignorance via glee, and I claim knowledge via glee, where do we start.

Is this proof absolute that you seek, or probable? Is absolute possible? If it is probable, by what ratio of error and truth shall be accepted upon this gift to you.

how did you come up with the proper ratio? Is the ration itself a probablity? It the ration is even probable, then what are we really talking about here? Are we just guessing?

After all, what is truth to an atheist? Truth doesn't really exist does it?

So the issue is NOT me "proving" anything to you, but to first establish if the knowledge of anything is really possible. Then we can discuss simple things, let alone complex.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hey if you got some real proof, please feel free to share it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi JCG

Hi JCG,

Actually, the atheists took knowledge out of science and caused all categories of thought and beauty and morals and music and killed it. Atheism is the death of science.

The Arabs invented the TERMS for numbers, but conceptual science was developed by the Christians. Unless the Philosophy of Science is wrong.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi JCG,

Actually, the atheists took knowledge out of science and caused all categories of thought and beauty and morals and music and killed it. Atheism is the death of science.

The Arabs invented the TERMS for numbers, but conceptual science was developed by the Christians. Unless the Philosophy of Science is wrong.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Thank you Jean, for more displays of ignorant assertions. You are just pathetic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
my relation to a CREATOR is realistic

the earth is proven to be 6000 years old by eyewitness testimony and written records  and through real science based on observations of data that amounts to a huge mountain sized pile of facts . also the fact of geocentricity refutes any theory of a big bang from nothing to evolve.

Also you would be wise to consider the fact the we all live on mountainous continents and the remaining ocean basins serve as a reminder that we live in a post apcalytpic world.

any attempt to say what happend beyond 6000 years ago when noone was present to give an account is futile. you would have to lie and invent non existent facts to support your lies.  enter the closet pagans atheist drones who pretend they are wise when they are really fools in disguise.

 

You relate to nothing because you believe in nothing as a starting point for evolution.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I BELIEVE WHAT I KNOW IS TRUE in reality, you fail

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

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.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

 

   

 

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote: I

mind over matter wrote:

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

Again with the "my" and the "challenge".

You're just lucky that spamming is allowed here.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
I do not pray to the false elohim of luck/fortune

Submitted by Anonymouse on January 2, 2011 - 7:13am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

 

 

Again with the "my" and the "challenge".

You're just lucky that spamming is allowed here.

 

-->your feeble rebuttals serve a lost cause! and you are the one spamming on this thread. you never responded with proper info. you did waste space.

please prove evolution of life from nothing !

 

demonstrate millions of years in real time! Oh thats right you do not have a time machine for morons! you just imagine millions of years because someone else projected unseen time into your numb skull. you just put faith in it and then you have the chump standard to call it knowledge based in observation.

 

does it hurt your brain to have to think for yourself?

 

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

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.
Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampEye-winkr-E
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.


 

definition of religion is:
Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.



 

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:
Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.
faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

 

Evolution Is The Religion:
look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.



1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

 

 

 

   

 

 

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.
4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.
5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.
First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.
Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:I

mind over matter wrote:
I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge.

And I accept your failure to understand what any of those words actually mean.

mind over matter wrote:
now run along back to your atheist

We seem to have reached the point where we both just have to cut and paste our replies.

Kewl.

Let's keep doing that untill we both get banned.


rc81 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Genesis 1:1 States that

 Genesis 1:1 States that earth was created (Perhaps billions of years ago) Science proves earth to be 4.5 billion years old

However,

Genesis 1:2 states the earths surface was being restored because it became dark and void because Satan had defiled it. God restored the surface in preparation of the creation of man. (Perhaps 6000 years ago)

It is recorded that human civilization began approximately 3500 to 5000 B.C 

To the information that we have all of this aligns perfectly well with the Bible.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
history trumps atheist delusions of fiction based science

BIOGENESIS trumps every aspect of evolutiuon


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
evolution is all about cut and paste using lies

Submitted by Anonymouse on January 2, 2011 - 10:57am.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:
I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge.

 

And I accept your failure to understand what any of those words actually mean.

 

mind over matter wrote:
now run along back to your atheist home base for fartards

 

We seem to have reached the point where we both just have to cut and paste our replies.

Kewl.

 

--------------->LOL  that is what I expect from your kind!  ignore and rant! put them together and you get an atheist drone chump with chimp envy who will do tricks for treats.

 

your whole world view is satanic. and it is entirely cut and pasted from babylonian times.

do want to know the difference between you and hitler?

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

BIOGENESIS trumps every aspect of evolutiuon

My thanks to Thunderf00t

"Evolution talks about the diversity of life - not how it began"

Are you having fun knocking down your straw man definition of evolution?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
we atheists preach using might have could perhaps maybe?

Genesis 1:1 States that

Submitted by rc81 (not verified) on January 3, 2011 - 9:30am.

 

 Genesis 1:1 States that earth was created (Perhaps billions of years ago) Science proves earth to be 4.5 billion years old

WRONG! you are being a scamwad.    lets take a look at your profound fratarted statement!

:PERHAPS billions of years ago!   stop right there and freeze, scumbag!

"perhaps" is not how real science is practiced when claiming facts based on observation. dumb ass drone!

then you continue with: science proves the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.  did you copy and paste that lie or did you do use science which means you actually tested a 4.5 billion years in real time to get that sense of time? science does not do anything, dumb ass. it is not a person. only a person can prove something using the scientific method.  So infact you did not prove 4.5 billion years to say you know what you are talking about when preaching the earth is 4.5 billion years old. it is clear you chose to believe what someone told you and you put faith in what they said.

your faith as an atheist is misplaced.

 

ok you assume its true because you are a chump who hates the idea of being accountable to YAHUWAH when you die.

 

it is pathetic to see atheist drones try in vain and with contempt to interpret the modern currupt translations of scriptures of the WORD of YAHUWAH. 

 

 

However,

Genesis 1:2 states the earths surface was being restored because it became dark and void because Satan had defiled it. God restored the surface in preparation of the creation of man. (Perhaps 6000 years ago)

------>ok now you are preaching a new story. I have heard it before.  you have a satanic demon in you, that much is clear.  Your altered version of reality is your delusion and your borrowed lie that reinterprets history is proof you are just a programmed drone.  trying to twist  the creation account to somehow allow you to use words like perhaps is truly a failure .

you are not reading the WORD OF YAHUWAH as your source.  that is too bad for you. for if you were you would have a knowledge that cannot be replaced with assumptions.

 

 

It is recorded that human civilization began approximately 3500 to 5000 B.C 

To the information that we have all of this aligns perfectly well with the Bible.

----->the time line is nearing 6000 years  and the global flood is 4500 years ago.

 

todays world is already a post apcalypstic world.  we are living on continental mountains the rose when the sub terrainean water chambers  emptied of water and compressed down to become  the ocean basins we see today.  all the fossils we find bearied in the mud are clustered dead creature including humans.

 

that is why we also find fossilised marine auqatic remains at the top of mountains.

 

it is common sense to apply the records of history as documented in scritpures of YAHUWAH to better understand the world and the rotating universe we see everyday with no tricks or atheist delusions of a moving earth.  science means to know from experience. anyone can look up and see the universe is moving and not the earth. just because an atheist cartoon says it is the earth that is moving does not make it a fact of science.

the delusions con of man runs deep.

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

Genesis 1:1 States that

Submitted by rc81 (not verified) on January 3, 2011 - 9:30am.

 

 Genesis 1:1 States that earth was created (Perhaps billions of years ago) Science proves earth to be 4.5 billion years old

WRONG! you are being a scamwad.    lets take a look at your profound fratarted statement!

:PERHAPS billions of years ago!   stop right there and freeze, scumbag!

"perhaps" is not how real science is practiced when claiming facts based on observation. dumb ass drone!

then you continue with: science proves the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.  did you copy and paste that lie or did you do use science which means you actually tested a 4.5 billion years in real time to get that sense of time? science does not do anything, dumb ass. it is not a person. only a person can prove something using the scientific method.  So infact you did not prove 4.5 billion years to say you know what you are talking about when preaching the earth is 4.5 billion years old. it is clear you chose to believe what someone told you and you put faith in what they said.

your faith as an atheist is misplaced.

 

ok you assume its true because you are a chump who hates the idea of being accountable to YAHUWAH when you die.

 

it is pathetic to see atheist drones try in vain and with contempt to interpret the modern currupt translations of scriptures of the WORD of YAHUWAH. 

 

 

However,

Genesis 1:2 states the earths surface was being restored because it became dark and void because Satan had defiled it. God restored the surface in preparation of the creation of man. (Perhaps 6000 years ago)

------>ok now you are preaching a new story. I have heard it before.  you have a satanic demon in you, that much is clear.  Your altered version of reality is your delusion and your borrowed lie that reinterprets history is proof you are just a programmed drone.  trying to twist  the creation account to somehow allow you to use words like perhaps is truly a failure .

you are not reading the WORD OF YAHUWAH as your source.  that is too bad for you. for if you were you would have a knowledge that cannot be replaced with assumptions.

 

 

It is recorded that human civilization began approximately 3500 to 5000 B.C 

To the information that we have all of this aligns perfectly well with the Bible.

----->the time line is nearing 6000 years  and the global flood is 4500 years ago.

 

todays world is already a post apcalypstic world.  we are living on continental mountains the rose when the sub terrainean water chambers  emptied of water and compressed down to become  the ocean basins we see today.  all the fossils we find bearied in the mud are clustered dead creature including humans.

 

that is why we also find fossilised marine auqatic remains at the top of mountains.

 

it is common sense to apply the records of history as documented in scritpures of YAHUWAH to better understand the world and the rotating universe we see everyday with no tricks or atheist delusions of a moving earth.  science means to know from experience. anyone can look up and see the universe is moving and not the earth. just because an atheist cartoon says it is the earth that is moving does not make it a fact of science.

the delusions con of man runs deep.

Straw man arguments and self-pwnage?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
its fun to stare at a caged animal that has contempt for humans

Submitted by jcgadfly on January 25, 2011 - 11:05am.

 this is how the theory of evolution works.  it branches out to people who like getting screwed from behind by people just like them. PEOPLE who prefer the fuck thy neighbor world view as opposed to the love thy neighbor . It is these materialistic humanistic pagan mystic nihilistic selfish humans who laugh.

mind over matter wrote:

 

BIOGENESIS trumps every aspect of evolutiuon

 

 

My thanks to Thunderf00t

"Evolution talks about the diversity of life - not how it began"

Are you having fun knocking down your straw man definition of evolution?

 

--->lol more athleats foot that is moldy and mentally fartarded.

evolution preaches to the atheist drone choire.  so sayeth the scumbag so sayeth the goats.

 

a strawman is a character with a drone mentality who refuses to think for himself. is that why you relate to a strawman? DRONE!

 

evolution is a hand me down pagan false relgion copy and pasted  for weak minded drones who are easily bought for selfish pride and material gains that will only last as long they have their health.

 

evolution talks about killing off the weak and innocent out of selfish convenience and self material gains. examples of this include abortions, mass genocide of humans that is legalised and supported by non believers in YAHUWAH who says thou shall not kill.  then you have your queers who protest for repsect because they are heathens who pervert their own humanity, and then there is the moral degradationof society as a result of preaching to young impressionable mind that you are an animal and that animals must forsake humanity to survive.

the non believer in YAHUWAH says,

 "you have nothing to look forward to in life except death and from death is where you came from. because we atheists know for a fact that dead non living things came into being billions of years ago. and we atheist / satanic  minions also know that dead non living things that came from nothing billions of years ago evolved into life which we call scum. and from this wonderful scum we know it evolvedinto a scumbag like you! and so now you know what we atheist scumbags know. so go outinto the world and live like you are going to die tommorrow. because dead things suck and we do not like knowing where we  atheists know we  came from and where we are going to end up."  quote the loser evermore.

 

 satanic humanist moral depravity know no depts.   teenage pregnancy , increase in youth crime rate, millions of abortions daily , same sex marriage, dictatorships running wild and satanic islam is on the rise to top it off. 

 

actually variation within a limited kind explains the diversity of life. you have different kinds of humans but they are still humans anothing else inless you want to fuck with the dna and combine it with animals? or maybe make clones ? or perhaps mutate it horribly.

 

tell me wadfly, do you take pleaure in the killing of millions of unborn humans daily as you give thanks to natural selection and killing the weakest links that cannot defend themselves?

when a bitch conplains about her rights to kill her baby does that rock your atheist world? do you say to her, its just an animal, it is not even human yet.

 You know hitler felt the same way.

 

do you want to know the difference between you and hitler? you are just a twig on a branch of the tree of evil. hitler was a bigger twig than you.

He also followed the dogma of evolution. and he put natural selection into practice by killiing humans in the most vile ways including abortion.

abortion is practiced by people like you who believe unborn humans are not human.

 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter

mind over matter wrote:

Submitted by jcgadfly on January 25, 2011 - 11:05am.

 this is how the theory of evolution works.  it branches out to people who like getting screwed from behind by people just like them. PEOPLE who prefer the fuck thy neighbor world view as opposed to the love thy neighbor . It is these materialistic humanistic pagan mystic nihilistic selfish humans who laugh.

mind over matter wrote:

 

BIOGENESIS trumps every aspect of evolutiuon

 

 

My thanks to Thunderf00t

"Evolution talks about the diversity of life - not how it began"

Are you having fun knocking down your straw man definition of evolution?

 

--->lol more athleats foot that is moldy and mentally fartarded.

evolution preaches to the atheist drone choire.  so sayeth the scumbag so sayeth the goats.

 

a strawman is a character with a drone mentality who refuses to think for himself. is that why you relate to a strawman? DRONE!

 

evolution is a hand me down pagan false relgion copy and pasted  for weak minded drones who are easily bought for selfish pride and material gains that will only last as long they have their health.

 

evolution talks about killing off the weak and innocent out of selfish convenience and self material gains. examples of this include abortions, mass genocide of humans that is legalised and supported by non believers in YAHUWAH who says thou shall not kill.  then you have your queers who protest for repsect because they are heathens who pervert their own humanity, and then there is the moral degradationof society as a result of preaching to young impressionable mind that you are an animal and that animals must forsake humanity to survive.

the non believer in YAHUWAH says,

 "you have nothing to look forward to in life except death and from death is where you came from. because we atheists know for a fact that dead non living things came into being billions of years ago. and we atheist / satanic  minions also know that dead non living things that came from nothing billions of years ago evolved into life which we call scum. and from this wonderful scum we know it evolvedinto a scumbag like you! and so now you know what we atheist scumbags know. so go outinto the world and live like you are going to die tommorrow. because dead things suck and we do not like knowing where we  atheists know we  came from and where we are going to end up."  quote the loser evermore.

 

 satanic humanist moral depravity know no depts.   teenage pregnancy , increase in youth crime rate, millions of abortions daily , same sex marriage, dictatorships running wild and satanic islam is on the rise to top it off. 

 

actually variation within a limited kind explains the diversity of life. you have different kinds of humans but they are still humans anothing else inless you want to fuck with the dna and combine it with animals? or maybe make clones ? or perhaps mutate it horribly.

 

tell me wadfly, do you take pleaure in the killing of millions of unborn humans daily as you give thanks to natural selection and killing the weakest links that cannot defend themselves?

when a bitch conplains about her rights to kill her baby does that rock your atheist world? do you say to her, its just an animal, it is not even human yet.

 You know hitler felt the same way.

 

do you want to know the difference between you and hitler? you are just a twig on a branch of the tree of evil. hitler was a bigger twig than you.

He also followed the dogma of evolution. and he put natural selection into practice by killiing humans in the most vile ways including abortion.

abortion is practiced by people like you who believe unborn humans are not human.

 

 

 

As you have brought nothing of substance to this simple refutation of your entire argument except your unproven assertions, I accept your defeat.

Why should I continue when you so handily defeat yourself?

Oh, and Hitler was a Christian - followed Yahuwah's laws to the letter. Who's evil again?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 I would love in on this

 I would love in on this but I get a headache whenever I read a post that claims scientific evidence without understanding fundamental scientific method.  Also, try to keep your posts to a few paragraphs, especially when you are making no sense.  I'm not going to name any names but we all know who we are.  

Anyone that believes that the earth is 6000 years old is either delusional, brainwashed or has sever gaps in their education.  One more hint, please don't post entire paragraphs in bold it makes you seem as though you spit when you talk.  It also makes anything you say sound crazy.  For example I can say something like.  They have fresh bread at the bakery.  or THEY have fresh bread at the bakery! can you feel the spit?... 

P.S. Ad Hominem attacks make you seem unfocused, and do nothing to further your argument.

Thank you for your consideration.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote:the

mind over matter wrote:

the earth is proven to be 6000 years old by eyewitness testimony and written records  and through real science based on observations of data that amounts to a huge mountain sized pile of facts . also the fact of geocentricity refutes any theory of a big bang from nothing to evolve.

Also you would be wise to consider the fact the we all live on mountainous continents and the remaining ocean basins serve as a reminder that we live in a post apcalytpic world.

any attempt to say what happend beyond 6000 years ago when noone was present to give an account is futile. you would have to lie and invent non existent facts to support your lies.  enter the closet pagans atheist drones who pretend they are wise when they are really fools in disguise.

 

You relate to nothing because you believe in nothing as a starting point for evolution.

 

Wow, a great quote from the movie 'Seven' comes to mind.

"David Mills: I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that? "

I'm sorry to have to resort to an ad hominem attack but really the position has been refuted so well in the past as for you to have no position.  All is left is trying to understand why someone that can dress themselves in the morning still believes in this idiotic fairytale.  Do you at any point become aware of your idiocies? Do you perhaps stop and ponder for a moment how idiotically contradicting the bible is?  

I'm really curious if your delusion is marked by brief moments of lucidity or if you constantly believe this crap.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
hitler was an evolutionist fool like like you. You lose again

Two Vastly Different World Views, with Vastly Different Conclusions:
Let's not kid ourselves.  What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself.

Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of T-I-M-E, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?

It's also about God's future judgment of mankind.  That's because Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it.  See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12.

Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood.  Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.  

Polystrate Fossils: 
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils."  Such fossils are found all over the world.  They usually consist of fossil  trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple  layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4  They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3
   Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it.  For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate  tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet  long,  5,6 and, at least  one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7  

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8  have both roots and rootlets attached.  Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in  The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9  Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and  broken-off  Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets.

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9  This strongly  suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were  uprooted and re-deposited there.  

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France.  Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is  Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access.  One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils  constitute a crucial phenomenon  both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition.  Curiously  a  paper on  polystrate fossils appears to be a  'black swan’  in geological literature.  Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of  the relevant  phenomena was never published.  However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils.  In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is (still) the case has more to do with one's personal bias against the concept of a Creator / God to whom we might very well have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions of years old Earth that it requires (to appear plausible).  However, T-I-M-E is simply not enough: not even BILLIONS of years of it.

See also The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest 13 and  The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests"  14 by Harold Coffin.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today,  nor are they found  forming on the bottom of the sea.
15  Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal
is buried soon after it  dies. 16  Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a  flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.  See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes:  According to  Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass."  17

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in  igneous and  metamorphic rocks.  The process of  formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17

Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in  that  massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata.  This  must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state. 

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would  think that a million  years would be more than enough  time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone,  yet we have an example of sediments which  are said to be  80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in  a wet and plastic state when an earth movement  caused them to be forced  up into the (supposedly  much) "younger" sediments.  Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary  method of  "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19 

Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced  sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. 
One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin  laminations up to 25 feet thick  10,11,12 
The third eruption was a  lava flow,  which  turned into a hot mud-flow as it  crossed the Toutle River.  This hot mud flow not only diverted  the  river, but carved a 17 mile long  series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours.  They call it the 
Little Grand Canyon of  the Toutle River." 20,21,22   And to this very day, the neither the mass media, nor any  popular  "science" publications have told the public what happened. 23  For more on this see  Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:  
In
Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded  through solid  basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is  300 to 500 feet deep.  See references below for more information. 24,25,26,27,28 

Observations at an Australian Beach:  
At Greenmount  Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: "clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed  by  the separation of  normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark  in color.. The  layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed." 29   Emphasis Added

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of  sand  from  (a) sand bar (on) the Tweed River and  carrying it  by ship several kilometres north to the southern  Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach."  29  See also Talking About Geology / Varves. 30  Emphasis Added

Spontaneous Sorting of Layers:
Laboratory experiments have shown  that spontaneous sorting and layering occurs with a sand, mud and clay slurry. 
When the mixture slows down, the sand, mud  and clay will  spontaneously precipitate (settle out) and form individual layers.  
Dr. Guy Berthault  has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. 31,32,33  Those who wish to see for themselves,  may do so by simply ordering one of the following videos :  Evolution: Fact or Belief?  Or  Experiments in Stratification. 

Turbidity Currents:
A turbidity current is  an  underwater  mud flow, the discovery  of  which caused somewhat of a revolution in  geology. 
As  a  result, many sedimentary  strata layers throughout  the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites. 34,35,36,37,38,39,40

For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard, 41 said the following in his paper on this topic: 

My physical geology professor said, "Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it  with a grain of salt."  After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the courageous professor's advice. To  paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while ... recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours. {1}  Emphasis Added

In  1972 Burgert  identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon's Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University's Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world's sedimentary rocks might be turbidites. Emphasis Added

Modern geologists discarded the terms flysch sediments and geosyncline because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline  and adopting the new catastrophism is almost a shock to ... creationists. Geologists are finally beginning to grudgingly agree with ... creationists about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of  a global  flood.  The idea of  geosynclines is  unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics.   Emphasis Added

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world  we see  almost  everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake&quotEye-wink  layered strata.  Many of these layers are so 
extensive that they cover several states.  Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and  millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits  or river deltas.  42,43  Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. 44,45  First because there is virtually no evidence of  erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of  the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas.  That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.

We can say  for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine  fossils that are buried  in  much  of this strata.  For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself,  old Earth geologists  have said  that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six  different occasions.  Young Earth geologists say it  was probably only once.

A "Whale" of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.
 

"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected  anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.

 

"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.

46,47

More Fossil Whales:

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"   48

"Bones of Whale have been found 440  feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48

Marine Fossils In The Mountains:  
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea  shells and other 
marine fossils.
  These include the Sierras,  the Swiss Alps, the  Himalayas and many more. 49,50,51,52,53   For more on this subject see the following  video 54 by Dr. Walter Brown.

Frozen Mammoths:   
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large  numbers in  Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe.  Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs  meat from them when they became exposed due to melting  ice and snow: that  is, if wolves didn't get their first.  For those who want to know more see: 
Frozen Mammoths

Fissures In The Rocks:  
In caves and fissures in  England  and Whales  and all over western  Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the  mammoth, hippopotamus,  rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf  and cave lion.  In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered. 55

"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay -- a flat-topped hill  near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon  and Lyons -- there is a fissure filled with animal bones.  'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a  hill  isolated on  all sides?'  asked Albert Gaudry, professor at  the Jardin des  Plantes.   According to him, the  bones in this cleft are mostly  broken  and splintered  into innumerable... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of  prey;  nor  have  they been broken by man.  Nevertheless,  the remains  of  wolf  were ... abundant, together  with those  of  cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and  deer... Prestwich thought that the animal bones... were found in  common  heaps because,  '... [they] had  fled [there]  to  escape  the  rising waters.'"  55,56

Erratic Boulders: 
All  over Europe and  North America are found extremely large "boulders" which  were transported many miles by some mysterious force -- the most likely of  which  is a  massive flood  that swept over the Continents.  Concerning these Velikovsky writes :

"Some erratics are enormous.  The block  near Conway,  New Hampshire, is  90  by 40 by 38 feet and weighs  about  10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship.  Equally large is Mohegan Rock,  which towers over the town of Montville, in  Connecticut.  The great flat  erratic  in  Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and  covers three quarters of  an acre;  the Ototoks erratic, thirty  miles south  of  Calgary, Alberta, consists  of  two pieces  of  quartzite 'derived from at least 50 miles to the west,'  [and weighs] over 18,000 tons." 57


Was the Flood Local or Worldwide? 
In the late 60's and early 70's:

"Two American  oceanographic  vessels pulled  from  the bottom of  the Gulf of  Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment.  Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera.  While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a  chemical record of  the temperature and salinity of  the water.  When they  reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the  bottom.  A cross-section  of  that bottom ... carries a record  of climates  that  may go back more  than 100  million  years.  Every  inch of  core  may represent as  much as 1000  years of  the earth's  past." 58  Emphasis Added

"The  cores  were analyzed  in  two  separate  investigations,  by Cesare  Emiliani  of the University  of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and  Nicholas Shackleton  of Cambridge University.  Both analyses indicated a dramatic  change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood  of  fresh water  into the Gulf of  Mexico.  Using  radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of  the  University  of Miami  dated  the  flood at  about 11,600  years  ago." 1  To Emiliani, all  the  questions and  arguments are  minor  beside  the  single fact that a vast  amount  of  fresh  melt  water  poured  into the Gulf  of  Mexico.   'We  know  this,'  he  says,  'because  the  oxygen  isotope ratios of  the  foraminifera shells  show a  marked  temporary decrease  in  the  salinity  of  the waters  of  the Gulf  of  Mexico.   It  clearly  shows that  there  was  a major  period  of  flooding  from 12,000  to 10,000  years ago... There  was no question that  there  was a  flood  and  there  is  no  question that  it  was  a  universal  flood. 58  Emphasis Added

"Emiliani's  findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett  and Shackleton,  who concluded  that there was a 'massive inpouring of  glacial melt water  into the Gulf  of Mexico via the Mississippi  River system.  At  the time of maximum  inpouring of  this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent." 58


The Black Sea Speaks:

"Science... has found evidence for  a massive deluge  that may ... have  inspired  Noah's tale.  About 7,500 years ago, a  flood  poured ten  cubic miles of  water a day -- 130 times more than  flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black  Sea, abruptly  turning the formerly  freshwater lake into a  brackish inland sea." 59 Emphasis Added

"In  1993,  William Ryan  and  Walter Pitman  of  Columbia University's  Lamont-Doherty Earth  Observatory  dug up cores of sediment  from  the bottom of  the Black sea.  The cores showed  that  the sea's  outer margins had once been dry  land, indicating it had been two-thirds  its  present size.  Furthermore, over  the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer  of sediment that  could only have been deposited  during  a  flood.  The researchers  also found that within that layer saltwater  mollusks appear, all  from the Mediterranean and all dating from around  7600 years ago." 59 Emphasis Added

 


Miracle or
Worldwide Flood?

"Such a hypothesis would  require assumption of a  highly  unlikely pattern of  faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras  are followed, everywhere at the  same distance and  the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras,  the two waves  preserving their  separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and  without ever  becoming mixed..." 

"It  would  be  easy to repeat this investigation for  almost every critical zone  fossil  or  fauna throughout the geological column  for  hundreds,  perhaps thousands of... cases.  The conclusions would be the same.  In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we  would have  to  'invoke a miracle', if,  for example, we were to assume  anything but world-wide  contemporaneous  deposition for  each of  the 55 ammonite  zones of the Jurassic.  Not  all  of  them occur everywhere, but wherever  two or more  are  found in  superposition  they occur  in the same order. 60 Arkell (1957,  p.  L112) 61  summarized  the picture of  ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:   Emphasis Added

'Evolution is above all  very uneven.  Certain periods were outstandingly productive  of  new and verile  forms  which  often  seem  to have sprung  into existence  from  nowhere ...  and  to have become dominant  almost simultaneously over a large part of  the world ...  

How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is  a task  for the  future  to determine.'" 60,61  Emphasis added                                                                                                    


Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:

The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.
62 

"I regard the failure to find  a  clear  'vector  of progress' in  life's  history as  the most  puzzling  fact of the  fossil record." 

And that:
  
"Heretofore, we  have thrown up our hands in frustration at  the lack  of expected pattern in  life's  history -- 
or  we  have  sought to impose  a  pattern that  we hoped  to find on a  world that does not really display it
...  If we can develop a
...theory of mass extinction, we  may finally understand  why life has thwarted our expectations, and...extract an  unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos." 62   Stephen Jay Gould
     Emphasis added.

"One of  the ironies of  the evolution-creation debate is  that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the  fossil record shows a  detailed  and orderly progression..." 63   David M. Raup   Emphasis added.

"only  15-20%  of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic  periods appearing in 'correct'  consecutive order."  64  John Woodmorappe   Emphasis added       
                    
"Any sequence in which an  older  fossil occurs  above a  younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may  be  from  millimeters to  many meters  ... (and) is produced by  the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since  these processes occur to  an extent in  virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic  disorder  at some scale is  probably  a  common  feature of  the  fossil  record."
65  Emphasis Added           

"The  extent of disorder ...is not well documented;  however, the widespread occurrence  of anomalies  ... suggest that disorder should  be taken  seriously..."  ref. 61  p. 234.  W. J. Arkell.   Emphasis added 

"Examination  of Britain's record of  the Ice Age levels  discloses  a  'complex  interbedding of drift sheets derived from  different sources.'  'When  we add the additional complications  imposed  by thin  drifts, scanty  interglacial  deposits, and  the  frequent  presence  in  fossil-bearing beds of  secondary [displaced]  fossils  derived from  the reworking of older horizons,  we get a  truly difficult overall problem
... All in  all, British glacial  stratigraphic research  has encountered  exceptional  difficulties,' writes  R. F. Flint, professor of geology  at
Yale University. 66,67  Immanuel Velikovski   Emphasis added
   

A Note about "Problematica"
"Problematica"  is the "code word" Paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are "mixed" in with  one's they shouldn't be with.   

If  one  were to perform an internet search on this word he or  she  may be  surprised at  how many web pages there are on it: especially considering that the word isn't even in the Dictionary: at least not an English one.  
For more on this see:
Sea-Sloths and Out of Order Fossils.   

For those seeking more information on this Worldwide Flood which almost  certainly did occur, or  how a Boat with Thousands of Animals onboard could possibly have survived
Here is  a  link that may  answer  some of  your  questions.  If not, feel free to email the  author, or to take the  IQ test.   

Copyright, 2006, Randy S. Berg; 
 Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.
     

60 Emphasis Added

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
YAHUWAH is SALVATION, you will not escape this truth

1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships.
This is circular reasoning. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Evolutionists cite similarity as evidence for evolution, but evolution is supposed to explain the differences. Go figure. If evolution did it, explain how the differences occurred. Similarity is a non-issue. And its not just which one of these things is not like the other, but why?  There are however many features that prove that similarity is not the result of common ancestry.  Evolutionists have even given these evidences a name, convergent and parallel evolution.
 Convergent evolution is due to similar behaviors or environments producing similar structures. How does the DNA know what mutations it needs to turn an arm into a wing or leg into a fin, or a fin into a leg? The fascinating thing about convergent evolution is that is showing up all over the place, right down to the mechanisms in the cell. So, similarity indicates ancestral relationships, except when it doesn't

The better explanation is that the similar structures were designed for similar needs. That makes a lot of sense, but its anti-evolutionary.
Parallel evolution occurs when similar features develop without any particular connection to behavior or to the environment. How does that happen? Just coincidence? But it does provide even more evidence that similarity doesn't mean common ancestry.

Have you heard the popular myth spread by evolutionists that chimps and humans are genetically 98% to 99% identical?  After examining the DNA sequences in more detail over the years scientists have now dropped the number to 94%. And the examination is not done yet. The 98% was reached is after selecting genes they arleady thought to be similar and comparing only 1% of the genomes of both species. Wait for the gap to grow farther still. Even so, evolution needs to explain the vast differences, not the similarities.
2. Natural Selection is a creative force.
Natural selection only "chooses" from available information, it does not create any. It does not act on the genotype of an organism. Yet, evolutionists often give natural selection creative and goal seeking powers, and credit it with solving many of life's problems. Features are said to have evolved because they gave the organism a "selective advantage." But in actuality a selective advantage only helps to maintain the current genetic makeup, rather than forcing it in any way to become better. Natural selection is not creative.  It does not change genetic information.  It is not a force and it puts no pressure on any organism to modify its genes. See the true role of natural selection
3. Appeals to future evidence for validation are acceptable.
That's what science is, isn't it? First you ask the question. Secondly, you determine the answer. Then you believe the answer until you find the evidence to support it.  One of the most common phrases in evolutionary literature goes something like this, "there is still plenty of testing that needs to be done." This is after they've presented their conclusions and told you their facts. Right now, scientists do not know how the first chemicals needed for life would form. They do not know how the first information bearing molecule would form. They do not know why all the body plans suddenly appeared, how the moon formed, how the planets formed, how legs turned into wings, fins turned into legs or legs turned into fins. They have no sure solution for any other evolutionary event in the history of the universe. Yet they claim it's an established fact, one of the most robust in science!

Evolutionary literature is filled with "mights", "maybes" and "probablies." For every "answer" they present there is a potential question lurking in the background that will derail that very answer.  When the problem comes to light, the "fact of evolution" is never questioned. There belief tells them evolution must be  correct. They continue to believe in spite of the fact that science has shown them to be wrong time and time again. They believe that science will ultimately prove them right. They insist we believe it now and trust them.  But, when you can't believe what the science is showing you right now, before your very eyes, and must defer to a future discovery, that's faith. Its how you keep a theory alive for
150 years without needing validation.
 Are we there yet?
4. Information can arise spontaneously.
Life is built on information. The DNA molecule holds volumes of information, instructions on how to build, maintain and reproduce an organism. Not only that, it holds instructions on how to interact with the outside world, the brains of all animals come loaded with a fully functional operating system. Evolutionists believe that this information was put together by many accumulated errors in DNA.

Experiments that claim to show evolution of information or learning all start with intelligently designed equipment, equations and programming. In the end only they support the idea that information does not arise spontaneously. Very rarely do they test using molecules used by life, because those molecules are not capable of combining to create information bearing molecules without the aid of intelligence. In spite of the obvious evolutionists still cling to the idea that the volumes of information contained in life could have arisen by chance.
 5. Evolution is not based on chance.
In the "God Delusion Debate" Richard Dawkins, frustrated over comments by scientist John Lennox, said of evolution "It's not chance, natural selection is the opposite of chance!" This exemplifies the problem. Evolution is not just natural selection. It is natural selection, variation and mutation.  The factor that would generate new code is mutation. Mutation is by definition, an error, and it occurs randomly. Mutations may follow certain patterns, but they are not planned, they are random. Evolution relies on blind luck for the material that natural selection can act on.  No wonder evolutionists attempt to keep the focus on natural selection.
6. Evolution proceeds by using trial and error.
This is another concept often found in evolutionary literature. Adaptations are often said to have developed through a series of trials and errors. This however is backwards. Since mutation is the supposed source of the adaptation, then the error precedes the trial. An error has to create a new functional adaptation before it can be put to the test.

Then we have another term in evolutionary literature, "pre-adaptation," this means that an adaptation evolved before it was needed, and therefore could not have been tested. This means that evolution proceeds through trial and error, except when it doesn't.

But, since each system in life must have arisen before it was tested and could not confer a selective advantage until after it became part of the phenotype, then every feature in life must be the result of a "pre-adaptation." Which means that pre-adaptation is just a way to avoid examining the question of why a feature would develop in the first place. Pre-adaptation is another way of saying "that's fortunate."
 7. Consensus is acceptable in science and evolution has consensus.
Do all reputable biologists agree that evolution is a fact or does believing evolution is a fact make a  biologist reputable?  How many names on a petition does it take to prove a scientific theory?  One of the problems with "consensus" on evolution is that it doesn't involve everyone, those who disagree are excluded. Religious people come up with the same kind of reasoning. For instance, how could a million Hindu's be wrong? This implies that number of believers proves the belief system.  How many Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or Evolutionists does it take to make something true? What is odd, is that supposedly rational, intelligent, critically thinking scientists don't recognize this, but that is because their belief system is not based on science. Science isn't built on consensus; it is built on the scientific method, observation and experimentation, which should not allow for a hypothesis to pass for a fact.

Evolution has never had consensus. For evolutionists however, evolution has been a "fact" for over a century, and wouldn't you know it, all evolutionists agree it's a fact.  It doesn't matter that there are many scientists who for scientific reasons, don't agree that evolution is an established fact. Consensus on evolution is imaginary.
 8. Peer Review filters out evolution's bad ideas.
If an idea makes evolutionary sense and doesn't violate the evolutionary paradigm it passes peer review. How many bad ideas, mistakes and deceptions make it through the evolutionary peer review screen? Evolutionists would like you to believe that the peer review filters out evolutionary bad ideas, but if the peers are chosen based on their adherence to a belief system, then peer review would not filter out ideas based on that belief. This can be seen most clearly in evolutionary stories about ancestry and evolutionary development that pass through peer review seemingly without question or examination. Adherence to evolution does however filter out good ideas if they suggest that evolution might not be true or intelligent design is an acceptable alternative. That is, if your ideas don't fit the predetermined template, they will be rejected.

This has forced many scientists to create their own peer reviewed publications, which attempt to critically examine all that science is currently showing us, rather than attempt to force it into a predetermined template. Evolutionists view these as illegitimate. Creationists, who have their own template, welcome these ideas, because they demonstrate that the scientific facts agree with the Creation template far better than the one presented by Evolution. The facts need to be force fitted into the Evolutionary template, where they seem to fall naturally into the Creationist one. This is why evolutionary peer review is failing science.

There are so many bad ideas in evolutionary literature, peer review simply can't catch them all.
9. Victory in the courts equals victory in the lab.
Quite often evolutionists will cite court battles as evidence that evolution should be the only view presented by the education system. Winning a court battle, is however not the same as demonstrating a scientific fact though observation and experiment.  Legal decisions are based on the law, not on science. The law in the United States and in many other countries will not allow for government to support a religion. That is where evolutionists get their victories. Creationism, and intelligent design both point to a creator. Therefore any ideas that are seen to support them are "religious" and the government is forced to reject or ignore those ideas on legal grounds. Evolution on the other hand is technically not "religious" since it does not recognize the existence of a supernatural being.  So evolution wins in the courts because is not religious, rather than because science can be rigorously used to support it. Why do evolutionists go to the lawyers and judges to win their science battles?

Let the battle occur in the science labs and classrooms, where it should be taking place.  Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, its not creation or intelligent design that's loosing in the courtroom, it's schools that are being sued. After all, it's the school boards, parents and the kids in public schools who want the alternatives to be taught and the problems with evolution to be exposed who are getting defeated by the evolutionists.  They want to control the education of your kids so they can indoctrinate them with their materialistic philosophy. And they believe that you're just to stupid to know evolution is a fact.
 10. Belief in evolution has no detrimental side effects.
The holocaust and communism are two detrimental effects that come to mind immediately. How many millions have to die before you realize that there might be a problem? Actually evolution makes no judgment calls on these types of events since survival of the fittest is an axiom. When one person kills another or when one race destroys another, that's survival of the fittest.  Belief in evolution cannot object to any action because there is no moral standard.

Evolutionists sometimes point out that the church is not guiltless. They point out events such as the inquisition and the crusades and has a very violent and immoral history.  Today we have suicide bombers, genocide in the Sudan and terrorism world wide in the name of Allah. So, they point out that religion not only produces similar results, but that religious people do it in the name of a god or religion and believe this justifies their actions.  Religion, they claim, must be worse, because people believe that they are doing the will of YAHUWAH .

This view is incorrect. The reason for all the ills, wrongs and evils in this world is due to sin. The Bible, not evolution, defines sin. Those who reject YAHUWAH and accept evolution don't have a moral standard or definition of good and bad that extends beyond thier cultural beleifs. Why is somthing bad, wrong or evil? The evolutionary answer is "Because I don't like it." or "Everyone agrees its wrong." They often attempt to justify moral actions by their evolutionary expediency. Hence, the holocaust, communism, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics etc.  The excuse given is that these things come from something inside the individual, not from a religious book, or a belief in YAHUWAH. Therefore they claim that these things are not connected with evolution or atheism, but they say that the atrocities in the name of religion or YAHUWAHhave a direct connection with the Bible.

But the fact is that,YAHUWAH 's Word condemns these actions, no matter who is doing them. The holocaust, communism, the crusades and the inquisition all stem from human nature, i.e. something inside ourselves.  And that "something inside ourselves" comes from?  Evolution does not define morality as anything more than a chemical reaction. The Bible does define morality.  We know that all those things are wrong because YAHUWAH's Word tells us they are wrong. None of those things happened because YAHUWAH  commanded it or His Word demanded it, but through the rejection of his Word or making his Word secondary to an earthly authority. This leaves the door wide open.

Some people say, "I prefer to define my own morality." That is a standard belief within evolutionary thought. However this also a problem. Morality can't come from within the individual. It has to be a standard that exists separate from the individual. Otherwise morality becomes nothing more than an individual choice and allows each person to justify whatever "evil" or "good" they desire. Relegating morality to society only causes good and evil to be defined by the ones in power.  Rejection of YAHUWAH's Word is what allows a leader to starve a million people, send them to a holy war, or for a scientist to accept human cloning and eugenics, or even for a sniper to kill an abortion doctor.  Morality is not a smorgasbord, you don't pick what you like and ignore what elements you dislike. The evils of the church come from rejecting YAHUWAH's Word and the atrocities connected with atheism and evolution also come from a rejection of YAHUWAHs Word.

Evolution, begins with a rejection of YAHUWAH's Word. Therefore there is nothing to counter the natural tendency we all possess to do wrong and justify doing wrong.
 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
Humanism: The Atheist's Religion!!! you lose, pagan chump

 

Humanism: The Atheist's Religion!!!

Email from a Humanist about this page

I. The different way Christians and Humanists view mankind:

 

II. Humanism Is A Religion:

 

Humanists freely teach:

 

Humanists totally forbid teaching:

Atheism

YAHUWAH The Creator

Evolution Fact

Creation as Scientific

Situation Ethics

Moral Absolutes

Explicit Sex Education

YAHUWAH View Of Sexuality

Perversions As Acceptable

Homosexuality Wrong

No Life After Death

Heaven, Hell, Judgement

These Concepts Can Be Taught Freely During School Hours To Captive Children

These Concepts Cannot Be Taught On School Premises- Even After School Hours End.

 

III. Basic Tenets Of Humanism

IV. Effects Of Humanism:

V. 4 Part Foundation Of Humanism

VI. Quotations From The Humanist Bible

 

VII. YAHUWAH’s WORD Against The Humanist Bible:

 

MANIFESTO I

ARTICLE 2: "Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

ARTICLE 3: "Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

ARTICLE 8: "Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.

 

MANIFESTO II

ARTICLE 2: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of damnation are both illusory and harmful...Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ‘ghost in the machine’ and ‘separable soul.’ Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces...There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.

ARTICLE 5: "We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility

A. There is a God: Ps 14:1; Ps 2:3-6; Heb 11:1,6

B. The earth had a beginning and will come to and end: Gen 1:1; 2 Pe 3:10

C. Things which are seen are temporary: 2 Cor 4:17-18

D. Man made in image of God: Gen 1:27

E. Man is a dual being: Eccl 12:7; Jas 2:26; Phil 1:21f

F. Man cannot guide himself: Prov 3:5; 14:12

G. The Bible contains absolute truth for right & wrong: Jn 17:17; 2 Pe 1:3

H. Man’s duty is to fear God: Eccl 12:13

I. Man’s happiness and destiny are bound up in "love God with all heart mind and soul, and love man as self Mt 22:34-40; Rom 13:8-10 (Christ’s example of dying on cross is highest value of unselfish love and service)

J. We should not serve the flesh: Tit 3:3

K. There is life after death and judgement: Heb 9:27; Mt 25:46; Eccl 3:11

L. In the last days... 2 Ti 3:1-7

1. Atheism

2. Evolution

3. Autonomous Man (Answers Only To Self)

4. Relative Truth

A. Evolution is fact

B. there is no God

C. The Bible is a myth

D. Antagonistic towards all other religions

E. eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die

F. "If It Feels Good Do It"

G. Man answers only to himself

H. No Absolute truth or right and wrong

I. Man becomes self righteous

J. General unwillingness to follow authority

K. sexual freedom, homosexuality, easy divorce

L. suicide, abortion and euthanasia encouraged

M. Situation ethics: "lying is Ok if you need to"

N. Children are rebellious (Spanking children is outlawed as a form of discipline)

O. Take the "lock" from wedlock-Increased Divorce rate (If marriage partners are unhappy, divorce)

P. Materialism and acquisition of wealth

A. It affirms that the universe is self-existent and denies that it was created. Thus, it affirms the eternity of matter and denies the existence of God and His word of creation.

B. It affirms that man evolved by natural means. This means that they hold that God had nothing to do with bring man into being.

C. It affirms that man is totally physical, thus denying that man has a spirit or soul

D. It affirms that all religion is the result of social evolution. Faith in God is outmoded, Religion retards Human progress

E. It denies that God is the ultimate good, thus denying that men do either that which is really objectively wrong or that which is really objectively right.

F. It affirms that the ultimate end of man’s life is to be found in the here and now. Humanism rejects Heaven; it denies there is a Hell.

G. "Worship" of God and prayer to God is rejected. Man should rather use his time in seeking to promote social well-being.

H. It affirms that man must learn to depend upon science and must discourage hopes of heaven (which involves wishful thinking)

I. It holds that man alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, thus holding that God has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

YAHUWAH’S MAN

 

HUMANIST’S MAN

Created By YAHUWAH

Product Of Evolutionary Process

Image Of YAHUWAH

Image Of Nature And Social Heritage

Has Immortal Soul

Has No Soul

Has Eternal Purpose

Has No Eternal Purpose

Life After Death

No Life After Death

A. They have a bible: Humanist Manifesto I & II

B. They have an object of worship: Man himself

C. They have a priesthood and missionaries: Public educators

D. They have seminaries: teachers colleges

E. They have temples: schools colleges and universities

F. They are intolerant of other religions:

: "I am a humanist--a card-carrying, dues-paying Associate Member of the Council for Secular Humanism. Let's not get into philosophical or religious discussions here--I just wanted to let you know that the information on that page is very accurate and well done. In terms of its content and facts, it is a very fair assessment and representation of our beliefs. My compliments to the author."

 

 

Submitted by Ktulu on January 26, 2011 - 2:26pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

the earth is proven to be 6000 years old by eyewitness testimony and written records  and through real science based on observations of data that amounts to a huge mountain sized pile of facts . also the fact of geocentricity refutes any theory of a big bang from nothing to evolve.

Also you would be wise to consider the fact the we all live on mountainous continents and the remaining ocean basins serve as a reminder that we live in a post apcalytpic world.

any attempt to say what happend beyond 6000 years ago when noone was present to give an account is futile. you would have to lie and invent non existent facts to support your lies.  enter the closet pagans atheist drones who pretend they are wise when they are really fools in disguise.

 

You relate to nothing because you believe in nothing as a starting point for evolution.

 

 

Wow, a great quote from the movie 'Seven' comes to mind.

"David Mills: I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that? "

I'm sorry to have to resort to an ad hominem attack but really the position has been refuted so well in the past as for you to have no position.  All is left is trying to understand why someone that can dress themselves in the morning still believes in this idiotic fairytale.  Do you at any point become aware of your idiocies? Do you perhaps stop and ponder for a moment how idiotically contradicting the bible is?  

I'm really curious if your delusion is marked by brief moments of lucidity or if you constantly believe this crap.

 --------->

OK dumb ass drone , you got it! takes notes and pass them on to youur fellow scumbags who believe they are the offspring of scum from billions of years ago.

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHAHA

mind over matter wrote:
hitler was an evolutionist fool like like you. You lose again

Oh really? Lets see about that!

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2. Notice he didn't say the Almighty Evolver... Hmmm... I wonder why?

"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire, and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austrian people." Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf).

"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church.

Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf). So the Almighty Creator "created" something? Shouldn't he (as the evolutionist he is apparently) have said "and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself evolved via natural selection?"

NoMindTroll, you do know that posting cut and paste wall o' texts only show how you are incapable of independent thought and are such a sheeple that you must rely on others to think for you. All it shows is that your bat-shit crazy delusion is only held by insane people incapable of rational thought. Thank you for scaring people away from your cult! People like you do more to kill religion then all the atheists in the world and for that I thank you! It's people like you that prove religious people are insane sheeple, so don't stop please, there are still religious people who haven't been shown your examples of what the mind killer faith does!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
To summarize MoM's screed.

To summarize MoM's screed.

Atheists give people information and teach them how to think so they can gather new information.

Christians (Yahuwah Believers) like to keep people stupid and subservient.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
AMAZING!!!

jcgadfly wrote:
To summarize MoM's screed.

Atheists give people information and teach them how to think so they can gather new information.

Christians (Yahuwah Believers) like to keep people stupid and subservient.

WOW! You were able to actually write his position without the use of GIANT WALLS OF TEXT!

I nominate jcgadfly for Translator of Bat-Shit Crazy Spammers of the Year Award!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
stupid atheist closet pagan says what?

Submitted by B166ER on February 9, 2011 - 2:45pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:
hitler was an evolutionist fool like like you. You lose again

 

Oh really? Lets see about that!

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2. Notice he didn't say the Almighty Evolver... Hmmm... I wonder why?

"What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

"The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire, and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austrian people." Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf).

"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church.

Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?" -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf). So the Almighty Creator "created" something? Shouldn't he (as the evolutionist he is apparently) have said "and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself evolved via natural selection?"

NoMindTroll, you do know that posting cut and paste wall o' texts only show how you are incapable of independent thought and are such a sheeple that you must rely on others to think for you. All it shows is that your bat-shit crazy delusion is only held by insane people incapable of rational thought. Thank you for scaring people away from your cult! People like you do more to kill religion then all the atheists in the world and for that I thank you! It's people like you that prove religious people are insane sheeple, so don't stop please, there are still religious people who haven't been shown your examples of what the mind killer faith does!

---------->

ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (See Abortion section) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population.[65] She believed in removing what she called "the dead weight of human waste." [59] In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also argued that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that targets minority women.[65]

Natural Selection and the Columbine Killings

 

Evolution                                    

 

Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust

Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."19

Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people."59 and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"19

In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59

The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.19

Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."33

Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what "informed conclusions" concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged "interbreeding," supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve "upward". He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.19

An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically "inferior" and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."19

"From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life' [that is, Darwin 's subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here." - Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 196219

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHAHA

Another wall of text from the NoMindTroll just continues to prove our point! You have no mind of your own, so you must continually regurgitate creationist webpages! Thanks for proving our point that most religious sheeple have no mind of their own!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
only an asshole believes evolution as a result of abiogenesis

Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality

by Paul G. Humber, M.S.


 

Many people today do not seem to realize that the same poisonous philosophy (evolutionism) that justified killing under Hitler 1 has also infected the American abortion mentality.
According to documents released as recently as February 10, 1992, "Joseph Mengele, the Auschwitz death-camp doctor known as the 'Angel of Death' for his experiments on inmates, practiced medicine in Buenos Aires for several years in the 1950s. He 'had a reputation as a specialist in abortions,' which were illegal." 2 It should not be surprising that one who extinguished life at Auschwitz would practice a similar grisly crusade on life in the womb.


 

Humans Emerging From Embryos?


 

Carl Sagan encourages the fiction that life in the womb traces an evolutionary history. We "must decide," he writes, "what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities—whatever they are—emerge." 3 He compared the appearance of the developing embryo to "a segmented worm" and added that "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian . . . become conspicuous, and there is a pronounced tail." The face becomes "reptilian. . . (then) somewhat pig-like." Eventually, it "resembles a primate's but is still not quite human."
In the article, evolutionary thinking offers yet again "justification" for extinguishing life thought to be subhuman. This, of course, is pseudo-science and nonsense. The science of genetics has confirmed that the embryo is identifiably human from the moment of conception.


 

Sanger — "Babies in the Womb"!


 

Another insidious development occurred earlier in the century (about the time Hitler himself was forming his ideas). It involved Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood (a major promoter of abortions in America today). She has been given the unusual title, "Father of Modern Society." 4 Her evolutionary mentality will be documented below, but first there should be a consideration of her views relating to abortion.
In her Woman and the New Race, Sanger offered a conflicting message about this issue. On the one hand she wrote, "I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." 5 Pro-lifers would heartily agree! She even referred to "babies" in the womb—not using the now "politically correct" term, fetuses: "There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion." 5
Her message was inconsistent, however. Not only did Linda Gordon, author of Woman's Body, Woman's Right—a major work dealing with the history of birth control in America—indicate that Margaret Sanger "defended women's rights to abortion," 6 Sanger herself, in the very volume denouncing abortion already cited, wrote, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." 5 This hardly sounds pro-life.
Whatever may be said of Sanger's confused views, her legacy is an organization that certainly encourages and participates in the killing of thousands and even millions of, to use her phrase, America's "infant members." What was it about her philosophy that allowed for this?


 

"Defectives," "Dependents," and "Morons"!


 

Hitler's link to evolution has already been documented.1 He put survival of-the-fittest into action, and millions of "unfit" people died as a result.
Many Americans believe that something comparable to what happened under the leadership of Hitler is happening now in America. "Babies in the womb," most of them healthy and fit, have been slaughtered by the tens of millions in the United States of America — 4,000 every day!
What some may not realize is that the same poisonous philosophy that infected Hitler also influenced Margaret Sanger. She said Charles Darwin observed "that we do not permit helpless human beings to die off, but we create philanthropies and charities, build asylums and hospitals and keep the medical profession busy preserving those who could not otherwise survive." Her view was that such philanthropies and charities were "ameliorative" at best, and that some so-called benevolences were "positively injurious to the community and the future of the race."
Her following words (content-wise) sound like they could have been spoken by Adolf Hitler himself: "The most serious charge that can be brought against modern 'benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."
One wonders how far Sanger would like to have taken her eugenics. She reported a study of the United States Army and concluded that "nearly half—47.3 percent—of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less—in other words, that they were morons." 7
On the racial dimension, Linda Gordon (cf. above) quotes from a letter written by Margaret Sanger to Clarence Gamble on October 19, 1939: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out the idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." 6 Many years prior, Sanger said, "Whether or not the white races will be ultimately wiped off the face of the earth depends, to my mind, largely upon the conduct and behavior of the white people themselves. (Applause.)" 8
Birth control for Sanger was "nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit." A eugenist, she defined the field as "the attempt to solve the problem from the biological and evolutionary point of view." She wanted to change things "to the construction and evolution of humanity itself." 8 She advocated applying "a stem and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." 9 Revealing pro-choice tendencies, she went on to promote the notion of giving "certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilizations." 9
Ms. Sanger assumed "the evolutionary process of man" 10 and argued that the "intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development" 5 She hoped for a motherhood that would refuse "to bring forth weaklings."5 Such a motherhood "withholds the unfit brings forth the fit." 5 She wrote of "woman's upward struggle" 5 and described the "lack of balance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit'" as "the greatest present menace to civilization." 7


 

Rejection of Only Solution!


 

The YAHUWSHUA sanctified life in the womb by living there Himself for nine months (Isaiah 49:5, cf. Luke 1:35). He also created every womb that was ever made (John 1:3). As the promised "seed" of the woman (Genesis 3:15), He came to rescue daughters (like those for whom Margaret Sanger expressed concern throughout her writings) from their burdens of pain, suffering, sin, and death. He came to set them free (John 9:36), and many women would testify that they have indeed been set free and will be set free even from death.
Margaret Sanger, however, wrote of a different YAHUWSHUA—"a YAHUWSHUA who (would) not die upon the cross." 5 In place of the real YAHUWSHUA who understands suffering intimately, she chose the hollow shell of evolutionary "science." Sadly, she wrote, "Interest in the vague sentimental fantasies of extra-mundane existence, in pathological or hysterical flights from the realities of our earthiness, will have through atrophy disappeared, for in that dawn men and women will have come to the realization . . . that here close at hand is our paradise, our everlasting abode, our Heaven and our eternity." 7 But how is Margaret Sanger qualified to make such pronouncements?
Her present bodily "abode" is very undesirable (coffin? charred remains?), but Jesus is alive with a resurrected body in heaven! After He was resurrected, He proclaimed, "I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death" (Revelation 1:18).
YAHUWSHUA's' teachings about the future, contrary to Margaret Sanger's preachings, were neither "vague sentimental fantasies" nor "pathological," and they will never "atrophy." Heaven and earth may pass—but His words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35). He emphatically said, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:25,26).


 

Conclusion


 

The evolutionary mentality behind abortion is bad science and leads to bad ethics. On the positive side, Margaret Sanger did encourage attention to a very important subject—to what she called "the titanic strength of the sexual instinct." 7 Indirectly, she was affirming the Scriptural truth that "love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave . . . . Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be condemned" (Song of Solomon 8:6,7).
She sought to promote birth control. The ultimate need, however, is for Holy Spirit control. The YAHUWAHSHUA, after receiving from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, shed Him forth upon the earth for the benefit of His followers (Acts 2:33). The only way an unbeliever can experience this loving presence and control is to bow the heart in repentance and faith before the Sovereign Creator-Savior, YAHUWAH SHUA only non believers in YAHUWAH  support pro murder of defenceless unborn humans.


 

Number of Abortions!



 

 

 

click link to see the counter in real time

 

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/number_of_abortions.htm 

 

47 billion plus

 

  =9){ microsec=0 milisec+=1

if (milisec>=9){
milisec=0
seconds+=1
}

}
else
microsec+=1

// The following code puts commas into the final number
Number.prototype.insertComma = function(){
var s = this.toString();
var temp = '';
for (var i=s.length-1;i>=0;i-=3){
if ((i-3)>=0) temp = "," + s.substr(i-2, 3) + temp;
else temp = s.substring(0, i+1) + temp;
}
return temp;
}

document.d.d2.value = seconds.insertComma() + "." + milisec + microsec
setTimeout("display()",10/abortionsSecond)
}
display()
//-->

 

The Counter above is the estimated average number of American

abortions that have taken place since it became legal (1973).

the number one cause of human death right now in realtime worldwide is abortion

4,511,300+ and the counters is the fastest rate of all the present day causes according to several stats and sources combined

clink on this link for a cool free app  world clock and stats counter

 

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks/worldclock/

  

The stats in the World Clock updated as of July, 2010, using several resources for statistical data:
 

  • World Health Organization
  • CIA Factbook
  • US Census bureau
  • UK HomeOffice
  • Avert.org
  • International Union Against Cancer
  • StateMaster
  • NationMaster
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • National Wildlife Federation
  • EarthPolicy.org
  • Wikipedia

We will do our best to keep this data current. This is not an easy task as much of it varies widely throughout the year and many sources report contradictory figures. We recommend that you double-check any stats with other sources.


 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. Damn good thing no one

1. Damn good thing no one here believes in evolution as a result of abiogenesis. See, that's a position held by theistic evolutionists.

2. It still beats your position of "Magic Man done it" using abiogenesis.

3. If you don't believe Yahuwah didn't enjoy seeing people slaughter the born and the unborn you haven't been reading your holy book.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you are a closet pagan chump with chimp envy

Submitted by jcgadfly on February 9, 2011 - 3:56pm.

 

1. Damn good thing no one here believes in evolution as a result of abiogenesis. See, that's a position held by theistic evolutionists.

2. It still beats your position of "Magic Man done it" using abiogenesis.

3. If you don't believe Yahuwah didn't enjoy seeing people slaughter the born and the unborn you haven't been reading your holy book.

->

1, abiogenesis never happend and never will, so you have no cause for evolution in the first place

2.only you believe in Magic man. and noone to this day has been able to use abiogenesis.  BIOGENESIS trumps evolution.

also  you do not understand that when you quoate atheist written text books and preach it as if you have first hand knowledge you are not proving you know anything with out first putting faith in what someone else has already said and did .

you believe a pagan creation myth that worships nature as a person. because you made a claim as usual and did not post any info to back it up you show what a poser you really are in this life.

 

3. you talk the talk but when you insist on accusing YAHUWAH of demanding human sacrfice please give an example of what you read so I may know that you actually read anything other than a mad magazine talking about evolution. you are quoting satan when you accuse YAHUWAH of anything false.

Yahuwah doesn't change. If you make a vow to Him, be forewarned, just as He is Elohiym of His word, He expects us to keep ours, and He expects us to follow through with our vows. That is why Scripture tells us that it is better that we not make vows to Yahuwah. If you are going to "open your mouth to Yahuwah" you had better be prepared to follow through with your words.

 

Yahuwah of course would never require a human sacrifice. That is pagan stuff.many modern day sins are actually re-cast versions of old sins - eg., sacrificing children to moloch and abortion, or Ashtarot goddess worship and obsessing over models/actresses etc,

many sins of today occur on a much deeper, spiritual level than one would think..

 

 ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

 



 

 

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (See Abortion section) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population.[65] She believed in removing what she called "the dead weight of human waste." [59] In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also argued that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that targets minority women.[65]

Natural Selection and the Columbine Killings

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
the retard is imaginary time

B166ER's picturethe retard is imaginary time machine for proving billions of years

HAHAHAHA

Submitted by B166ER on February 9, 2011 - 3:28pm.

 

Another wall of text from the NoMindTroll just continues to prove our point! You have no mind of your own, so you must continually regurgitate creationist webpages! Thanks for proving our point that most religious sheeple have no mind of their own!

 

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!

->here is a wall of shame for you

 

 

Just think that this could have been you but you missed the calling by the atheists  closet pagan secular humanist

you were born but you take no issue with this cowardly blood thirst pagan ritual killing.

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. You also have no cause

1. You also have no cause for Yahuwah's special creation if you take out abiogenesis.

2. So you don't believe that Yahuwah created everything from speaking the word? You are a self-contradictory bugger.

3. I didn't accuse him of human sacrifice - I accused him of commanding his "chosen people" to kill men, women, children, animals and to rip open the bellies of pregnant women in those wars he loved them to have. Are you really this bad at comprehending what you read? Have you even read your holy book, numbnuts?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
hahaha

NoMindFascistTroll wrote:
Just think that this could have been you but you missed the calling by the atheists  closet pagan secular humanist

you were born but you take no issue with this cowardly blood thirst pagan ritual killing.

Just think? Yeah, what a novel idea. If I had been aborted, I WOULDN'T HAVE CARED AS I WOULD BE DEAD!

So committing genocide is ok for your god, but aborting babies isn't?

Oh I get it! It's ok when your imaginary sky dictator revels in genocide, but if a woman (a lesser human in your filthy cult) makes a decision to end a pregnancy it's TEH END OF TEH WORLDZ!!1!!!11!!!eleven!!1

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
NickB wrote:Prove to me the

NickB wrote:

Prove to me the world is 6000 years old.

Aside from all the other mountains of evidence one would have to attempt to falsify, plate tectonics alone demonstrates that continental shift took much more time.

 

Only a complete ignorant fool would try and assert that the continental shifts occurred as it did, in a period as short as 6000 yrs.

The thought alone is completely absurd.

The shift is still occurring. The earth, along with everything living on it, is continually evolving.

We see exactly what Darwin's theory predicted, and predicts.

 

His theory is correct.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
This mindovermatter

This mindovermatter character is just ridiculous I didnt think that someone with this kinda mentality was possible.

How does something like this happen to a person.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:This

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

This mindovermatter character is just ridiculous I didnt think that someone with this kinda mentality was possible.

How does something like this happen to a person.

I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is an important one.

People with schizophrenic tendencies can easily become completely disjointed from reality, and have the tendency to become violent and homicidal when you try and restore actual reality in their minds.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
secular humanism = atheist religion for retard drones

“An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a YAHUWAH. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work -- here on earth -- for all people together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.”

We can conclude from the pledge of an Atheist and the Humanist Manifesto that secular humanists are Atheists because they do not believe in YAHUWAH. Their goals and mission statements adhere to the need to educate society and change governmental laws to support the fact that their belief in no ELOAH YAH AM is the true reality of life.

The most dangerous religion of today: Humanism

 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ABRa_qsaIrr0J%3Awww.thywordistruthkjv.com%2FHUMANISM%2520-%2520GHA.htm+humanist+religion+is+satanic&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

 

);" href="http://www.blogger.com/rearrange?blogID=5543656955175717837&widgetType=Text&widgetId=Text9&action=editWidget" target="configText9">

 

the most dangerous religion of today: Humanism

The most dangerous religions sect today, brainwashing cult of HumanismHumanism (Relativism)
The most dangerous religion of today
The most dangerous religions sect today, brainwashing cult of Humanism
Homar Dankan


"Humanism is not only the biggest evil in the world, but it is also the most deceptive of all religious philosophies."


As Tim La Hay wrote in his book, Battle for the mind, "Most of the evil in the world today can be traced to humanism, which took over governments, United Nations, education, television and other most influential fields in life." Humanism controls the society today by a network of organizations - humanistic associations, the education, trade unions, pro-sex programs, universities, porn magazines, even the hospitals and the textbooks of our children. But how much the aims of humanism are beneficial for humanity? It turns out that the values they promote are extremely destructive to the family and society, and especially dangerous for our young people.

What secular Humanism infiltrates in the minds of people

1. Absolutely rejects traditional moral values - anyone who mentions what's wrong is considered evil and amoral.

2. They deny obedience to any authority, including parental, or belief in the authority of God.

3. Humanism promotes selfish-individualism - extreme individualism, as the highest good: It propagates that everyone can do what he wants to satisfy his momentary desires.

4. Humanism directly attacks marriage and the family. The conclusion of the "humanist manifesto" is that the freedom of any kind of sexuality should be allowed: Including same sex relations, sex outside marriage, sex with many partners, or sex with small children and animals. At the same time Humanism's aim is that "the family" should be denied as an outdated and unnecessary unit.


A real ideological battle is carried out today for the minds of the youth

Most people have not even heard about the existence of a "humanist manifesto, and yet, young people brainwashed with the propaganda of secular Humanism. They literally quote the above 4 points which humanism is based on.

Humanists deny God and raise these materialistic, atheistic, immoral values of active promoters that the danger for the young today are interfaith, faith in God, faith in family, in true love, in moral values. They criticize other Christian denominations as sects threatening to deceive our children with moral values, while they themselves can without opposition pervert our children with immorality, individualism and free sex. They penetrate everywhere, even in our homes, in the schools, in the movies and the literature we read ...

We live in a really absurd society where good and evil are literally turned upside down.

Can we save our children from this godless, pervert ideology that is surrounding us from everywhere? I find in the Web statements such as: "Jehovah's Witnesses" is the most - dangerous sect in the world. Or, "It's interesting who will fight the most - dangerous sect - Orthodox. Sect, which is fully possessed by medieval thought and morality, and adheres to morals and principles."

This is the absurd - all the attention goes on the influence of dangerous cults. But how and to whom do they present danger? They endanger the immoral humanistic aims. Today, religions have little real impact in the lives of young people. They do not lead to immorality, in fact they teach us good moral values.

We Read meaningless threats of, "hordes of enemies - sects and Masons."
At the same time, immorality is openly imposed everywhere. While "the devil turned believers to criticize each other," he undisturbed dominates our entire culture through secular Humanism and free sex.
Humanism, as rust, destroys families and corrodes us, our marriages and the morals of our children.
When will we open our eyes to reality? The most dangerous sect that actually destroys the foundations of faith is the sect of secular Humanism - relativism, which bombards us from everywhere and enters into our minds, our lives, our family and in the minds of our children.

This is a godless religion - a cult of selfishness, immorality and free sex.
It works secretly and invisibly, like Satan himself, while quickly and permanently corrupting our the minds and lives. Representatives of one of the most - dangerous sects in the world, humanism, are all around us.
Humanists literally control television, media, art, fashion, school ... massively brainwashing our children. We are not free. Our children go to schools encountering violence, drugs, anti-moral propaganda ... Humanism is the most dangerous religion of today. It is a sect - an ideology that undisturbed propagates to our children its immoral cause. And the world is still blind to its satanic and destructive influence.

Note: The first Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933 and directly denies the moral values. The Second Humanist Manifesto criticizes this approach and calls for mass propagation of humanist values and immorality by any means; even through books about God and faith. Only in the 90's forthcoming book revealed the scale of the propaganda activities drawn by Hollywood productions. This happened after some of the founders themselves have begun to realize the negative result of its influence. This article reflects the views of the Unification movement of Dr. Moon. The main motive for the persecution and criticism towards him is because of the key role Rev. Moon played in the fight against the Communism (during the Cold War).

The most dangerous religions sect today, brainwashing cult of Humanism
 The largest religious fanatics today
The most dangerous religions sect today, brainwashing cult of Humanism
Sexual revolution: What does it bring?

Anti-Egoism: LOVE-source of happiness

AIDS and condoms: Sex requires morality!

Errors of Darwin: "Darwin faces a court"

Numerous killings of communism: 150 million victims

 

2

  1.  

    Which Cult or Sect is Most Dangerous? The Most Dangerous Cult in the World?

    History of Religion and Philosophy shows how concepts of cult and sect change with the time: One hundred and fifty years ago the Salvation Army was considered the most dangerous sect in Switzerland and there was huge opposition. Half a century ago Martin Luther King Jn. was persecuted by other Christian ministers and considered a dangerous sect. Two thousand years ago Jesus Christ was considered a leader of dangerous sect and was crucified in the anti-sect rage of the Jewish people.

    Today New York City question is: What is the most dangerous section of New York City? Jesus was a cult leader, but not a dangerous one. He aimed to bring good. But the most dangerous religions sect today is the youth brainwashing cult of Humanism... It destroys moral values and poisons youth minds. It raises selfishness, immorality, destruction of family and society as its primary and obvious aims.


    SECULAR HUMANISM: the most dangerous religion (sect, cult) in the World today (secularism humanism dangerous)

    Homor does a excellent job of describing the dangers of Humanism. He is absolutely right in saying that Humanism is the most dangerous religion in America, ...

    Duncan Homor was warning people about the threat of secular humanism to freedom many years ago. It is a pity that almost no one listened. Now our country is almost destroyed morally, educationally, and spiritually.

    What is interesting about humanism is that it is the exact opposite of Christianity. Humanism is a religion based on pure atheism. Whatever Christianity says is right, Humanism says is wrong. Humanism is the pure evil. Unfortunately, it is also highly organized into political action groups with well defined purposes and goals. All other religions lie somewhere in between Humanism and Christianity.

    Homor does a excellent job of describing the dangers of Humanism. He is absolutely right in saying that Humanism is the most dangerous religion in America, and he explains why very clearly. Unfortunately, he gives the wrong solution to the problem. He does not see that public schools are based on socialism, which is based on atheism, and are therefore anti-Christian at their roots. He however believes that public schools can be reformed. Still the book is an excellent concise overview of Humanism. 81 pages. "SECULAR HUMANISM: the most dangerous religion in America" by Duncan Homor

    Reminder: Re-read the Affirations of Humanism from the first page to see how dangerous an atheist philosophy can be! "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George H.W. Bush.

    Secular Humanism: America's Most Dangerous Religion. This is a fact obvious just by looking at the moral destruction secular humanism brought in the last 60 years. Yet a humanist will claim believers are the problem, "I shall call myself a secular humanist. Secular humanism is a positive... religion is dangerous." Dangerous how? It will pervert our youth with moral values! That's right Secular Humanists hate moral values, for them they are dangerous. But look at the society - Look at the reality, Humanism is a suicide way!

 

http://www.us.net/life/

 

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/humanistic_atheism.htm

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Hey thanks!I was looking for

Hey thanks!

I was looking for an avatar...


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
atheist re tard is imaginary

B166ER's pictureatheist re tard is imaginary time machine

hahaha

Submitted by B166ER on February 9, 2011 - 5:29pm.

 

 

NoMindFascistTroll wrote:
Just think that this could have been you but you missed the calling by the atheists  closet pagan secular humanist

 

you were born but you take no issue with this cowardly blood thirst pagan ritual killing.

 

Just think? Yeah, what a novel idea. If I had been aborted, I WOULDN'T HAVE CARED AS I WOULD BE DEAD!

 

                    -> you dont care  now that you are alive

 

 

So committing genocide is ok for your god, but aborting babies isn't?

 

                        -> are you comparing yourself to the  allmighty CREATOR  who is sustaining your life  and  is causing your aging sickness and certain death  and is the only salvation you have from oblivion? So you are ok with murding unborn humans because you resent YAHUWAH accusing HIM of not being able to decide who lives and dies?   you are making a stupid argument  to justify your stupid excuse of a sob story about your retarded interpretation of history.

 

 

Oh I get it! It's ok when your imaginary sky dictator revels in genocide, but if a woman (a lesser human in your filthy cult) makes a decision to end a pregnancy it's TEH END OF TEH WORLDZ!!1!!!11!!!eleven!!1

 

-----------------> actually YAHUWAH said dont kill.   that does not mean when he killed all life during the flood he didnt spare life to repopulatethe earth.  the life that was destroyed was already doomed to die, and the world was so pollutted with the wicked that rightious needed to be saved along with the select  creatures.

 

you are confusing paganist sacfrifice to false idols by your originators of humanism from the time of babylon. the secular humanist religion is the true evil cult  that you belong to. It is the one preaching it is good to kill unborn humans.  ending a pregnancy is killing an unborn human! why do you make excuses to justify to justify killing unborn humans?

I do not condone killing because it is a commandment by YAHUWAH and I know it is a truth that I respect and obey. Even though more people like you are showing more contempt for life everyday.

the number 1 cause for human death today is not natural causes of sickness aging . it is the murder of unborn humans worldwide.

 

your evil  worldview is the worst kind in league with catholic islame sun/moon worship suckling on the puss from the teets of the whore of of babylon.

 

I hate this evil and desire to destroy its power over every fool like you but I will not save you  from judgement. that is your free will.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
1. It's interesting how you

1. It's interesting how you fear education. Why does Yahuwah like his followers stupid?

2. If you'd show a grown-up interest in the news you'd see that governments are changing their laws more toward your views than atheism.

Don't you get tired of this ritual you've created? You put up the wall of text and someone comes along and destroys it with a few sentences.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHAHAHA

NoMindFascistTroll wrote:
are you comparing yourself to the  allmighty CREATOR

There is no comparison between me and your imaginary sky dictator as I exist and there is evidence that I exist! The same can't be said for your little imaginary friend.

NoMindFascistTroll wrote:
that does not mean when he killed all life during the flood he didnt spare life to repopulatethe earth.

Sorry dude, but there is way too much genetic diversity in the living organisms of today for them to have all come from a few survivors a few thousand years ago. Your claims have no evidence and it shows.

And really, why should anyone accept your baseless claims as anything more then the ramblings of a raving loon if you can't even correctly structure a sentence? If your posts on the nature of the universe look like the writing of a mentally impaired child, then why should anyone treat it as if it has any serious merit? The only thing your posts actually proves is that religion preys upon the minds of weak, ignorant sheeple.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
MoM,Yahuwah said "don't

MoM,

Yahuwah said "don't kill". Then not too long after that he and his chosen people killed a LOT of people.

That makes sense to you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


DoubleS
atheist
DoubleS's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2011-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Are we, still, on the same topic?

mind over matter wrote:



As Tim La Hay wrote in his book, Battle for the mind, "Most of the evil in the world today can be traced to humanism, which took over governments, United Nations, education, television and other most influential fields in life." Humanism controls the society today by a network of organizations - humanistic associations, the education, trade unions, pro-sex programs, universities, porn magazines, even the hospitals and the textbooks of our children. But how much the aims of humanism are beneficial for humanity? It turns out that the values they promote are extremely destructive to the family and society, and especially dangerous for our young people.
 I've always thought that is what religion has, and is, still doing... 
mind over matter wrote:



4. ... The conclusion of the "humanist manifesto" is that the freedom of any kind of sexuality should be allowed: Including same sex relations, sex outside marriage, sex with many partners, or sex with small children and animals. ... 
 Does seem that your invisible friend is overly interested in the sex lives of others, sounds to me like a voyeur who is denying himself pleasure in order that he may deny others. 
mind over matter wrote:



This is a godless religion - a cult of selfishness, immorality and free sex.
...
 If I was to be asked, free sex is a good idea. Why would you want to pay for it if you can get it free? 

 

I am a bit confused though as to how this relates to the age of the earth

 

 

 

 

Cogito, ergo sum: I perceive, thus I do sums.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mind over matter wrote: so

mind over matter wrote:

 so if you die you claim that you are infact evolving? lol

Yes.

The species evolves.

Because of 'deviation'.

Just like 'ideas'.

If no deviation from one 'idea' ever occured, we'd only have the 'one' idea.

A mutation occurs. It deviates from the 'norm'.

The previous 'norm' dies off, leaving the 'evolved' one to reproduce and pass it's mutation on to the next generation.

Through more breeding, the 'novel' mutation now becomes more common, and becomes the new norm.

Then another mutation occurs, deviating once again from the previous norm.

There's both regressive mutation, and progressive mutation.

 

Cumulative error.

Ever heard of it?

 

We are not 'perfect' replicas of the previous generation.

We deviate.

 

It's a reality.

It's 'natural'.

Through 'natural' outcomes, some die off, regardless if the 'model' was 'better' than the previous generation.

Natural 'selection'.

 

Why is such a simple concept, so incredibly difficult to understand?

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
1. It's interesting how

1. It's interesting how you

Submitted by jcgadfly on February 10, 2011 - 3:33pm.

 

1. It's interesting how you fear education. Why does Yahuwah like his followers stupid? YAHUWAH  gives you the ability to relate to HIS creation. How you choose to accept HIS reality is your life testimony.    ASSFLY!

2. If you'd show a grown-up interest in the news you'd see that governments are changing their laws more toward your views than atheism.still  lapping up your own crunchbutter?  ASS FLY

Don't you get tired of this ritual you've created? You put up the wall of text and someone comes along and destroys it with a few sentences.I post a wall of refutations and you slapnuts minions of satans ass retort with a few sentnces of ignore/rant. That is the best you fartards can do to represent the secular humanist manefesto in realtime.  lol

 

THE EVOLUTION DELUSION
C DeSalvo
OVERVIEW:

There is absolutely no observation or experiment that proves evolution exists. Evolution is a myth, just as the past notion of a static universe was a myth. There are no missing links (transitional or intermediate life forms) in the fossil record. There are only unique, true species that are imagined to be missing links. There are no missing links alive anywhere in the modern world. Evolution is a false theory perpetuated by atheists.


A delusion is a belief, thought to be true, but without enough evidence to prove it’s true. Belief in a sun god, moon god and other gods were delusions that comforted ancient peoples by giving them the feeling that they understood something. Other delusions include: the flat earth theory, the notion that the sun revolves around the earth and the idea that mold or bacteria are generated spontaneously on rotting garbage.


The delusion that the universe is static (not expanding nor contracting) lasted for centuries among scientists as well as laypersons. The most brilliant of humans accepted that delusion as true. Einstein, one of the most eminent scientists that ever lived, believed the universe was static. Einstein developed special and general relativity, probably the greatest triumph of scientific understanding ever made. But he so deeply believed in a static universe that when his derived relativity equations indicated the universe was not static, he refused to believe his own work! He distorted his equations by adding a “cosmological constant” to them such that the distorted equations then showed a static universe. When later scientific observations and discoveries proved that the universe is expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.”


Do we still have some beliefs that might be delusions? Yes. Many of us believe in flying saucers and extra-terrestrials. And I offer another likely delusion – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Despite the fact that all species of life that exist look to be designed, atheists cannot accept that God exists, so they promote a myth, Darwinian evolution, to cover up plainly visible reality.


Darwin proposed that once life, a first cell or organism, somehow happened from mineral matter, individual organisms of any one kind of life (species) naturally varied in their characteristics (size, hairiness, intelligence, color, hardiness, attractiveness to mates, etc.). And those organisms with characteristics that favored their survival and reproduction did survive and reproduce more often than organisms that did not have the favorable characteristics. Thus eventually, the favored characteristics dominated the species. As additional, favorable characteristics naturally developed in the population, they too gradually expanded throughout the population. And as that situation repeated itself over and over again, eventually the species changed so much that it became a completely different species. That process -- of natural variation in individual characteristics and natural selection of the fittest -- then continued to produce more and more complex species until it culminated in humans.


The process described in the above paragraph is often called “Darwin’s evolution” or “survival of the fittest” or simply “evolution.” It exists within a species and supposedly can cause sufficient changes that one species can develop into another species.


But people, who don’t believe in Darwin’s evolution, argue that the natural variation and natural selection process can only operate within a species. That process can cause great changes within a species, but it can never cause so much change that it causes a new species to be created. These non-believers in evolution call this limited, within-a-species evolution “micro-evolution” and use the term “macro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. When the word “evolution” is used throughout this note, it means macro-evolution, Darwin’s evolution. The word micro-evolution is used herein for the only-within-a-species process of modification.


Breeders have intelligently selected and manipulated micro-evolution to produce a multitude of animal breeds and plant varieties. But never has a breeder produced a new species. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane look very different and cannot mate naturally, but both are still dogs.


Visit a museum and the evolution section will display example after example of micro-evolution (changes within one species) while wrongly suggesting such changes are macro-evolution (changing one species into another species). Falsely insisting that if a large amount of micro-evolution occurs it will eventually result in macro-evolution.


Darwin openly admitted that his theory was unproven when he made it. But he expected that the future discovery of additional fossils would provide evidence of missing links between modern species -- for instance the intermediate or transitional life forms that gradually, possibly, led from chimpanzees to humans. But modern fossil evidence shows no real missing links. Most of the touted, fossilized, missing links have subsequently been proven to be fakes! Modern science has discovered more fake missing links than true ones!


For there to be missing links in the fossil record the missing links must have been alive at some time in the past. If evolution existed in the past and is a natural phenomenon, there is no reason why it should not exist in the present. The presumed "missing links" were more suited to survival than their predecessors; so why aren't they still living while their “inferior” predecessors (chimpanzees for example) are still alive? If the purposeless, mindless, blind, natural process called evolution exists, why are there no examples of its work-in-progress anywhere in today's world?


Don’t tell me how one species might have changed into another species a million years ago. Show me -- in today’s world -- one member of one species that shows signs of evolving into another species. Show me one wingless insect that has half a wing or one snake or worm that is growing little legs. Can you find one squirrel or lizard, among the billions that exist, that shows sign of nascent wings? Has anyone reported one lizard that looks like it’s losing its legs, or one hippopotamus that shows signs of becoming a whale? Has anyone seen one chimpanzee whose hand-like feet show signs of development toward becoming human feet? Are there any reports of rats becoming wolf like? Of any mammals learning how to use sonar systems like bats and whales? Any humans that are losing their little toes, gaining telepathic powers, the ability to see ultraviolet or infrared light, or the talent to sense the earth’s electric and magnetic fields?

Why is there not one example of evolution acting among the existing billions of members of the millions of species currently alive on earth? The earth should be swarming with fresh missing links. Truly, evolution is the most elusive and mysterious of all conceived natural processes? It appears to have become completely extinct in the modern world. How could that happen to a presumably natural process?


Modern molecular botanists are able to take a gene from one plant species and insert it into the DNA of a different species. Occasionally that modification results in a new plant that has better characteristics than its parent plant. Then scientists exclaim: “We have created a new species.” And they are right! They (intelligent beings) have manipulated DNA to create a new species, but blind, purposeless, mindless evolution was not involved.


Still atheists cannot ever concede that evolution is false. They must always argue that eventually they will find proof that evolution exists, because evolution is the keystone of modern atheism and without evolution atheism is exposed as the lie it really is.


You are not qualified to engage me, chump with chimp envy daisy chained drone!

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
evolution = secular humanist manefesto atheist posers

B166ER's picturethe retardis time machine for proving billions of years

HAHAHAHAHA

Submitted by B166ER on February 10, 2011 - 5:43pm.

 

 

NoMindFascistTroll wrote:
are you comparing yourself to the  allmighty CREATOR

 

There is no comparison between me and your imaginary sky dictator as I exist and there is evidence that I exist! The same can't be said for your little imaginary friend.<   - the only evidence on this post that you exist is the words you left behind for others to read. Anyone could write the stupid babble you call a rebuttal. 

 

NoMindFascistTroll wrote: 
that does not mean when he killed all life during the flood he didnt spare life to repopulatethe earth.

 

Sorry dude, but there is way too much genetic diversity in the living organisms of today for them to have all come from a few survivors a few thousand years ago. Your claims have no evidence and it shows.

And really, why should anyone accept your baseless claims as anything more then the ramblings of a raving loon if you can't even correctly structure a sentence? If your posts on the nature of the universe look like the writing of a mentally impaired child, then why should anyone treat it as if it has any serious merit? The only thing your posts actually proves is that religion preys upon the minds of weak, ignorant sheeple.<- You have no clue about what is observed  as varition within limits and dumbass .

Baseless claims are what you rely on because you have no facts to demonstrate your cunt religion of origins. So you and every drone monkey wannabe preaches the science /nature said so dogma. 

 

 Evolution = ass cunt religionhttp://www.deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html

Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the other,
"Now listen you two,
There's a certain rumor
That can't be true ...
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace."
"No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another."
"And another thing you will never see ...
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste."
"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me."
"And here's something else a monk won't do ...
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life."
"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,
But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!

~ Author Unknown ~

http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/20...evolution.html
Evolution is NOT Science
by David J. Stewart


"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" -1st Timothy 6:20
I frequently receive e-mails from evolutionists who accuse me of being ignorant of science. The absurdity of their accusations rests in the FACT that evolution is NOT based upon science, but rather upon unproven speculations. "Science" means "to study." How can you study something that doesn't exist? How can you call evolution science if it cannot be studied? Evolution is a THEORY, not science. The reason why evolution is only a theory is simply because no one can prove that it ever happened.

If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "*****ed" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution. Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.

God's creation is able to be studied, it is science. Evolution makes huge ASSUMPTIONS which cannot be studied. The only FACT which the evolutionists know for sure about the MISSING LINK is that it is STILL MISSING.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
It makes sense that the supreme being has the right to kill

If you see the word god  it is a mistaken error and should be replaced with YAHUWAH

You are alive today because the select people were saved during the great flood that killled everyone elese who was judged and condemed to be killed by water. The next time willbe by fire.

 

Why did God command people to kill people in Genesis?

To cleanse the land He had given, through divine promise, to Abraham's offspring.

God knew, through His omniscient (all knowing) foreknowledge that Israel could not fully possess the land He had given them until the land had been cleansed of all peoples who were in rebellion against God. By worshipping in a pagan manner rather than in a manner pleasing to God, these people who had to be removed were unclean, and not fit for this special land in God's holy eyes.

Israel sinned by not killing everyone who refused to leave the land of Promise voluntarily. God's chosen people have paid a price in bloodshed and war ever since.

 

 

 

Q. "How is it that in the Old Testament God ordered different people to kill...men, women and children? Even though children, especially, were innocent victims of their warring people, why would God tell someone to kill innocent people? Isn't that going against God's very nature?

The question, as I see it, revolves around the sovereignty of God and His right as creator to bring judgment on those who sin against Him.

The first passage we should consider is:

Genesis 15:16:
"Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

The context reveals that God is explaining to Abram (Abraham) that he and his descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs and will be oppressed for 400 years (Gen. 15:13), but that God will eventually judge the nations (for their sins) (Gen. 15:14).

God's judgment will come when "the iniquity of the Amorite" is complete. In other words, when God determines it is time for judgment.......it will come.

Although this may seem appalling to consider it is God's right to bring judgment on whom He desires, when He desires, through whom He desires, in the manner that He desires. Man simply does not have all of the knowledge required to judge God on this issue. The amazing thing is that God was as long suffering with sinful people as He was. What better way to impress upon God's children the sinfulness of sin than to have them administer a punishment for sin?

It is also true that the nations God commanded Israel to destroy (i.e. Amorite, Canaanites, Midianites) had enticed Israel to sin. God desired to put an end to Idolatry. What better way to eliminate Idolatry than to completely destroy the entire Nation responsible?

Women and children were part of God's judgment in order to completely destroy the influence and Idolatry of the foreign nation.

Although Israel returned to Idolatry time and time again, the Nations judged by God were responsible for their own sin.

It matters not how or when a person dies. It matters what a person's relationship to God is. If children are "innocent" they will be judged by God as such even if they die as part of Gods judgment against the nation in which they live.

Romans 11:22
"Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off."
 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
you want to justify sticking your own prick up your own ass?

you missed a lot of my posts that already expose you as the fraud you are. you daisy chain chump wagon.

http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp

 

PBS’s ‘Evolution’ Series
is Propaganda, not Science

by Josh Gilder
© 2001 and originally published by WorldNetDaily. Used by permission.
“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
– Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins
The wicked and insane will presumably have to fend for themselves, but for the rest of us, PBS has undertaken a massive new “educational” project to promote the “understanding of evolution.”
Apparently there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there, as tech billionaire Paul Allen has ponied up some $15 million for the project (PBS refuses to disclose exactly how much). The centerpiece is an eight-hour documentary series for the week of Sept. 24 through 27, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Much of Allen’s money is going into a national “outreach” program aimed at our public schools. Cadres of “special teachers” are being trained to prep school boards and biology teachers across the country on how to respond to skeptical students and parents. They will be aided by subsidized teaching materials, videos and a special interactive website devoted to clearing up any “misunderstandings” the public might have.
Having sat through all eight hours of the evo-epic, however, I suspect the biggest problem is going to be keeping the students from lapsing into unconsciousness out of the sheer boredom of it all.
Except for a brief lesbian lovemaking scene in the segment about sexual reproduction, which no doubt the kids will be checking out for extra credit, “Evolution” flows more turgidly than the backwaters of the Amazon basin, meandering listlessly through its subject matter (much of which, it would seem, having little to do with evolution) before finally getting stuck in some stagnant pool of political correctness. (AIDS, feminism, homosexuality, the rain forests, and man’s threat to species diversity, all get airtime.)
How on earth does one make evolution boring? Whatever one thinks of it as science, evolution has all the wonder and fascination of a modern day creation myth. And as anybody knows who’s watched the Discovery Channel, with its seemingly infinite supply of wildlife footage of lions taking down gazelles and whatnot, evolution makes great television.
So what went wrong? One can only make an educated guess, but it seems that the evolutionists were blindsided by their own propaganda. It has become such an article of faith with them that any critique of evolution can only come from “creationists”—and is thus by definition unworthy of their attention—that they were unaware of the growing body of evidence against Darwinism.
Last October, however, U.C. Berkeley Ph.D. biologist Jonathan Wells published his groundbreaking “Icons of Evolution.” By that time, one assumes that most of the pre-production of “Evolution” was complete, including detailed scripts. Probably a fair amount of film was already in the can. And here comes a closely argued, thoroughly documented scientific critique, that basically blows their story out of the primordial soup.
The Darwinian story, after all, has remained relatively unchanged for generations. It’s what most of us learned in biology class, and it’s still taught much as we learned it. There’s the Miller-Urey experiment that created the “building blocs” of life in a test-tube. There are Haeckel’s embryos showing that all vertebrates pass through almost identical stages in development (the source of the famous phrase, “ontology recapitulates phylogeny&rdquoEye-wink. There are the bones of bird wings, horse legs and human hands that appear so similar as to prove common ancestry. There are the peppered moths, the finches’ beaks, and the clear line of ascent in the fossil record from ape to human.
As evidence of Darwinian evolution it was, taken altogether, extremely convincing. It has indeed, convinced generations of lay and science students that Darwin, with some minor modifications, had it right.
The problem is that none of it is true, or is so fraught with inconsistencies, misinterpretation and bad (sometimes fraudulent) data as to be worthless as science. “Icons of Evolution” dismantles these “proofs” one by one. Miller and Urey never came close to creating “life in a tube” and recent discoveries about the true nature of Earth’s early atmosphere make “abiogenesis”—the creation of living organisms from non-organic chemicals—more of a Chimera than ever. Haeckel’s embryos turn out to be an outright forgery, a fact that was known even in Darwin’s day, though they continue to appear in standard biology texts. Early vertebrate embryos, it turns out, are radically different in look, size and manner of development, and, despite what we’re told over and over again, human embryos never, ever have “gill slits,” like little fishes.
“Homology”—the similar structures of some animals—is as good a proof of design (more about that later) as it is of evolution and common descent, especially considering the frequent number of homologous structures that even evolutionists don’t believe developed from a common ancestor (think of the “duck-billed” platypus). The peppered moths had to be glued to tree trunks—where they rarely rest in nature—for that experiment to yield the right (pro-evolutionary) result, and the finches’ beaks, which did grow longer during droughts, reverted to their original size once the drought is over—evidence not of evolution but its opposite, the extraordinary stability of species.
One can’t blame the producers for not knowing this. Most evolutionary “experts” were equally in the dark.
While the problems with each specific “proof” of evolution might be known to people in that specialized discipline (moth experts, for instance), apparently none of them had bothered to share notes. Thus the college-level biology textbook edited by Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of sciences, to this day presents Haeckel’s forged embryos as factual, and leading biologist and evo-enthusiast Jerry Coyne was shocked to only recently discover the truth about peppered moths.
The response of the Darwinist camp was largely to ignore Wells’ scientific critique (there wasn’t much they could say, after all) or offer only ad hominem attacks. Wells, they claimed, was religiously motivated. Why else would he publish such a book? None seemed particularly concerned that generations of students had been fed misinformation under the guise of science. A few of the textbook writers themselves averred that one had to “simplify” examples to help students’ understanding, which is a bit like teaching them that the sun rotates around the earth because it’s so much simpler to grasp. And then, many of these books were intended for college and post-graduate biology students.
Their final line of defense was that even if all of these proofs of evolution were wrong, it didn’t matter, because there were so many other and better examples out there. The world was just full of them.
Well, judging by eight hours of “Evolution,” apparently not. Clearly the producers had to scramble for material to fill their eight hours, which is why we have long digressions into what appear to be AIDS awareness seminars, great swatches of pre-packaged “save our planet” environmentalism, long speculations about sex from sociobiologists, and enough humping bonobo apes to warm Peter Singer’s, well, cockles.
The rest is rife with error. The Discovery Institute, a non-profit founded by old Reagan-hand Bruce Chapman, and a center for Intelligent Design science (more about this in a moment), has published a 150-page critique of “Evolution” documenting its numerous factual errors, historical distortions, suppositions masquerading as scientific proof and wholly gratuitous condescension toward the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the American people. For those interested, the full “Evolution” errata can be accessed online. (For purposes of full disclosure, this author is also connected with Discovery Institute.)
There are too many errors in “Evolution” to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution” thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
The producers of “Evolution” unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.” Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution” mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time” which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,” in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
But of course, the 5,000 pound primate in the middle of the room that the Darwinists won’t even mention is what has come to be known as the Intelligent Design movement, or ID for short. In eight hours, I caught only one glancing reference to Intelligent Design in the last episode, and even that was a mischaracterization. For this series, ID is the dog that didn’t bark. And from a purely strategic point of view, they are right to ignore it, because once the theory of Intelligent Design is allowed into the debate, Darwin is destined to follow Freud and Marx onto the ash heap of history.
At this point, perhaps, we need to take a time out for some personal information. It is practically axiomatic among Darwinists that the only people who would question Darwinism are religiously motivated, Bible-thumping fundamentalists from out there in those strange red areas of the map. This is a point, indeed, that is endlessly reiterated in various forms throughout the eight hours of “Evolution.” Everyone else knows—or in the words of Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, “every educated person” knows—that Darwinian evolution is a “simple fact.”
Well, for the record, evolution never offended my religious sensibilities. It seemed to me that if God wanted to create the natural world through a process of evolution, it wasn’t my place to tell him no. And, in as much as being a conservative often means emphatically not knowing what “everybody knows”—that missile defense will never work, for example, or that Reagan’s tax cuts produced “the worst economy ever”—I long took comfort that, when it came to evolution at least, I was right in line with elite opinion.
The trouble started, as it usually does, when I began to pay attention. In 1996, a molecular biologist at Lehigh University by the name of Michael Behe published a book entitled “Darwin’s Black Box” that raised new and interesting theoretical objections to Darwinism. While the biological details were tough sledding for your average layman (e.g., me), the basic theoretical argument was not. Behe pointed out that the knowledge base in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology has exploded in size over the last 50 years, leaving Darwinism decades behind on the learning curve. We now know that the cell, for instance, which Darwin thought to be barely more than a lump of protoplasm, is in fact a miracle of nanotechnology, a tiny factory full of miniature machines far more complex than anything human beings could design today.
Behe’s striking insight, however, was not simply that these biological systems are complex, but that they are what he calls irreducibly complex. Like many mechanical devices of our own invention, these biological machines are made up of many interlocking parts, each one of which has to be fully developed and integrated into the whole for the machine to function. If one part is taken away, or is not fully developed, the whole mechanism breaks down. For a biological organism, that means it confers zero added survival value.
And there’s the rub, because Darwinian evolution assumes that these biological machines developed gradually over millions of years by means of random variation and natural selection. (Even Darwinists agree that the chance of such an assemblage happening all at once in one “lucky accident” is beyond the realm of possibility.) Imagine a car engine developing gradually, and one gets a sense of the difficulty here. You might have the engine block, but if you’ve got to wait around another million years for the spark plugs or pistons, you’re not going anywhere.
There have been many thoughtful critiques of Darwinism over the years, but what Behe had done here was raise a conceptual threshold that the Darwinists had to cross for their theory to retain even theoretical plausibility. Given the stakes, you might expect the Darwinists would be quick to come up with a counter-argument. You might, but five years later you’d still be waiting.
Richard Dawkins, of the above quotation, did give a revealing reply when asked about Behe’s book on Ben Wattenberg’s program “Think Tank”:
  • “I’m not the best person equipped to think about it because I’m not a biochemist. … I don’t have that biochemical knowledge. Behe has. Behe should stop being lazy and should get up and think for himself about how the flagellum [one of Behe’s examples] *****ed. …”
In other words, the truth—Darwinian evolution—is preordained and it’s the scientists’ job to only find the “facts” that fit.
Since that time Dawkins—like the other famous popularizer of Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould—has refused to debate Behe, choosing instead the Darwinists’ preferred tactic: They accused him of religion. Both Gould and Dawkins have repeatedly called him a “creationist,” which is as good as writing him out of the legitimate scientific community, and has the further benefit of making it unnecessary to actually answer his critique of Darwinism.
Behe is indeed religious. He is a Roman Catholic—as are many scientists who call themselves Darwinists—but he was a Catholic through most of his scientific career when, like many of his colleagues, he unquestioningly accepted Darwinism. He’s still a Catholic now that his scientific investigations have led him to reject standard evolutionary theory. Behe doesn’t believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, accepts what modern geology tells us about the age of the earth, and even believes in some form of common descent. Hardly what most people mean by “creationist.”
What does carry uncomfortable religious connotations for avowed atheists like Gould and Dawkins, however, is the scientific outgrowth of Behe’s insights, namely the theory of Intelligent Design. This theory simply says that if these biological systems couldn’t have developed through purely natural processes, but had to be assembled all at one time (something, as noted above, that chance is simply incapable of doing) then there is a high probability that they were designed. And our experience of the world tells us, every designed artifact must have an intelligence behind it doing the designing.
Who or what that intelligence is obviously has far reaching philosophical implications, but has little to do with the science of Intelligent Design itself, which is silent of the identity of the designer. It might be the Judeo-Christian God, it might be Shiva, it might be some alien intelligence (not so silly as it sounds: Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA believes that life was seeded on this planet from outer space) or it might be what physicist Paul Davies speculates is some, as yet undiscovered, “emergent” property in matter itself. (Neither Crick nor Davies are followers of ID, but their problems with Darwinian explanations of life are emblematic of how shaky Darwinian theory actually is.) Intelligent Design scientists themselves cover the range of religious belief and unbelief.
What the theory does say is that design is an empirically testable hypothesis, and in the past several years, a growing body of scientists— in fields as diverse as biology, genetics, mathematics, physics, cosmology and even computer science—has adopted the theory as a fruitful line of investigation.
Interestingly, the mathematicians, physicists and cosmologists have always been more open to such ideas. As the great astronomer Fred Hoyle once said, “there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Nobel prize laureate Arno Penzias said these coincidences suggested a “supernatural plan.” Biology, and the study of how living organisms, including man, came into being, strikes closer to home, however, and this is where the real battleground is today.
Which brings us back to PBS’s epic “Evolution” series and the urgency they feel to—as stated in an internal PBS memorandum—“co-opt [the] existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools” with a massive marketing campaign (including “viral” and “guerilla” marketing) aimed at “niche audiences,” particularly “educators” and “public officials.”
In the past, the courts have been their best allies, ruling “creation science” unfit for public schools because of its religious taint. ID, however, is a different animal altogether, and no matter how often they conflate it with “creationism” they won’t be able to beat it back with the “separation of church and state” stick forever. Even the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have run front-page articles on Intelligent Design, acknowledging it as a real scientific endeavor.
But not PBS.
PBS claims there was no stonewall. The producers say that they contacted the Discovery Institute—a center of much of the ID movement— and invited its scientists to participate. Indeed the producers did, but only in the last segment, “What About God,” and only to give their personal testaments of faith. In as much as ID is a scientific movement, and not a religious one, the scientists declined. It was an especially wise decision, since the producer of the “What About God?” episode, Bill Jersey, was well known for a 1992 documentary on religious fundamentalism that more or less equated American evangelicals with Muslim terrorists in the Mideast. As it turns out, Mr. Jersey’s contribution to “Evolution” was very much in character, a condescending and offensive look at antievolution fundamentalists and their beliefs.
At a recent PBS press conference I asked the overall series producer, Richard Hutton, why Intelligent Design’s scientific critique of evolution was completely ignored. He answered that he’d looked into it and decided there was nothing there. That’s one way to decide important scientific disputes—let a TV producer decide.
As it happens, one of the leading ID theorists is University of Chicago-trained mathematician and probability theorist Bill Dembski. He’s got multiple Ph.D.s, has published work in the prestigious Cambridge University press and has done postdoctoral work at Cornell, M.I.T., Chicago and Princeton. He is highly regarded in his field for the contributions he’s made to the rather arcane field of probability theory. In November he will be publishing a book, “No Free Lunch,” which applies his theoretic insights to Darwinian evolution. Already, he’s got enough enthusiastic blurbs from top scientists to cover several book jackets, but one, from leading Darwinist Michael Ruse, is particularly applicable. Even “those of us who do not accept his conclusions,” Ruse writes, “should read this book. … He should not be ignored.” That, of course, is the voice of someone whose first passion is science —the search for true knowledge, wherever it may lead. But for PBS, science is clearly beside the point. It doesn’t matter with propaganda if your facts are wrong. With 15 or so million dollars of Paul Allen’s money, and a free-ride on America’s public airwaves, not to mention the publicly-funded infrastructure of PBS stations and affiliates, no doubt the producers of this series will, for a time at least, “co-opt” the dialogue on evolution. But only for a time. In science, where there is still some respect for facts after all, the truth does have a way of coming out in the end.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
atheists believe what they cannot never prove

redneF's picture

mind over matter wrote: so

Submitted by redneF on February 18, 2011 - 3:14pm.

 

 

mind over matter wrote:

 

 so if you die you claim that you are infact evolving? lol

 

 

Yes.

The species evolves.

Because of 'deviation'.

Just like 'ideas'.

If no deviation from one 'idea' ever occured, we'd only have the 'one' idea.

A mutation occurs. It deviates from the 'norm'.

The previous 'norm' dies off, leaving the 'evolved' one to reproduce and pass it's mutation on to the next generation.

Through more breeding, the 'novel' mutation now becomes more common, and becomes the new norm.

Then another mutation occurs, deviating once again from the previous norm.

There's both regressive mutation, and progressive mutation.

 

Cumulative error.

Ever heard of it?

 

We are not 'perfect' replicas of the previous generation.

We deviate.

 

It's a reality.

It's 'natural'.

Through 'natural' outcomes, some die off, regardless if the 'model' was 'better' than the previous generation.

Natural 'selection'.

 

Why is such a simple concept, so incredibly difficult to understand?<- Because you believe it cures your dementia. You slapnut drone  slime wannabe.

 

 LIFE is not natural dumb ass!  you have never witnessed anything you call knowledge based on observation, you fraud lover drone minion of satans ass cunt.

Evolution should not be taught in high school science classes because it is not a scientific theory. It fails the requirement of falsifiability that is the litmus test for judging whether an investigation is scientific.
The modern scientific method is defined in terms of hypotheses, theories and laws. The difference between each is the level of acceptance in the scientific community. What they all have in common is that they must be falsifiable. This means that it must be possible to run an experiment that would prove the theory (or hypothesis or law) wrong, if it were not true.
Empiricism (a basis in experiment) is what gives science it's credibility. It means that a scientist in Poland does not have to take your word for it - they can do their own experiment and attempt to disprove it for themselves. The falsifiability part prevents people from coming up with theories that can only be proved right. Evolution fails both of these tests. There is no experiment that can test the theory. Any new evidence that comes to light cannot disprove the theory - only either back it up or call for a modification of the evolutionary tree or a modification of the theory.
Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.
The modern scientific method arose during the scientific revolution - after the renaissance. Observation of nature and speculation do form part of the scientific method. That is how new hypotheses are formed. However, they should be immediately checked to see whether they are scientific or not.
Evolution is not a scientific theory - discussions


Evolution - all talk and no show



"Religion vs. Science; Which came first Creation or Evolution?"

What is all the hullabuloo over today when it comes to discussing where we came from, as well as where every living thing around us came from? Why is it that there are those that don't want the theory of Creation taught side by side with the theory of Evolution?
To start with, what exactly is the difference in the two? The first thing that will be used against Creation is that it is religious material, and we can't forget the "rule" of "seperation of church and state." Well, for starters, this "rule" was contrived by the Courts, so it isn't law, and secondly, Creation science is only religious if you make it religious in the classroom.
Creation science taught in the classroom is no different than the theory of evolution. Creation science, with the religious aspect taken out, is nothing more than one group of people's reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be. How is that any different than what the theory of evolution is? Is that not also a group of people's reasoning of how we and all that is around us came to be? So what's the beef?
Well, personally, I think the beef is with the whole concept that anything but evolution would even be considered as an alternative concept to how man came to be. That would take the limelight away from something that science wants to push as "fact" when there is no evidence to support it as such. Many people who are forced to study this subject never give it a second thought. They are simply yes-men to get through a course, receive a credit and go on with life. But some, such as myself, aren't so willing to just let things slide by without asking some questions.
Simply because I want to know the fundamental answers to questions that have yet went unanswered, to some who are more educated than I, make me appear or seem intolerable.
But taking into consideration both the theory of evolution and the matter of the theory of creation, religion can have more to it's meaning than an adherence to God and Biblical teaching. It is also described as "a cause, principle, or SYSTEM OF BELIEFS held to with ardor (extreme vigor or ******; syn, passion) and faith (one meaning is literally "firm belief in something for which there is no proof) Source: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. This could be easily applied to both theories of mankind's coming into existence to where he is today. Therefore, the following statement could be told as true fact, if one cares to read and understand the English Language. The theory of evolution is taught and held in such high regard in the scientific community and with some science teachers in our school systems, according to the definition applied above, it can be considered religious science.
Would we be able to classify the theory of creation as a HYPOTHESIS? Again, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary states that when using the word hypothesis, which is a synonym of "theory", it implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation. A tentative explanation would mean an explanation based solely or mainly on tenets, in this case those would be religious tenets. Merriam-Webster describes tenet as "a principle, beleif, or doctrine generally held to be true, especially : one held common by members of an organization, movement, or profession", such as the members of the religious organizations, movements, and professions.
Now, could you apply the same paragraph above to the theory of evolution? Try it, but where it has the words religious, replace them with scientific.
At best the theory of evolution is based on scientific conjecture. But one thing is sure with both the theory of evolution and creation science, since neither have been "scientifically proven" and neither are beyond reproof, both have one major thing in common. One has to put FAITH in either in order to BELIEVE either.

In order for anyone to believe either the theory of evolution or the theory of creation, one must put a certain degree of faith in either, because neither are provable in the scientific field. Merriam-Webster's defines belief and gives three different definitions:

BELIEF:
1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
2) something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.
3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon : especially when based on examination of evidence.


I lean more toward definition number two when defining belief in the theory of evolution. Mainly because it is supported by tenets (a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession), such as the scientific community. And in order to beleive on something that is unfounded in fact and not proven yet in the scientific field, you must have a certain degree of faith in what are beleiving in. Faith is defined as a synonym of belief (almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof). Another synonym of belief listed along with faith is credence (suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent). The word credence means "mental acceptance as true or real". synonym see BELIEF

As explained above, evolution is in and of itself a type of religion, perhaps grounded in secularism and Darwinism.

Many cry out for immediate proof when the two theories are presented side by side; proof on the side of Creationism that is. And even when presented with proof, they still are not satisfied. And am I surprised? No. Because these people will never be satisfied, they do not want proof, they want acceptance of thier theory as fact. And no questions asked about the gaps that aren't filled in.
Evolution can still be classified as theory, and to my knowledge science still sees it that way and calls it that because no one can produce hard evidence to support or raise the theory to the level of scientific law. Science hasn’t even established enough evidence to raise the theory of evolution to the level of PROBABILITY.

At best the Theory of Evolution is scientific conjecture.

To Summarize:

Evolution is scientific religion based in the belief of tenets that are espoused to declare and uphold scientific dogma, based on scientific tenets, used in the "theory of evolution" readily accepted with no proof needed to sustain their acceptance, simply an assertion that it "likely" happened that way, it is based on what is known as Darwinism.
It, in and of itself, is based and built on the same principles that is used to tear down, discredit, and prohibit teaching creation science in public schools today. That being simply a presumption of readily accepted whims and notions as "scientific fact", thus the justification for calling it preached dogma in the scientific community and the classrooms.
It is thrown around with a dictatorial attitude by the secularists of today, and by those who seek to readily seperate church and state. Yet on the same breath they preach their "theory" in the same way that Creation is preached in the Churches by Christians according to them. To the secularist, Creation Science is a myth, the Bible is a myth, full of fairy tales, but they are afraid to have to preach one myth beside the other myth, because they fear something, what, I'm not quite sure. Teaching Creation Science is not teaching religion or religious beliefs, it is, in their words, nothing more than another fairy tale, a myth, a "theory of creation".
The "theory of evolution" is a widely held scientific belief, not based on proven facts, not proven as fact, simply accepted at face value, forced upon the students whether they agree or not as the way man came into existence, it is dictatorial scientific dogma. It is an ism, which is a type of doctrine, theory, or cult based on the teachings and studies of Darwin, hence the term, Darwinism. The very idea that it is taught in the science classrooms around the country give credence to it as a whole, yet it is nothing more than a hypothetical, a theory, not even able to rise to the level of probability, science classifies it as a "likelihood", which points to probability, but not quite reaches that threshold. It is "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof". How many times were you able to do a science experiment based on those principles? Well, I can almost prove it, but not quite, Mr. Teacher, is that good enough for the grade?
Again, the "theory of creation" is no different, it's just that some people don't like that theory, but that's ok, because it comes from a book that some use as a religious guide book, but to those that do not believe in religion, why do they fear the competition of an alternate theory?



 

 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
lucky for you jesus is not YAHUWSHUA u r still doomed, fool!

you believe evolution? prove it! asshole!


Evolution: Fact or Faith?
What is 'Science'?
The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation and repeatability. Neither Creation nor Evolution are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. The origin of the universe, life and mankind all took place in the past and cannot be studied or repeated in the laboratory. No one, in all human history has ever observed evolution taking place anywhere.
'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory..is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof' (The Foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Harrison L. Matthews. p. x)
'In the classic work, "Implications of Evolution", Dr. G.A. Kerkut, listed seven assumptions upon which evolution is based, and then said.."The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification". (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerut. Pergmon, London. p. 7, 1960)

Evolution: Fact or Faith?
The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God. Evolution is a religion is every sense of the word. It is a world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain the origin and development of everything from the elements to galaxies to people. There are essentially only three modern creationist religions, orthodox Judaism, Islam and Christianity, these are founded upon the belief in one self-existent eternal Creator, who called the universe itself into existence (Psalm 33:6,9).
At this central beginning point the Bible and Evolution part ways. There is no way that you can believe in an eternal universe and the following passages that all PLACE GOD PRIOR TO 'ALL THINGS MADE'-(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:10-12).


Even evolutionists consider 'evolution' to be a 'faith'

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong SUSPECT he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" ("An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry, Vol. 2, Spring 1982 p. 9 By Paul Kurtz).
Logically, if Mr. Asimov doesn't have the 'evidence' to disprove the existence of God (including creation); then neither can he have the 'evidence' that proves his atheism (and the evolution that under-girds it). Which means that his atheism is a 'faith-religion', and he realizes that evolution lacks 'proof'. Before we move on, many assume that no 'real' scientist would ever believe in creation. The following scientists did: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, ******, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.

What we haven't been told:
In the Creation-Evolution debate, Christians have been depicted as naive, stupid, gullible, ignorant, having their heads in the sand, out of date, and so on. God tells Christians not to be gullible, to get all the facts (Mark 4:24; 1 Thess. 5:21). The following are things that we haven't been told on PBS, in the National Geographic, or in the classroom. Why?

A. CONCERNING THE FOSSIL RECORD:
The impression given in our schools and in the media is that evolution is an established fact of science, and that it is clearly demonstrated in the fossil record. If evolution did happen, then the fossil record should be full of 'evidence'. But Stephen Jay Gloud, Harvard's top evolutionist has admitted: "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless"
Another evolutionist adds: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology (the study of fossils) DOES NOT PROVIDE THEM" (Evolution. Vol. 28 (Sept. 1974). p. 467. David B. Kitts 'Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory'). What this means is that living things have remained the same! This agrees with what Christians have believed all along. (Genesis 1:12,21,24)

B. EVOLUTION AND ESTABLISHED LAWS OF SCIENCE:
The most universal laws of science are the first and second law of thermodynamics. "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down" (Isaac Asimov. 1973). This is the second law, all systems are in the process of running down, decaying, growing old, moving from order to disorder. The Bible agrees (Hebrews 1:11-12). But evolution has everything moving 'upward', not downward:
"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, NOT MORE ORDER" ("A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity". Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982). p. 1239 Roger Lewin)

C. THE SUPPOSED AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:
We often hear dates in the billions for the age of the universe. These dates are frequently stated in the classroom or on television. "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are CLAIMED TO BE. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years (boy, that narrows it down-M.D.). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock" (The Science of Evolution. New York. Macmillan. 1977. p. 84 William D.Stansfield)

D. THE AGE OF MAN HIMSELF:
Evolution claims that man has been on the earth for a million years. The problem is that using population statistics, the universe should be packed with people. Assuming a million year occupation, starting with two people, taking a very conservative growth rate (1/2 percent---the current is 2 percent), a million years of mankind would calculate to a present population of 10 to the 2100 power people (only 10 to the 130 power electrons could be crammed into the entire known universe!) The same figures would arrive at the current population on the planet in 4000 years. It is interesting to note that Jesus placed man and woman 'from the beginning of Creation' (Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4). Jesus didn't have a 4 billion year gap between the planet and mankind's arrival.

E. THE GEOLOGICAL COLUMN:
For years we have been told that the Geological Column, the assemblage of fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks around the world, was formed over millions of years. But: (1) Every unit in the column was formed rapidly (The Nature of the Geographical Record. New York. John Wiley Publ., 1981. pp. 54, 106-107, etc..Derek V. Ager). (2) There are no worldwide unconformities in the column (that is, "time breaks, or periods of erosion rather than deposition&quotEye-wink. The entire column from bottom to top reflects unbroken continuity (i.e. one layer laid down right after another). (3) Supposed 'old' and 'new' fossils are mixed up in the column. Rocks of all types, minerals, metals, coal and oil, structures of all types are found indiscriminately in rocks of all 'supposed time periods'. Rather than a slow process, involving millions of years, this sounds like the column was formed all at one time, during and following a great world wide disaster, a disaster that would of curned up the whole face of the earth, moved whole mountains and formed others, buried hundreds, thousands and millions of living things in common graves--hey, this sounds a lot like the Flood of Noah. Sadly, everybody wants to forget about the flood. (2 Peter 3:3-7).

What does evolution have left?
'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' ( Harvard geneticist and evolutionist Richard Lewontin. In an interview in Harpers entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. Feb. 1985 p. 61)
Think about this above argument long and hard. This evolutionist has admitted that no one has ever found an organism that did not originate from parent-stock! Is this evidence a death-blow to creation? Or is it a death-blow to evolution? Which 'theory' affirms that all life has come from pre-existing life? In Creation, ultimately everything came from God. (Genesis 1:1). In evolution, where did everything ultimately come from? Life or non-life?

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
intelligent argument proves intelligent design

redneF's picture

Hey thanks!I was looking for

Submitted by redneF on February 10, 2011 - 2:47pm.

 

Hey thanks!

I was looking for an avatar...

 

It suites you.  Brings out your true qualities as a dumb ass who looks forward to damnation.

 

 


The Human Nervous System: Evidence of Intelligent Design [Part I]

byBrad Harrub, Ph.D.

[EDITORSNOTE: The following article is the first in a series of articles by Dr. Harrub that will appear in future issues of R&R. The intelligent design of the human body provides scientific evidence for God. In order to appreciate the complexity and design of the body’s various systems, the reader may find some of these details cumbersome or tedious. Nevertheless, they demonstrate conclusively the handiwork of an Intelligent Designer. Dr. Harrub’s academic expertise in anatomy and neurobiology well-equip him to author this series.]
It is difficult to get through a major airport today without riding on a tram or air-train of some type. These unmanned transportation systems help travelers move quickly over long distances. Most people give no thought to the complexity of these transportation systems. We simply rely on them to be on time, stop at specific points, and open doors so that passengers can load and unload at particular locations. No one would argue this transportation system arose by chance or a non-purposive process. The ability to load passengers, travel to specific destinations, and unload passengers is the product of purposeful design.
Yet, within the nerve cells that compose the human nervous system is a similar transport system that is far more complex than man-made trams. Synaptic vesicles are loaded with specific neurotransmitters that are then delivered to the end terminal of the axon. Upon activation, these vesicles will “dump” their contents into the synaptic cleft (the space between nerve cells). This action requires the nerve cell to be able to manufacture neurotransmitters, correctly load specific transmitters into the correct vesicles, transport the vesicle to a specific place, store the vesicles until they are needed, empty the vesicle upon activation, and then “clean-up” after itself. And this complex transportation system is just one small aspect of the human nervous system. How could anyone critically evaluate this system and then ignore the manifestly evident design?
When examining each of the systems of the human body, the logical place to begin is with the nervous system. The nervous system is the collection of nerve cells and body tissues that regulate the body’s response to internal and external stimuli by electrical and chemical signals. German anatomist Waldeyer-Hartz was the first person to maintain that the nervous system was built out of separate cells and their delicate extensions (Asimov, 1994, p. 446). He called the nerve cells “neurons,” and his thesis that the nervous system is composed of separate neurons is known today as the neuron theory. Separately, these neurons are helpless in trying to maintain homeostasis in the body. But purposefully arranged together, these individual cells perform feats that make most telecommunication systems appear primitive. Organs, glands, and vessels throughout the body are constantly controlled and coordinated by individual neurons, and each of these structures would be ineffective without nerve input and feedback. By comparison, lamps, stereos, television sets, hand mixers, and computers all carry out specific functions, but only if they are wired to an electrical source. Similarly, the heart, kidneys, pancreas, bladder, and lungs carry out specific body functions, but without the “wiring” and input from the nervous system these organs would be completely useless.
This dependence on the nervous system poses a serious “chicken or egg” scenario for the body’s multiple systems. Organs require the nervous system in order to function properly. But without the organs in place, what role would the brain play? This labyrinth of complexity gets even more astonishing once one considers that evolutionists must also identify why a creature would *****e a complex nerve cell without a brain to process the sensory information.
Consider the conundrum into which this complex system places evolutionists. In order for the brain to work, it must be able to send and receive input via nerves. Nerve cells are of little use without the spinal cord and brain to process and integrate the information. If the Darwinian Theory is correct, then nerves must have preceded the evolution of the brain (because the brain is composed of trillions of neurons). But without a processing unit, what purpose would such nerves serve? Consider also that it takes a cell to make a cell, thus the question of how and when these original nerve cells originated becomes extremely challenging for evolutionists. Surely, one cannot consider the complexity of the nervous system on both the macroscopic and microscopic levels without realizing that all of the parts are necessary and must be simultaneously intact to have a functioning system.
Michael Behe defined “irreducible complexity” as a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning (1996, p. 39). The nervous system is an excellent example of irreducible complexity. To propagate the nerve signal from one nerve cell to another requires molecular channels on the nerve cell to open and close in an orchestrated and coordinated fashion. If synaptic vesicles do not pick up the correct neurotransmitter, or are not delivered to the correct region of the cell, or are unable to be stored, or are unable to deposit their contents into the synaptic cleft, then the whole system would break down and the human would soon suffer physiological abnormalities that could lead to death. All of the parts must work together in order for the system to function properly. A detailed examination of the nervous system quickly reveals that it is irreducibly complex, possessing an intricate arrangement that we are only now beginning to understand. And yet, this entire system is alleged to have arisen—not from an Intelligent Designer—but rather from millions of years of mutations and natural selection. A thorough investigation into the intricacies of this system soon demonstrates that design requires a Designer. [NOTE: The primary sources for the anatomy and physiology described below are drawn from Moore, 1992; Kandel, et al., 1991; and Netter, 1994.]
INTELLIGENT DESIGN

 The concept of intelligent design is not a new phenomenon. Many classical philosophers like Plato recognized the concept that purposeful arrangement could only be possible in light of intelligent input. As Davis and Poe noted, “The idea of design suggests the existence of a designer. If the universe actually was designed, how did it come to be designed? More importantly for personal beings, if the universe actually was designed, who designed it?” (2002, p. 2). Because intelligent design implies that there is a designer, evolutionists are adamant that everything can be explained by purely naturalistic, materialistic causes. Immunologist Scott Todd observed: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (1989, p. 423, emp. added). Evolutionist Julian Huxley affirmed: “At first sight the biological sector seems full of purpose. Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words ‘as if.’ As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one” (1963, p. 16, emp. added). Twenty-five years after Huxley penned those words, Amherst Professor George Greenstein observed:
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? Do we not see in its harmony, a harmony so perfectly fitted to our needs, evidence of what one religious writer has called ‘a preserving, a continuing, an intending mind, a Wisdom, Power and Goodness far exceeding the limits of our thoughts?’ A heady prospect. Unfortunately I believe it to be illusory (1988, p. 27, emp. added).
Notwithstanding, the complexity and design observed in the human nervous system are anything but simply “apparent” or “illusory.” The Darwinian Theory falls woefully short in providing a suitable answer to how nerve cells and the entire nervous system originated in the first place. Davis and Poe noted: “The challenge for those expressing only a materialistic explanation is to show how mutations and natural selection explain the complex and highly interdependent molecular systems” (2002, p. 202). That challenge has not and cannot be met.
In considering the nervous system one must ask the question: what makes it work? Were its atoms arbitrarily arranged by “nature”? Davis and Poe further remarked:
A different approach to the information content of DNA is provided by the chemist-philosopher Michael Polanyi. Polanyi accepted the fact that materialists define life like a machine (forces and matter). Then he asked what makes something a machine. Is it the material from which the machine is composed, or is it the function of the machine? Consider a pile of iron filings and a pair of scissors. There is no difference in the two at the atomic level. Where they differ is in their function. Polanyi is saying that for any machine (non-biological or biological), we have to look beyond the physical-chemical components to the organizational function or purpose (p. 203, emp. added).
But most scientists do not want to consider that without a purposeful arrangement, the nervous system would be useless. Elaborate configuration reveals design, and design indicates a Designer. William Dembski remarked:
Should design be permitted back into science generally and biology in particular? Scientists bristle at the very thought. For scientists who are atheists, design is an accident of natural history. Indeed, with no divine architect to start creation on its course, any designing agents, including ourselves, must result from a long evolutionary process that itself was not designed. For the atheist, design occurs at the end of an undesigned natural process and cannot be prior to it (1999, p. 122).
Proper examination of the nervous system uncovers a world of irreducible complexity. However, most researchers today have a prior commitment, i.e., bias, to evolution and naturalism. Thus, they are left to try to explain away the idea of irreducible complexity. Dembski noted:
But what about irreducible complexity? Can the Darwinian mechanism account for irreducible complexity? Certainly if selection acts with reference to a goal, it can produce irreducible complexity.... But the selection operating in biology is Darwinian natural selection. And this form of selection operates without goals, has neither plan nor purpose and is wholly undirected. The great appeal of Darwin’s selection mechanism was, after all, that it would eliminate teleology from biology (Dembski, pp. 147-148).
Additionally, one must acknowledge that the nervous system not only demonstrates irreducible complexity, but it also exhibits “minimal function.” That is, it is not good enough just to *****e a cell that can conduct a nerve signal. The signal must be conducted fast enough that it allows the animal sufficient time to react. A nerve cell that “works” is not good enough. It must be a neuron that works fast enough that it can serve a specific function. Consider also that humans possess both a voluntary and involuntary nervous system, composed of several different neuron types. The voluntary nerves are ones that are controlled by the individual (e.g., skeletal muscles). Involuntary muscles act without any direction from the individual (e.g., digestive muscles). Also bear in mind that each one of these different neurons receives excitatory or inhibitory input from a variety of neurotransmitters which must be present in the correct quantity at the synaptic junction in order to send the correct message.
Yet, evolutionists still maintain a naturalistic theory of origins. Ignoring the obvious, Darwinian philosopher Helena Cronin avowed: “All this apparent design has come about without a designer. No purpose, no goals, no blueprints. Natural selection is simply about genes replicating themselves down the generations. Genes that build bodies that do what’s needed—seeing, running, digesting, mating—get replicated; and those that don’t, don’t” (1997/1998, p. 80). Apparent design without a designer? So exactly where did those genes originate to allow one to see, run, digest, and reproduce? The evidence unequivocally points to a Designer!
FUNCTIONS OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM

 The human nervous system is composed of billions of nerve cells often referred to as neurons. Regarding just the nerve cells in the brain, Michael Denton, senior fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, noted:
Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the brain (1985, p. 330).
 
A densely branching Purkinje cell found in the cerebellum demonstrating the immense connectivity in the brain.
 

These nerve cells are responsible for sending electrical impulses from one part of the body to another. By monitoring both the internal and external environment, the nervous system is responsible for keeping the body in a state of homeostasis—maintaining a relatively constant internal environment. Often, the brain will be sent sensory messages from nerves in the body, alerting it that the temperature is cold, or that it is experiencing pain. The brain conversely sends out electrical messages that tell muscles to contract in an effort to immediately pull on a sweater or move the hand from a hot stove. In examining the swiftness of the brain compared to computers, Roger Lewin stated: “[T]he fastest computer clocks up a billion or so operations a second, which pales to insignificance beside the 100 billion operations that occur in the brain of a fly at rest (1992, p. 160). John Pfeiffer called the nervous system: “the most elaborate communications system ever devised” (1961, p. 4). That same year, Allison Burnett wrote an article in Natural History in which she declared: “The nervous system of a single starfish, with all its various nerve ganglia and fibers, is more complex than London’s telephone exchange” (as quoted in Jackson, 2000, p. 53). However, the human nervous system is infinitely more complex than the starfish.
The primary functions of the nervous system can be divided into four main categories:
1. Sensory input-reception. The human body possesses millions of sensory receptors (e.g., auditory receptors, skin receptors, retinal cells, etc.) that help detect changes both within and outside the body. These receptors monitor things such as heat, light, pressure, smell, and electrolytic levels. This information is commonly referred to as sensory input and must be converted to a chemical signal which can then be sent to the brain.
2. Transmission. Transmission refers to the propagation of a nerve impulse from one nerve cell to another. This communication is often referred to as synaptic transmission, because the synapse is the place where this action occurs. We know today that nerve cells use neurotransmitters to propagate these signals to other neurons. Neurons can respond to stimuli and conduct an impulse down the cell body because of a membrane potential that is established across the cell membrane. In other words, there is an unequal distribution of ions (charged atoms) on the two sides of a nerve cell membrane. By gating specific channels, an action potential (see more details below) is generated and passes the nerve signal down the axon and on to the next nerve cell. Nerve impulses can travel at speeds of up to 250-300 miles per hour, depending on the type of cells involved.
3. Integration. Integration occurs when the sensory input is processed in order to determine the best response. Commonly referred to as “thinking,” this function is the product of all gathered information from both outside and inside the body.
4. Response. Response is commonly the motor output that results from integration. This step sends information to muscles, glands, and organs (often referred to as effectors) in an effort to generate a desired response.
Bear in mind that these four functions are constantly ongoing in a feedback loop. Responses are constantly modified as more sensory input is received. The nervous system has to be able to send and receive nerve signals simultaneously—and from multiple regions of the body. All four of these functions are necessary in order for the nervous system to be functional. For example, a system that can sense, transmit, and integrate is good; but without the ability to respond the other three functions are meaningless. Likewise, a system that can transmit, integrate, and respond is useless without sensory input. Are we to believe that these four functions *****ed simultaneously? Impossible! Design is the only plausible explanation. As Nobel Laureate Sir Ernst B. Chain declared,
I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts (as quoted in Clark, 1985, pp. 147-148).
Our thoughts precisely!
BASIC DIVISIONS OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM

 The human nervous system is divided into two major divisions: the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Both systems are needed in order to monitor adequately the internal and external environment. The requirement of both systems places yet another burden on evolutionists as they must explain the simultaneous origin of both. Yet this explanation remains a mystery. As Rao and Wu conceded: “During the evolution of the mammalian brain, regions connected to each other anatomically and functionally are thought to co-*****e, but mechanisms for co-evolution are not known” (2001, p. 682, emp. added).
 

The central nervous system is composed of nerve cells which make up the brain and spinal cord. The spinal cord carries nerve inputs from the body to the brain, which allows for integration in the brain and then a response that is passed back to the spinal cord and on to the body. The peripheral nervous system consists of nerve cells located outside the brain and spinal cord. Nerve cells of the PNS that carry nerve signals toward the brain and spinal cord are called afferent neurons. Nerve cells that carry the signal away from the brain and spinal cord are known as efferent neurons. These two divisions compose the entire neuronal network within the human body, but each can be further subdivided into various regions.
CNS—Central Nervous System

The following are the main components of the central nervous system:
 
nida.nih.gov
  1. The spinal cord controls movement of the limbs and trunk. It conducts motor information from the brain to our various effectors: skeletal muscles, cardiac muscles, smooth muscles, and glands. Additionally, it receives and processes sensory information from the skin, joints, and muscles of the limbs and trunk.
  2. The brain stem, often referred to as the hindbrain, consists of three parts: medulla, pons, and cerebellum.
    1. The medulla, located directly above the spinal cord, includes several centers responsible for vital functions, such as digestion, breathing, and control of heart rate.
    2. The pons, located above the medulla, conveys information about movement from the cerebral hemisphere to the cerebellum.
    3. The cerebellum, located behind the pons, modulates the force and range of movement and is involved in the learning of motor skills.
  3. The midbrain is a portion of the brain that controls many sensory and motor functions, including eye movements and the coordination of visual and auditory reflexes.
  4. The diencephalon is composed of two structures: the thalamus and hypothalamus.
    1. The thalamus is an area that processes most of the information that reaches the cerebral cortex from the rest of the central nervous system.
    2. The hypothalamus is the area that regulates autonomic, endocrine, and visceral function.
  5. The cerebral hemispheres are what many people consider as “the brain.” The left and right hemispheres are able to communicate with each other through a portion of the brain known as the corpus collosum. The cerebral hemispheres consist of the cerebral cortex and three deep-lying structures: the basal ganglia, the hippocampus, and the amygdaloid nucleus. The basal ganglia participates in regulating motor performance; the hippocampus is involved with aspects of memory storage; and the amygdaloid nucleus coordinates autonomic and endocrine responses in conjunction with emotional states (Kandel, et al., 1991, p. 9).
PNS—Peripheral Nervous System

The peripheral nervous system, unlike the central nervous system, has nerve cells that come in contact with the environment. It also includes the twelve cranial nerves that descend directly from the brain. The PNS is composed of two major subdivisions: somatic and autonomic nervous systems. Somatic nerves control the muscular system and are responsible for external sensory receptors. The autonomic nervous system is involuntary and is responsible for maintaining proper function of the internal organs. The autonomic system can be further divided into parasympathetic and sympathetic subdivisions. Sympathetic nerves are primarily responsible for the “fight or flight” response, while the parasympathetic nervous system acts as an antagonist that returns the body to its normal resting state. The cell bodies of peripheral nerves are often found in clusters known as ganglia. A closer look into these two primary divisions reveals not only colossal complexity, but also intelligent design.
CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

 Every human begins life as a single fertilized cell. About twenty-two days after fertilization, a hollow region known as the neural tube begins to develop (Moore and Persuad, 1993, p. 385). The cells located within this hollow tube will eventually multiply, migrate, and become the brain and spinal cord. This oversimplified description gives little recognition to what must occur on the cellular level to get from the neural tube to the central nervous system. One study simplified this developmental process:
Neurons are natural migrants; most, if not all, of the neurons in the mammalian nervous system migrate from their places of birth to their locations of function. In the brain, neurons usually originate in the ventricular zone, where their precursor cells proliferate. They can then migrate radially to other layers in the brain, or tangentially (in a direction parallel to the surface of the brain) to other regions of the brain. Radial migration is dependent on radially aligned glial fibers, whereas tangential migration is independent of glial cells and perhaps relies on contacts with other neurons (Rao and Wu, 2001, p. 680, emp. added).
Who can believe that such a complex process could have *****ed from non-living material? And bear in mind, this is the simplified version. In their classic textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, Nobel Laureate James Watson and his coauthors noted:
Most of the components of a typical nervous system—the various classes of neurons, sensory cells, and muscles—originate in widely separate locations in the embryo and are initially unconnected. Thus, in the first phase of neural development the different parts develop according to their own local programs, following principles of cell diversification common to other tissues of the body, as already discussed. The next phase involves a type of morphogenesis unique to the nervous system: a provisional but orderly set of connections is set up between the separate parts of the system through the outgrowth of axons and dendrites along specific routes, so that the parts can begin to interact. In the third and final phase, which continues into adult life, the connections are adjusted and refined through interactions among the far-flung components in a way that depends on electrical signals that pass between them (see Alberts, et al., 1994, p. 1119, emp. added).
Uncomplicated process? Definitely not! And note that embryonic development only gets the “network” up and running—it does not include the actual conduction of nerve impulses throughout the body.
Additionally, the brain and the spinal cord are protected by bony elements. They are also covered by three membranes known as meninges. The meninges are connective-tissue layers that provide support to the brain and spinal cord. The outermost layer is the dura mater. The second layer is the arachnoid layer, which is more delicate, and is so-named because it often resembles a spider web. The innermost membranous covering is the pia mater. It is a very thin covering composed primarily of fibrous tissue covered on its outer surface by a sheet of flat cells that are believed to be impermeable to fluid. These three layers form a protective envelope that allows the brain and spinal cord to be bathed constantly in cerebral spinal fluid, also playing a key role in forming a blood-brain barrier. They also prevent spinal fluid from leaking out as cranial nerves leave the skull. Did all three of these essential layers *****e simultaneously? And if so, from what did they *****e? The brain and spinal cord are dependent on these three layers in order to prevent cerebral-spinal fluid leakage and to maintain the blood-brain barrier. Does it seem logical that there was a “transition stage” for these layers when they were unable to bathe the brain in cerebral spinal fluid or provide a complete blood-brain barrier?
The Brain

Neuroscientists are working diligently to try to demonstrate that the brain/mind can be explained simply by neurons firing. They categorically reject any possibility of dualism—the theory that the brain and mind are independent entities. However, just because they refuse to acknowledge this very real possibility does not mean that it does not exist. British anthropologist and evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith acknowledged: “The brain, from being an instrument fit for anthropoids, passed on to a state in which the range of feeling, understanding, and of manipulative skill, became fit for men. To ask me to believe that the evolution of man has been determined by a series of chance events is to invite me to give credit to what is biologically unbelievable” (1947, p. 217, emp. added).
While they have set ambitious goals in determining the physiology of the brain, the truth is, this field has yet to keep pace with its vaulting aspirations. The reality of an Intelligent Designer continues to plague neuroscientists as they look deeper and deeper into the mechanisms underlying the brain. Nevertheless, they are committed to explaining the brain without admitting that it demonstrates purposeful arrangement and complex design. As William Dembski observed,
For all the obstacles it faces in trying to reduce intelligent agency to natural causes, neuroscience persists in the Promethean determination to show that the mind does ultimately reduce to neurophysiology. Absent a prior commitment to naturalism, this determination will seem misguided. On the other hand, given a prior commitment to naturalism, this determination is readily understandable (1999, p. 216).
[NOTE: The topic of the brain and mind have already been covered in detail in previous issues of Reason & Revelation. The reader is encouraged to read the January and February 2004 issues. By way of quick review, the average human brain weighs only about three pounds and is covered with convolutions and wrinkles (known as sulci). The purpose of these furrows is to provide more surface area for the brain. Hidden within the gray and white matter of the brain is the most intricately wired communication network in the world. That three pound organ represents literally billions of interconnected nerve cells and millions of protective glial cells which, according to evolutionists, simply arose by pure chance from nonliving matter.
The brain has been estimated to contain 100 billion (1011) neurons (Kandel, et al., p. 18), each a living unit within itself. While most neurons share similar properties, they can be classified into “perhaps as many as 10,000 different types” (p. 18). How long did it take for each one of these 10,000 different cell types to *****e? Additionally, over 100 trillion electrical connections are estimated to be present throughout the human brain, which has been said to be more than “all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world.” In describing this awesome organ, Wysong noted:
The human brain weighs about three pounds, contains ten billion neurons with approximately 25,000 synapses (connections) per neuron. Each neuron is made up of 10,000,000,000 macromolecules. The human mind can store almost limitless amounts of information, (a potential millions of times greater than the 1015 bits of information gathered in a lifetime—I. Asimov), compare facts, weigh information against memory, judgment and conscience and formulate a decision in a fraction of a second (1976, p. 340, parenthetical item in orig.).
Even men who hold no belief in God will admit that the brain is the most complex matter in the Universe. In the January 16, 1997 issue of Nature, Sir Francis Crick’s close collaborator, Christof Koch, wrote: “The latest work on information processing and storage at the single cell (neuron) level reveals previously unimagined complexity and dynamism” (385:207, parenthetical item in orig., emp. added). His concluding remarks were: “As always, we are left with a feeling of awe for the amazing complexity found in Nature” (385:210).
In trying to defend the notion that the brain was merely a product of evolution, Steven Pinker declared: “Our organs of computation are a product of natural selection” (1997, p. 36). Yet, why would natural selection select for an organ that consumes enormous amounts of ****** and produces lots of heat? For example, a newborn’s brain consumes 60% of its available ****** (Gibbons, 1998, 280:1345), while adults devote 20% of their cardiac output to this organ—which only accounts for two percent of our body weight (Van De Graaf and Fox, 1989, p. 438). So the question then becomes, if humans (and their brains) *****ed, why would nature “select” for a larger brain that consumes more ******? Or, as the late Stephen Jay Gould asked: “But why did such a large brain *****e in a group of small, primitive, tree-dwelling mammals, more similar to rats and shrews than to mammals conventionally judged as more advanced? And with this provocative query I end, for we simply do not know the answer to one of the most important questions we can ask” (1977, p. 191, emp. added).
Spinal Cord

 

The average length of the human spinal cord is seventeen inches. It normally extends from the brainstem through the largest hole in the skull (foramen magnum) to the level of the second lumbar vertebrae. Thirty-one pairs of spinal nerves branch out from the cord, which help connect the rest of the body with the central nervous system. Was there a transitional period in which only two or three pairs of spinal nerves existed? If so, how did the rest of the body receive input? Surely one can comprehend the inability of mindless evolution to produce thirty-one pairs of spinal nerves at the outset. Once again, to the unprejudiced mind, design is seen to be the superior explanation.
The end of the spinal cord is known as the conus medullaris, and from this a bundle of lumbar and sacral nerves descends. These nerves resemble a horse’s tail, and have been termed appropriately cauda equina. A cross section of the spinal cord reveals a gray “butterfly” surrounded by white matter with spinal nerves coming off at specific intervals. The ventral wings of the butterfly (often referred to as ventral horns) contain the cell bodies of the efferent (motor) neurons. The dorsal wings (dorsal horns) contain the axons of afferent (sensory) neurons. Is this specific arrangement purely coincidental? The major functions of the spinal cord are reflex reactions, limited integration, and transmission of sensory information to the brain, and then motor signals from the brain to effectors. Integration occurs on the spinal cord with certain kinds of reflex actions (e.g., when a physician taps your knee cap and the leg flexes). By processing reflex information at the spinal cord, the human body can respond quicker if danger is imminent.
The white matter surrounding the gray matter of the spinal cord is composed of myelinated axons (covered in part II) that are ascending and descending on the spinal cord. These axons are organized into well-defined tracts, with the ascending tracts carrying sensory information to the brain, and the descending tracts carrying motor information from the brain to the body. These spinal tracts are named according to the endpoint regions and are located in a specific region of the white matter. For instance, the lateral spinothalamic tract carries pain and temperature information up to the thalamus and is located in the lateral aspect of the white matter. The corticospinal tract carries motor signals from the cortex down the spinal cord to the trunk and limbs. Interestingly, when a pain sensation on the left side of the body enters the left posterior horn of the spinal cord, it synapses and the next neuron then crosses over to the right side of the cord and ascends up the cord in the white matter to synapse in the thalamus. No one would suggest that a complex cloverleaf interstate entrance-exit system simply developed by chance; yet these spinal tracts are far more complex and are composed of living cells rather than inorganic asphalt.
PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

 The peripheral nervous system consists of nerve cells which are outside the brain and spinal cord. Included are sensory neurons found on the skin as well as those involved in smell, taste, hearing, and sight. The PNS is often divided into two subdivisions: sensory and motor neurons. Sensory neurons carry information to the central nervous system, while the motor division neurons carry signals away from the central nervous system.
 
Cross section of spinal cord

Cranial nerves are highly specialized, and vary in function—from light-receptor cells in the eye to cells detecting taste in the tongue. These nerves often carry both sensory and motor fibers, and act without any input from the individual. Cranial nerves, unlike spinal nerves, drop directly out of the brain and then proceed to their target organ. Recall, however, that the brain is completely encased in bone, making this task much more difficult than it might appear. So exactly how do these twelve cranial nerves get to where they need to go, and how do they “know” exactly where to go? Keep in mind that these are living cells within the body that are receiving no input from the external environment. Quite simply, they make their way to their destination via well-placed foramen (or “holes&rdquoEye-wink. Each pair of nerves has a specific “hole” through which it descends in order to reach a target, such as the eye (optic nerve) or the heart (vagus nerve). If you were to take a skull and pour water where the brain is normally positioned, you would observe water coming out of several different holes. These foramen allow the cranial nerves to connect the brain with their target organs. But how did these holes come into being? Did they *****e? Did the cranial nerves simply creep over time out of the brain and then await the appearance of holes in the skull? And those numerous foramen should not be quickly dismissed. The brain is constantly bathed in cerebral spinal fluid—a fluid that must not “leak” out of the cranium. The formation of the holes and the dural layers that prevent this “leakage” point unmistakably to an Intelligent Designer. Just like an onion being peeled, each layer uncovered within the nervous system reveals a greater depth of complexity and design.
Somatic vs. Autonomic Nervous System

The body was designed in such a way that humans have control over certain components, while the body itself regulates other aspects. Consider that nature could not possibly *****e a voluntary nervous system in conjunction with an involuntary system, along with a processing unit (the brain) that can integrate all of the incoming information. College textbooks allude to the fact of both systems, without any suggestion as to how they might have actually occurred. Students are expected to accept this “fact” as a part of the complete evolutionary scenario. No one looking at the Great Wall of China would argue that all of those stones came together over millions of years by “random chance.” Yet, the somatic and autonomic nervous system is far more complex, and is composed—not of rocks—but of living tissue! The objective individual is forced to conclude that such intricacy extends far beyond the realm of chance!
[to be continued]
REFERENCES

 Alberts, Bruce, et al., (1994), Molecular Biology of the Cell (New York, NY: Garland), third edition.
Asimov, Isaac (1994), Asimov’s Chronology of Science & Discovery (New York, NY: Harper Collins).
Behe, Michael J. (1996), Darwin’s Black Box (New York, NY: Free Press).
Clark, Ronald W. (1985), The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson).
Cronin, Helena (1997/1998), “The Evolution of Evolution,” Time, Special issue: The New Age of Discovery, S92-S99.
Davis, Jimmy H., and Harry L. Poe (2002), Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the Existence of God (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers).
Dembski, William A. (1999), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Denton, Michael (1985), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books).
Gibbons, Ann (1998), “Solving the Brain’s ****** Crisis,” Science, 280:1345-1347, May 29.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton).
Greenstein, George (1988), The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos (New York, NY: William Morrow).
Huxley, Julian S. (1963 reprint), Evolution in Action (Middlesex, UK: Penguin).
Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Human Body—Accident or Design? (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Kandel, Eric R., James H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell (1991), Principles of Neural Science (New York, NY: Elsevier), third edition.
Keith, Sir Arthur (1947 reprint), “Replies to Critics,” in Essays on Human Evolution (London: Watts).
Koch, Christof (1997), “Computation and the Single Neuron,” Nature, 385:207-210, January 16.
Lewin, Roger (1992), Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Macmillan).
Moore, Keith L. (1992), Clinically Oriented Anatomy (Philadelphia, PA: Williams and Wilkins).
Moore, Keith L. and T.V.N. Persaud (1993), The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders).
Netter, Frank H. (1994), Atlas of Human Anatomy (Summit, NJ: Ciba-Geigy).
Pinker, Steven (1997), How the Mind Works (New York: W.W. Norton).
Pfeiffer, John (1961), The Human Brain (New York, NY: Harper).
Rao, Yi and Jane Y. Wu (2001), “Neuronal Migration and Evolution of the Brain,” Nature Neuroscience, 4[9]:680-682, September.
Todd, Scott (1989), “Correspondence to Nature,” Nature, 410[6752]:423, September 30.
Van De Graaf, M. Kent and Stuart Ira Fox (1989), Concepts of Human Anatomy and Physiology (Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown).
Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).




Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for this item to be reproduced in its entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (Cool articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
 

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.