Prove to me the world is 6000 years old
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Wow, this time he ever gave a reference.
By the way, now I see what Christians are about when they talk about "failures" of science. As far as I see from this article, the author ignores completely the fact that we do can observe the "creation" of matter from energy and visa versa.
Mind over matter, this author is wrong on science. Next one please.
Oh wow, quoting irreversible douchebag Chuck Missler. Even idiot creationists should realize that can only hurt their case.
Below are the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution (for both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) as published in National Geographic Magazine:
Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
Darwin Purposely Overlooked Helpless Babies To Save His Theory
Infantile Helplessness Busts The Theory of Evolution
Here is why:
Every Baby Born Helpless Proves Darwin Was Wrong
According to the Theory of Evolution, within each species, the babies with "better genes" that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, breed the most, and pass on their better genes to their offspring. Therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit until the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth. Mammals are the highest form of life and Darwinism would predict that all mammals give birth to babies that are totally fit and not in need of help from the mother.
But the opposite it true.
All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with infantile helplessness.
Infantile helplessness contradicts Darwinism so fundamentally that unless Darwinists can explain it, Creationists have the right to say Darwinism is disproved by the facts of life.
On the other hand, infantile helplessness supports Logical Creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving ELOAH YA AM. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as YAHUWAH intended it.
YAHUWAH knew that there would come a Theory of Evolution and He made certain to create life on Earth in such a way that there would be major discrepancies between real life and the false theory. YAHUWAH is the Master of timing and this is the time He chose to bust Darwin .
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Predicts that the Most Advanced Species Would Produce the Most Self-reliant Offspring
How did life begin on Earth? And how come there is such a diversity of species on this planet?
As far as Darwinists are concerned, their answer is that life began by chance, with the simplest form of bacteria they call prokaryotes, and the prokaryotes "evolved" into more complex forms of life, which in turn then diversified into all the 8 million species we now have on this planet.
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?
The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.
Darwinists cannot explain this. It is a FLAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And because this flaw concerns the very essence of the theory (reproduction and survivability, which are the foundations of evolution theory) the FLAW IS FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Would Predict that Babies of Each Species Would Become Increasingly More Fit From One Generation to the Next
CLEARLY it is easy to understand that the bullshit religious pagan concept /Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". Also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.
Therefore, according to Darwinism, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring
According to Darwinism, certainly after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring.
But Darwin was wrong, which is why most mammals and birds give birth to fragile babies that are totally helpless. The fact is that most baby mammals and birds are helpless and fragile. There is no way Darwinism can explain infantile fragility. Therefore THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FATALLY FLAWED.
We people of faith in YAHUWAH as ALMIGHTY CREATOR are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy.
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.
That is truly ridiculous, but You can do better I'm sure.
Evolution does not say that babies will be born hunting their own food and doing high school algebra. Lol you are a moron with moronic concepts, how many carp do you have on your stringer?
I begin to wonder if you are an atheist pretending to be a moron.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Mindover is just a troll. He probably doesn't even have an opinion of his own.
That is truly ridiculous,
Submitted by robj101 on May 18, 2010 - 1:32pm.That is truly ridiculous, but You can do better I'm sure.
Evolution does not say that babies will be born hunting their own food and doing high school algebra. Lol you are a moron with moronic concepts, how many carp do you have on your stringer?
I begin to wonder if you are an atheist pretending to be a moron.
Religious people are playing zork, if their faith runs out: "It is pitch black, you are likely to be eaten by an atheist."
"
you are a drone chump with chimp envy , that is ridiculus for you to accept.
evulution says the lizards came before humans and lizards are born fully independant yet humans are superior yet they are born helpless and need selfless love compassion and the sacrfice of a responsible parent to protect them and raise them to mature status where they may become independant.
you dumb ass drone!!!!! must be a real struggle for you to think as an individual?
wonder all you want but wander is all you do!
all atheists monkey wannabes are closet religious pagans in denial
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.
Prove to me it isn't....
robj101 wrote:That is truly
Submitted by chndlrjhnsn on May 18, 2010 - 1:37pm.
robj101 wrote: This same post in another thread gave me the exact same impression. "Moron" is just the word for it. It's almost a satire, isn't it? Like that Truthbringer guy.Mindover is just a troll. He probably doesn't even have an opinion of his own.
LOL yes that is the typical atheist retreat. run duck and cover. hide behind your ignore and rants. well done that is what I expect from most of the humanist deauche bags on this entire irrational response fraud of a thread.
you think all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent CREATOR but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
yeah that is why you fail every time with your stupid rebuttals like all drone atheists on this thread
run along you are not qualified to demonstrate facts. you could at least copy and paste them from resources that speak your mind on the issue and share your worldview.
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.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
And he has a lot more. Interesting person. And he is still a christian. As he says, no one can think of one working petroleum geologist who is also a young earth creationist. Not after they actually start working with the way the earth is and not the way they would have liked it to be.
For the record I don't agree with a lot of his other views.
The links - the first embedded one is for members. If you really want pretty pictures of a deeply buried karst, you will have to search the internet for one. The second is to a very technical paper, the pretty pictures are at the bottom of the document.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Lizards evolved on a completely different path. We are only vaguely related to them. Moron.
Scientists are all out to prove the world is over 4 billion years old, simply to undermine your religion apparently. Moron.
Drones use science, fact and common sense coupled with an open mind. Real people use .. faith and self induced ignorance? Something as intangible and worthless as their own god. Moron.
One more time.. Moron.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
That is truly ridiculous,
Submitted by robj101 on May 18, 2010 - 1:32pm.
Lizards evolved on a completely different path. We are only vaguely related to them. Moron.
--------->>NO they did not . And no we are not vaguely related to them either. you chump with chimp envy
lizards are born completly independant yet they are inferior to humans while humans are born completly helpless. of course you are incapable of grasping the implications of this common sense thet refutes the very concept of selecting out the weakest and bringing in the fittest which is the foundation of your stupidity.
and this fact is is observed in the present it is testable repeatable and proven with real science not stupid dogmatic atheist applied logic posing as intelligence.
Scientists are all out to prove the world is over 4 billion years old, simply to undermine your religion apparently. Moron.
----------------->>>no not real scientitsts just deuche bag atheists /humanists chumps with chimp envy who were certified by satanic minions. eg. charles lyle.
billions of unseen years? how convenient for you to preach something that cannot be proven with science in the present day. until you invent a time machine there is no science involved in preaching the dogma of billions of years. therefore it is only through the agenda to undermine people of faith in a creator and not creation that assholes who are posing as scientists / people of honest integrity are preaching a concept that contradicts reality and knowledge of a creator.
Drones use science, fact and common sense coupled with an open mind. Real people use .. faith and self induced ignorance? Something as intangible and worthless as their own god. Moron.
----------->>>lol no drone are taught to never question what they are taught whereas in the true scriptures that are tainted by satans minions , they do teach us real people of faith to question everything thus exposing the false pagan religions of the world including yours being the ancient pagan concept of origins from nothing to humans by chance given enough time and then you label this force of chance with names like mother nature.
it is you who is the moron because you fail to grasp the difference between information and matter and on a higher level of intellect the difference between spirit and flesh eludes you even more.
yet here you are processing information that is imprinted on matter yet it is completly separate from the matter that contains it. MORON that is why I call you a drone because you do not choose to wake and think for yourself while it is your right of free will which is a gift you take for granted.
One more time.. Moron.
---->lol that is like you saying lizards are more evolved than humans because they are born completely indendpant according your stupid theory of a religion
Religious people are playing zork, if their faith runs out: "It is pitch black, you are likely to be eaten by an atheist."
---->>being religous does not make you a person of faith , nor does it make you a true believer in the one true CREATOR = YAHUWAH our ELOAH ALMIGHTY not elohim which is a referrence to false idols in paganism who have no real power.
hypocrite! you are a closet pagan in denial and your religion is a man made scam called evolution. atheists need evolution needs atheists needs evolution repeat .= garbage in garbage out
welcome to your nightmare
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
-------->too bad so sad for charlie chaplin now that he is dead now he truly is oblivious.
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.
^ moron. Pissing contest.^Believes a book written 2000 years ago by men who thought snakes talked and dragons were real. Believes in a place called heaven where people die and go meet their dead relatives. Thinks the earth is flat. Thinks our race and everything else is 6000 years old. Does not question, acts as a sheep. Moron.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
The highlights:
edit: I read mind w/out matter so you don't have to.
Yea I liked the "certified by satanic minions" remark along with the agenda comment. The chimp envy thing is past old and never was particularly good in the first place. I bet he could ask his cloud sitting sky daddy to give him a new one.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I thought "being religious does not make you a person of faith" was pretty good too. I think he meant it to be profound, but it didn't strike me that way at all.
You do realize that by that same logic, not one crime can be proven in a court of law unless we have a time machine to go back and see the entire thing. Even then, it wouldn't help, since you would probably blink, thus you would have no knowledge of what happened in that moment. You do realize that you can infer the truthfulness of claims due to overwhelming evidence. Oh wait, you're a young earth creanderthal, you have no concept of evidence OR reality.
Actually, we need nothing to show that there is NO EVIDENCE of any supernatural entities ANYWHERE. The REALITY of evolution by natural selection just hammers one more nail into the coffin of your delusion.
And No-Mind Fascist Troll, if you think the biblical accounts are historical, then what about Daniel 4:10-11? Either the Bible is wrong on that count, or reality is. There is no way, no matter how high you go, that you could see the whole world, since there is that pesky thing called the other side.
It's always funny to be called deluded by someone who thinks the earth is flat!
"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!
If you actually did your research and read the Bible, you would see that in Genesis it does NOT give a time frame for when the Earth was created. It simply says that God created the Heavens and the Earth, and that the Earth was "without form and void." Therefore, the Earth and everything could've been created with the Big Bang billions of years ago, but whose to say it wasn't God who started the Big Bang?
Therefore, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is thousands of years old, simply that civilized man did not begin until then.
Now, as far as fossil evidence of tools and old skeletons of men from Africa pre-dating those thousand years, it is entirely possible that they were there. But if you read into Adam's Creation, it was said that he was made "in God's image." Modern man differs from those skeletons.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that the Earth can be (and most likely is) billions of years old. The animals populated it before modern man, and perhaps those early humans were considered animalistic. God then created his own image, and the story went on from there.
Just my opinion, and if you think about it, it's quite rational actually. I'd like to here your thoughts on my theory.
God Bless
All you're doing is trying desperately to rationalize your illogical faith.
Then you need to explain your deity's existence, which in my mind is just an extra layer of complexity which requires an explanation for it's own existence, and that no theist has ever been able to do. Your deity of choice is not necessary for the big bang to have happened, and only adds to the unanswered questions. As an answer to questions, gods = fail.
What... so everything was already happening, but for some reason you feel that some god is necessary to make a "new" human that is beyond the mere apes? Why? You give no reason why this is a rational outlook at all. Just try to look at it our way for a second. Life has already started and natural selection is going great, yet the supposed creator of the universe needs to use magic to produce an animal that is slightly different then the rest? What about what was already happening made it unable to develop some clever apes?
All I see is a person clutching at straws to protect their comfortable mind virus and calling it reason.
"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!
The 'heavens' were 'created' long before the Earth - the Big Bang was about 13.75 billion years ago, while the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.
The Earth always had 'form', and had night and day from the beginning, and no water until it had cooled down a lot - there was no 'deep' in the beginning, and it wasn't dark.
It is nonsense to state that man was made in 'God's image' in any but some abstract spiritual sense - it would be truly absurd to suggest God actually looked like us visually (unless you really are into the 'bearded man in the sky' version of God) so any attempt to justify Genesis from the fact that early man looked a bit different from us is silly.
Birds emerged well after life moved onto the land.
None of this fits Genesis, which is so obviously several older creation myths combined, representing the 'best' explanation people around that time in that region could imagine might 'explain' the origin of everything.
It really is missing the point to try and find a way of making it fit what we now have good reason for believing is actually the way things happened.
I hope you don't take things like the Flood seriously as well, at least as a world-wide event.
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
^ moron. Pissing
Submitted by robj101 on May 25, 2010 - 7:20pm.^ moron. Pissing contest.^Believes a book written 2000 years ago
------------>actually over a period of 4500years, you atheist drone.
by men who thought snakes talked and dragons were real----->lol that is chumptastic coming from a slapnut like you who believes humans are actually talking animals. oh and in case you didnt know dinosaur comes from the a previous term terrible lizard eg. dragons , leviathon etc...hence the folkore in every culture and history. you see talking animals on tv every day teaching drones like you to believe in millions of years--without question.
------------>All true original scripture is inspired by YAHUWAH and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of YAHUWAH may be adequate, equipped for every good work . (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
The word "inspired" (theopneustos) in the original Greek language literally means "YAHUWAH-breathed". When the Bible claims to be inspired, we understand therefore, that it came from the mouth of God. It is God-breathed, inspired.
Believes in a place called heaven where people die and go meet their dead relatives.----------> lol again you are a mind bubble filled with methane.
1st here is a quick lesson ; there are three heavens and the first two you are aware of and the third eludes your capacity to grasp due to the fact your brain is on fire.
Thinks the earth is flat.---------->is that crunchbutter rubbing off your fingertips onto the keyboard as your type non-sense? I would never teach the round earth is flat. sure the roads are flat but the scriptures revealed the earth was round about 2500 years before a bunch of so called explorers thought their ships would sail of the edge of a flat earth.1000 B.C. 2500 years before man discovered it for himself! it was already common knowledge to people of faith in YAHUWAH.
Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. His daughter was reading a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went look ing for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a guide to scientific discovery. If only more would use the Bible as a guide in their personal lives!
Thinks our race and everything else is 6000 years old. Does not question, acts as a sheep. Moron.---------->>our race, is one blood of many nations descended from the first human couple 2 halves of a whole union becoming one race of ADAHM who was the first human to document history of people places and events and pass it down from the beginning of matter in space over time
Jesus and Mohammed are beer goggles for the blind.-me---------> jesus is a false pagan name from zeus the healer eisus also esau or esa as the chump initiate hitler prototype muhamad ass would later assume based on his brainwashing by the satanic roman pagan empire who started the alternate catholic wannabe religion for the spiritually blind, not unlike yourself another pawn of proper gander misinformation based on peer pressure and lsd laced water causing you you to believe in a bigger test of faith------------->If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the change takes 40 million years, you believe it and call it evolution. because you are the one wearing chump with chimp envy goggles for the deaph dumb and blind
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin------> lol yeah so what you copy and pasted a quote from a dude who is known for playing a fool with a horshoe up his goofy ass. He made a mockery of common sense and became a wealthy man. and now you look up to him as a role model? what common sense is there in believing your ancestors were living in puddles of shit?
and why are you relying on common sense to convey information through intelligence in a physical realm?
why not just use your stump of a head and randomly bang out your put put rebuttals? because that would be an admission you are a sucker for ass fire!
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.
you are a drone chump with chimp envy , that is ridiculus for you to accept.
evulution says the lizards came before humans and lizards are born fully independant yet humans are superior yet they are born helpless and need selfless love compassion and the sacrfice of a responsible parent to protect them and raise them to mature status where they may become independant.
you dumb ass drone!!!!! must be a real struggle for you to think as an individual?
wonder all you want but wander is all you do!
all atheists monkey wannabes are closet religious pagans in denial
by simple common
----------->> lol you preach your dogma and then you spew crunchbutter like a religious atheist oxy moron. you closet pagan zealot!
so does it make sense for humans to be superior to lizards while being born helpless and considered unfit for survival? or you gonna preach pagan humanist babylonian chance.
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.
You are proof of evolution. On occasion a throwback from yesteryear is born. Considering you wish to throw insults about now how bout you go have sex with your apeshit ass god, maybe he will whisper sweet nothings and scripture into your ear while pounding your ass made in his own image.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Prove to you the earth isn't 6000 years old. Easy.
Coral is made up of the skeletons and calcium deposits of tiny animals that live in warm, shallow seas. It takes an estimated 100 years to produce a few centimeters of coral growth. One coral atoll has been measured at 3,900 feet in depth. Figure it out.
Oh but "goddidit. All at once." Right? Read a book.
Inver
Time and I against any other two. - Beltazar Gracian
Beware the fury of a patient man. - John Dryden
It requires ages to destroy a popular opinion. - Voltaire
There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world: and that is an idea whose time has come. - V. Hugo
When in doubt, squat and run hills. - Jim Wendler
Easy...All I have to do is show it is older than 6000 years for it to be 6000 years old.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
In relation to mammals and reptiles we are more akin to the former.
Talking smack about Charlie Chaplin hoping it will get to me, lol you really are a straw grabber.
Now quit rattling your cage, it's annoying.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Wow, look at all the bovine faeces lying about in here. *fetches shovel*
I have a hypothesis: online crazy people have an instinctive fear of the comma, possibly some kind of display of imbecility which has evolved through sexual selection.
Would someone like to design an experimental test for me?
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Submitted by robj101 on June 18, 2010 - 8:43am.
In relation to mammals and reptiles we are more akin to the former. -----> NO we are not, you can choose to fantasize about being the offspring inferior creatures. also reptiles according to your religion are supposed to be superior to humans because they are born fit to survive as apex predators whereas according to your stupid religion humans are not born fit to survive there should go exstinct or be aborted as a lot of you selfish pricks like to prech as pro death pro choice to murder human life.
Talking smack about Charlie Chaplin hoping it will get to me, lol you really are a straw grabber.---------->> quoting an opinnion of an atheist makes you look a drone lol you really are a chump with chimp envy, you are getting to yourself. dont blame me for your self pitty.
Now quit rattling your cage, it's annoying.--------->>>lol I am not rattling my cage because I am not an animal in a cage I am the human who puts animals in cages and then rattles them. that includes humans who act like animals and when they commit murder they are put down like animals.
Jesus and Mohammed are beer goggles for the blind.-me-------> yeah you are blind just like the false religion you call evolution
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin--->>quoting the devils chaplin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>you did not answer my question how lizards are born fully independent yet evolved into inferior human babies over millions of imaginary years? because you are a slapnut. sure I heard your little mantra how you preached to me they we are related mammals and reptiles blah blah. but that is all you have in your chump rebuttal.
you spend a lot of time confirming your faith in abioevolution without actually testing all truths to see what is true of false. you think being a person of faith means not having the gift of spirit of intellect?
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
fact
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
I t is very clear that noone on this thread who represents the scumbag theory of life is going to seriously demonstrate true science of what they believe.
you cannot hide behind one aspect of what you protest as fact , you must demonstrate the big picture or admit you believe it on faith and not science. otherwise you have no conviction and you admit your closet pagan religion of origins is what I say it is along with budism islame shinto and every other babylonian chicken scratch man made lie out their.
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.
Your silly little argument about people being born unable to take care of themselves only proves evolution. We have evolved with a brain and can take care of our young. You are suggesting that evolution would insure that we would not need to CARE for our young, what do you base this nonsense on anyway. Most mammals take care of their young, what is your stupid point?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
BTW, why doesn't this guy have a troll badge.
I second this. With bells on. How about SUPER Troll ?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Your silly little argument
new
Submitted by robj101 on June 18, 2010 - 9:16pm.Your silly little argument about people being born unable to take care of themselves only proves evolution. We have evolved with a brain and can take care of our young. You are suggesting that evolution would insure that we would not need to CARE for our young, what do you base this nonsense on anyway. Most mammals take care of their young, what is your stupid point?
----------------->according to your pagan man made religion you worship the whore you call mother nature. it/she develops or invents ways to solve your riddles with delusions and and dementia. and then you give credit to it/ her for doing things you fail to grasp in an short life span of time and false assumptions that you use to set yourself free to live as you choose without consequense.
Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.
Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'? from non living origins?
The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.
The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
Darwin Purposely Overlooked Helpless Babies To Save His Theory
Infantile Helplessness Busts The Theory of Evolution
While Darwin was formulating his Theory of Evolution, he purposely overlooked the babies of mammals and birds because these babies are unfit to survive and Darwin's theory could not possibly explain this. So Darwin ignored babies - he never wrote about them. But it was absurd and wrong to ignore a crucial portion of the life of most species of mammals and birds just because it does not fit with the theory.
The fact that most birds and mammals have helpless and fragile babies totally contradicts Darwinism. If Darwinian evolution actually worked, the result would have been that all higher life forms would have babies that were "fit" and self-reliant rather than fragile and helpless. The worldwide presence of infantile fragility is such a devastating blow to the Theory of Evolution that it actually renders Darwinism totally invalid because it contradicts the very essence of the theory.
Here is why:
Every Baby Born Helpless Proves Darwin Was Wrong
According to the Theory of Evolution, within each species, the babies with "better genes" that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, breed the most, and pass on their better genes to their offspring. Therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit until the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth.
Mammals are the highest form of life and Darwinism would predict that all mammals give birth to babies that are totally fit and not in need of help from the mother.
But the opposite it true.
All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with infantile helplessness.
Infantile helplessness contradicts Darwinism so fundamentally that unless Darwinists can explain it, Creationists have the right to say Darwinism is disproved by the facts of life.
On the other hand, infantile helplessness supports Logical Creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving God. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as God intended it.
God knew that there would come a Theory of Evolution and He made certain to create life on Earth in such a way that there would be major discrepancies between real life and the false theory. God is the Master of timing and this is the time He chose to bust Darwin - and this website is an agent for Him to do so.
[Scientists normally use the term "precocial" to refer to species that have offspring that are viable; and they use the term "altricial" to refer to species that have helpless offspring. These terms are unfamiliar and meaningless to the public so for the sake of clarity, we will not use them on this website.]
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Predicts that the Most Advanced Species Would Produce the Most Self-reliant Offspring
How did life begin on Earth? And how come there is such a diversity of species on this planet?
As far as Darwinists are concerned, their answer is that life began by chance, with the simplest form of bacteria they call prokaryotes, and the prokaryotes "evolved" into more complex forms of life, which in turn then diversified into all the 8 million species we now have on this planet.
According to the devotees of evolution theory, this is the order of appearance of life forms on Earth:
Prokaryotes (simple cells) emerged on earth about 4 billion years ago
Eukaryotes (complex cells) emerged 2 billion years ago
Multicellular life emerged 1 billion years ago
Simple animals about 600 million years ago
Arthropods (ancestors of insects and crustaceans) about 570 million years ago
Complex animals first showed up about 550 million years ago
Fish have been on earth since 500 million years
Proto-amphibians have been here just a little less than 500 million years
Insects showed up 400 million years ago
Amphibians emerge about 360 million years ago followed by
Reptiles, which have been around for 300 million years, and
Mammals have been on Earth for 200 million years, whereas
Birds were the last to arrive and have been here only 150 million years
And the direct ancestors of man (hominids) probably have been here for maybe 2 million years.
You may or may not agree with the above but that is what satanic evolution scientists tell us.
But this timeline of evolution exposes a FATAL FLAW IN DARWINISM.
If we apply a logical mind to scrutinize the hidden details of this timeline, we come upon the following insurmountable problem for evolutionists to try to explain:
Either the timeline is backwards or the Theory of Evolution is backwards and fatally flawed. Here is why:
Mammals and birds are the highest forms of life and the most "evolved". But most of them have offspring that are born helpless and unfit to survive on their own. Every life form before mammals and birds has offspring that are essentially self-reliant and truly fit to survive. It is not possible for Darwinism to explain how life could evolve in the direction of having less and less fit babies. If Darwin were correct, each new species that evolves would have babies that are more fit.
To put it all another way:
Darwin cannot explain how the world could go from bacteria that have 'babies' that are totally fit, to humans who have babies that are totally helpless.
Bacteria have "babies" that are replicas of the "parents" and 100 percent as viable as the "parents". Fish and reptiles have babies that are miniature replicas of the parents and are self-reliant but are less viable because of their smaller size and slower speed. Most mammals and birds have totally helpless babies that have zero percent viability and need to be nursed. Babies that need to be nursed are not exactly good examples of "survival of the fittest".
How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?
The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.
Darwinists cannot explain this. It is a FLAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And because this flaw concerns the very essence of the theory (reproduction and survivability, which are the foundations of evolution theory) the FLAW IS FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Would Predict that Babies of Each Species Would Become Increasingly More Fit From One Generation to the Next
Below are the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution (for both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) as published in National Geographic Magazine:
The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction ' success for some, death without offspring for others ' and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.
National Geographic November 2004 Vol 206 No 5
From the above outline it is easy to understand that the Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.
Therefor, according to Darwinism, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring
According to Darwinism, certainly after hundreds of millions of imaginary unobserved un documented un tested years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring. including daf dumb and blind chumps with chimp envy.
The evolution theory says:
in short, biological change has 'gone up
problem is
all evolution as described above is genetically impossible life started with the creation of ancestral types (for instance the ancestral wolf, the ancestral oxen and the ancestral man) their variants can never evolve beyond the natural borders of their type a new species is genetically poorer, or is even a form of degeneration compared to their ancestors over time genetic information is lost instead of gained
reality check in other words, biological change goes down
1 - Just as a computer-program is not created through a combination of copy-errors and selection, also the complex information inside DNA did not spring forth from copy-errors and selection. In the same sense it would also be nonsense to say that the typewriter came into existence through small copy-errors, made when retyping the manual of the typewriter.
2 - Michael Behe talks about 'Irreducible Complexity'. A mousetrap is irreducible complex. If one part is missing, the mousetrap doesn't function. Many biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, 'light-sensitivity' of the eyes, and the 'engine' (flagellum) of a bacteria, are completely useless if only one part (gene) is missing.
3 - Many genes are so essentially important to bring forth living offspring, that their function could never change. If such genes would start to function otherwise, life would be impossible, because the original, essential function is lost. One example is hemoglobin, which transports oxygen in the blood. Not a single individual can miss it. So basically, there is no significant evolution in those kind of genes.
4 - The fact that the information inside DNA is degenerating is a very much neglected aspect of life around us. This degeneration causes species, and also mankind, to degenerate and genes disappear instead of new ones with formerly unknown functions appearing.
LOSS OF GENES leads to new variation and new species
That the loss of a functional gene can lead to new variation is one aspect of biological change that is hardly realized. One single mutation can completely disable the a gene. With that the gene loses its function and causes a certain effect on the appearance of the individual carrying the gene. One clear example is albinism. The gene that produces the pigment has become dysfunctional. But it can also be more subtle: With many animals in the polar-regions, the gene that produces pigment in the skin has become dysfunctional. That's not the same as albinism, because albinism causes eyes to be red.
This photo of penguins shows how such a mutation can easily pop up in a certain population.
In the same way white lions (with black eyes) have been discovered in Africa. They will most likely quickly disappear in nature, because such a loss doesn't lead to good survival-prospects for lions.
populations when a mutation disables a functional gene.
However, if such an elimination of a pigment gene takes place in an area with lots of snow, it can be an advantage, because the species is less visible and thus has a better chance to survive. The polar-bear, the dall-sheep and the snow-owl are good examples.
Besides the gene that is responsible for coat-coloring, the polar-bear also lost the genes that produce the core of the hairs. Therefor they are hollow and that is an advantage for them, because they isolate the bear very well against the cold. But it is a loss of functional genes that causes this advantage.
The process of domestication leads to new variations much more often, because these variations are wanted and therefore preserved. That's why our dogs, cats and rabbits are available in many different varieties. Those varieties are usually the result of genes that were eliminated completely or that sometimes still perform a minor part of their original function.
In that sense , the result of the loss of A, B, C, D and S-genes leads to respectively black, cinnamon-coloured, albino, blue-greyish and spotted mice. Loss of certain combinations of these genes eventually leads to mice that are chocolad-brownish, blue, silver-cinnamon-coloured, silver-roe-coloured, black spotted, cinnamon spotted and so on.
Breeding and selection can lead to a lot of new varieties (a lot of genes will be permanently eliminated or damaged and new combinations of active genes arise). But the possibility to breed continuously is limited, because eventually too many active genes will have been lost. So 'fresh blood' has to be brought in; original, functional genes have to be added. Species around the world become 'genetically poorer' as time goes by, no matter what kind of selection is used: natural or human.
Genetic Loss
In biology two interesting phenomenon's are wellknown: the 'bottleneck' and the 'founder-effect', that show us how genetic loss occurs. The bottleneck is an event where the genetic diversity of a certain population reduces significantly while being brought back to just a small number of individuals (later to return to its original size maybe). Many genes can be lost in the process, because these few individuals could never carry the genetic variety of the whole population.
The founder-effect is something similar and starts working when a certain number of individuals split from a mother-population, and establish their own population separately from this mother-population. When one male and one female arrive on a remote island for instance, they can create a new population. This population will only have the limited genetic variation that was already present within the original founders of this population.
On top of that there will be a certain amount of inbreeding. The advantage of inbreeding is that hidden (recessive) qualities can be made manifest, that leads to quick new variation which makes possible selection and adaptation.
On the other hand, inbreeding could lead to an increased chance of hereditary defects, thus to degeneration. In the founder-effect - which is the most common mechanism for species-formation (when individuals split from the main population and get reproductively isolated) - the appearance of new variation, gene-loss and degeneration are closely related.
Degeneration exists
Many examples of biological change in living nature, which are often used to prove evolution, are in fact examples of degeneration:
1 - Rudimentary (reduced) organs are still considered as strong proof in favor of evolution. But the reality shows us it is a loss, losing something, not the development of something that originally wasn't there. It's a form of degeneration.
2 - Human hereditary illnesses are often caused by a mutation of a gene that was originally good. From that moment on the flaw is passed on to other members of a family according to heriditary laws. In first instance, however, the gene was good. And most other people outside this family have the good gene. All kinds of isolated groups of people show to have their own specific hereditary illnesses. But we have to keep in mind it's a malfunction of something that originally functioned perfectly. It's not just another step on the evolutionary diary. So if we go back in time far enough (thousands of years), until we reach the time of our ancestors, we would find that they possess all the intact genetic information. It is not possible for them to have carried all our billions of genetic defects within their limited genepool.
3 - In isolated caves we can find various animal species that lost sight, like the blind water-scorpion in the caves of Moville, Romania, or the blind fish and lobsters in the longest cave-system on earth; Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, USA. These fishes, for example, have also lost the pigment in their bodies. They are completely pale. This cán be interpreted as 'an adaptation to the conditions', but nevertheless it is based on a loss of genetic information (for pigment and eyes).
Usually individuals with such mutations will not survive. But in dark caves it's no longer a disadvantage and they're still able to reproduce. Because of this reproduction, damaged genes spread and once a whole population lost the original genes, they will never return, because the information inside genes is too complex to originate from dysfunctional genes. It's like a genetic subroutine has gone lost.
4 - The non-flying cormorant lost the ability to fly. This species lives on an isolated island, with plenty of fish around, so diving from rocks is enough for this cormorant to stay alive.
5 - Parthenogen lizards lost the ability to reproduce on a natural way, because the female-eggs have a double pair of chromosomes instead of a single pair. The lizards are exact copies of one another (clones) and they stimulate ovulation by simulating mating-behaviour among eachother. The masculine genetic information has gone lost through mutations, because this was no longer needed.
6 - One of the reasons the cheetah disappears is because of genetic loss and degeneration, like various researches have proven. By means of a 'bottleneck' all genetic information has gone lost and all cheetah's are lookalikes, like twins. In the supposedly 10.000 years this process has been going on, mutations did not lead to the needed variations; once something is lost, it will never return.
These examples and many more concerning this 'degeneration-law' leads us to this conclusion:
On the long run a species or population tends to lose genes and qualities which it doesn't necessarily need to survive.
Mutations occur randomly and one single mutation can be enough to disable a gene completely (just like a typing-mismatch will block computer-instructions). Therefor all the genes of a species have the risk to be eliminated sooner or later. Only if it strictly should not happen, because it decreases the chance of survival, the non-funtional gene will disappear.
In the long run it shows us that only the genes which are needed for survival in a specific environment, will last. Because of this a species might become completely dependent upon its environment, like, for example, the Koala, that only consumes very special eucalyptus-leaves. Eventually the genetic 'stretch' will have vanished, and if the environment changes again, a species could easily become extinct. It no longer has the genetic diversity to adapt to such changing circumstances.
The natural bottomline of degeneration
One question might arise: where does it end? Will life eventually become extinct?
There is a natural limit to degeneration that is preserved through natural selection: the reproductive age, the age on which a species might have offspring. If degeneration goes so far as to eliminate reproduction, that form of degeneration will not be spread anymore. In that sense, natural selection serves as a 'protector' against damaging degeneration, like weaker individuals die quicker than strong ones.
When a species balances on the edge of death, and is still able to reproduce, it can be called the worst form of degeneration. A good example is the one-day-fly. This fly spends most of its life under the surface of the water as a larvae. On a certain moment the larvae climbs out of the water onto a stalk and peels off its skin. It spends a little time flying, climbs onto a stalk again and peels off its skin for a second time. Then it starts looking for a partner. When the female is fertilized and the day has passed, she falls into the water out of exhaustion. While she drowns, she releases her eggs into the water for the next generation. A remarkable characteristic of the one-day-fly is that it has no mouth! This is where we can see the degeneration-law in action: a mouth wasn't necessarily needed for survival, and thus the species lost it eventually.
What does this all lead to?
When biological change that happens today and can be observed, shows us that species go genetically downhill, it will be very hard to hold on to the idea of an increase, or generation, of new genes. Micro-evolution seems to be 'down-hill'-evolution. That makes macro-evolution a fairy-tale.
The most logical explanation for the generation of life, and for the information inside DNA, is that an Intelligent Creator preprogrammed the DNA. Life must have sprung forth from several original types, like an original wolf, an original cat, an original bovine animal, and an original human. From these original species that had a great genetic richness in first instance, all the millions of subspecies and varieties started developing, each one searching its own way downward in its own environment.
And what about Darwin? He was a great man that made the most important discovery in biology, that is that species change throughout time. The only thing is that the direction he gave to biological change was completely opposite to what he assumed:
Not EVOLUTION, but DEVOLUTION.
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.
Now the No-Mind Fascist Troll is posting the same post on different threads! IT'S TOTAL CUT N' PASTE BANDITRY! If he doesn't actually respond to the thread but is just pasting the same post in different threads, how is that NOT Trolling?
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING! NO-MIND NEEDS A TROLL BADGE PRONTO!!!
"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!
He thinks humans should give birth to..yea fully grown and able humans, or babies that can talk and run and build telescopes lawl, this has to be a joke.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
It's been one long joke or this guy is one of the dumbest people I've seen on the internet, and that's including other Creanderthals! Really, why would evolution create SUPERBABIES, who would burst from their mother's wombs already doing calculus and helping protect the group? What kind of logic is that, since it's certainly not the logic of evolutionary biology! I don't know what strawman of evolutionary biology No-Mind Fascist Troll got his "information" (that's in quotes like "Dr" Kent Hovind will forever be in quotes) but it's not even one I could see many Creanderthals pulling out, since they would be too afraid of looking like idiots while trying to convert the masses. Whatever the case, this guy is such a crazy fascist bigot that his insane cut n' paste banditry isn't even entertaining. At least most of the Creanderthals I've seen on the internet have me laughing it up. There is a limit of bat shit crazy I can take, and No-Mind Fascist Troll has definitely crossed it big time.
"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!
I know I'm a late comer to this debate, but I have to jump in and give NO-MIND some credit here ... "crunchbutter" is my new favorite word. He may be a nutbar, or a troll (my bet), or a jokey-smurf atheist with WAAAAAY too much time on his hand, but crunchbutter is freakin' funny!
WE HAVE PROOF OF PSYCHIC POWERS!!!
DING DING DING!!! YOU WIN! SUCH PSYCHIC ABILITIES! You should take your psychic abilities to the Great Randi! You could win the $1,000,000 prize with your powers!
"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!
Quite so.
He does seem suspiciously like a hardcore 'Pataphysician.
I'd prefer immortality. And $10,000 cash [said in the voice of Eric Cartman].
$10,000????? Boy are you a cheap date.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Artifacts and Other Evidence Favoring Human / Dinosaur Co-occupation of the Earth
throughout history regarding people places and events around the world that testify to the fact of dinosaurs walking amongst humans.
the same rock!
humans coexisted!
atheist chumps with chimp envy on this thread are a peso a dozen. so sad too bad none of you are qualified to meet my posted challenges to justify your ingore and rant jibberish summed up in your humanist pagan religion for drones called evolution.. you spend your rebuttals on ignore and amuse as ignoramuses. thus the need for a-muse ment parks(atheist run museums) just like the need for a-bio- genesis as preached in pubic schools for the deaf numb and behind. yeah lol humans are the apex of creation yet atheists monkey wannabe slapnuts are the precurser to the satanic message of metropolis and the vision of subjective mindless drones giving themselves over to the insidious master manipulator and failed rebel of the universe/single spoken sentence.
bacteria/fish/lizards are not born to know calculus but they are born to live fully capable of surviving in the real world whereas the superiour human kingdom is not born with any capacity for survival yet it has the capacity to surpass all other living creatures of creation by learning calculus and even the key to eternal life through YAHUWSHUA. thus solving the desire to live while under penalty of death through transgression against the laws of the CREATOR who is the infinite person and is identified.
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.
Dude, No-Mind Fascist Troll, of course we are not going to take you seriously, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FLINTSTONES BEING A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY!!!
"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!
yabba dabba do
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Submitted by B166ER on July 7, 2010 - 12:17am.Dude, No-Mind Fascist Troll, of course we are not going to take you seriously, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FLINTSTONES BEING A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY!!!-------------------<>>>>>>>>> NO, I am talking about real people places and events according to facts in the real world past and present and sadly for you in the future. Having freewill means you are not being oppressed by YAHUWAH the inifinite person identified as the CREATOR of matter in space over time. bitching about me sharing a perspective in a rational response to the insane deuche posse on this irrational response fraud of a thread , it is what I have come to expect from your kind. MIND OVER MATTER is a reality you fear because you are the matter in question and the mind of the CREATOR is what you fear. and instead of meeting my posted challenges to prove you are not just a drone minion of satans ass you you accuse me of fascism? lol all the fascists in history were and are atheist pricks who support abortion mass genicide, heterosexually challenged fools, and subjugation to satan. etc.....
the pittiful fact is satan wants you dead you fool. there is no joy in oblivion(the second death) as far as the fire and brimestone that is a special rsvp for non humans.
TROLL ? lol you fit the profile. all you do is spew mutated dwarf sized ignor and rants. living under a bridge or in a petry dish ?
you would rather preach your faith in scum to scumbag atheist,-- given enough unseen imaginary time and chance/mother bitch nature and energy. lol
never mind the fact that there are countless living organisms alive and well and unchanged according to real science.
never mind the fact that all the evidence for your religion starts with A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.............
nevermind the fact that you are a chump with chimp envy looking for closure in this life without accountability.
nevermind the fact that you are an expendable drone pawn for the nwo under satan. selling out your own human race for a lost cause.
"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-another drone minion of satans ass.
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself." so if you look with love you will be in love
"Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" very well according to their designed properties and precsion placment in our star system.
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.
if we are taliking about dates in the world we know then we all wrong as the earliest known calenders and dates were discovered in 3114bc so the world as we know it is just under 6000 years! but then you have to remember that they had 360, 400 and 584 day years! an 819 day year was also discovered. and i am not working it out properly.
using ancient calenders i can only get the earth to being approx 11,412,629 years old but i will research more cause there has to be a way of proving this even though i think its a load of rubbish and the world is 36 years old cause that is how long i have been around!!!!
and please all religious people dont start shouting rubbish and chucking scripture at me as i have read most religious texts.
Go to beforeus.com. Johnathan Gray is an archeologist. Let him answer your question because he is the expert in that field. I do know that carbon dating is highly inaccurate. Take it away Mr. Gray.
This is what happens when you read von Daniken and the Bible side by side...
"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
As usual completely devoid of fallacies from force and your own special ad hominem blunderbus. Anytime you are prepared to offer commentary on some actual data we'll stop thinking you are an obnoxious fuckwit. In the meantime, please use the controls on that tardis to go back to the 1500s. They need a new inquisitor in Toledo and you'd be perfect for the job of standing in a pulpit shouting abuse at braver human beings than you will ever be.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
1. There is no reason that non-living matter can become living
2. There have been many cases of fossilised intermediate for example the, almost fully complete evolutionary tree of the horse. The mud skipper is a brilliant example of what an intermediate between the humans aquatic and land stages (however it is not an actual direct relative of us)
3. It is quite easy to explain how the human eye got so complex, before I start there are fossils of creatures which don't have nearly as complex eyes as humans or many of the animals today, so my question is, if god is all knowing why didn't god create the perfect eye in the first place? Even our eyes could do with much improvement.
The simple explanation is that the first tiny blob of living matter produced more living matter etc. and so on and so forth until you come to the jellyfish-like-creature which evolved (over millions/billions of years) into an aquatic creature with fins and tiny slits in the sides of it's head which could see almost nothing and had a very small colour sppectrum. So over time the eyes got larger, their colour spectrum got wider and so on and so forth.
And the Earth/evolution is not affected by the second law of thermodynamics because it only applies to closed systems, like the universe (which you referred to), so evolution can exist because with the suns radiation, and things, like metals forged in stars which fall to earth etc.
4. Since when is Darwin's theory atheistic, he believed it and he was a Christian. Anyway, many,many,many people have given almost literally mountains of evidence to prove how the theory of evolution by natural selection perfectly explains how the eye is as complex as it is.
5. They may be different (evolution and mutation) may be going in different directions but they overlap. Oh and evolution doesn't always make creatures more organised its that only the organised ones survive.
6. That equation, 1 in 10260 would probably improve with the Earth having exquisite and vital things needed for life to exist, and it took millions/billions of years to actually happen.
And that is an explanation from a 13 year old boy
The second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about an organising intelligence, merely that to go from disorder to order, ie lower entropy, requires an input of energy, which in the case of the emergence of life on Earth is available from the Sun, or from internal heat from inside the Earth in the case of the other possible sites of abiogenesis, namely undersea volcanic vents.
A singularity at the Big Bang has zero entropy, being of notionally zero volume, so there is no problem there.
Every time an animal grows from a single fertilised cell we observe a massive increase in complexity due to purely natural processes.
Just a few examples of the nonsense in that post.
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
Lewis Black provides Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4
www.RichWoodsBlog.com