Archive

Archive for the ‘creationism’ Category

New Ceres Data Defies Big Bang and Evolution Theories, Supports Genesjs Creationism

Source: New Cerwes Data Defies 4.5 Billion Years

Advertisements

A Test: 66 Questions for Philosophers, Mathematicians, Agnostics, Atheists and Evolutionists

August 9, 2012 3 comments

Note: this is copyrighted, and use of it for profit, for example, in a sermon or employment application, advertisement, written material for sale or any other items, including clothing, requires the permission of the copyright holder.

“For the most divine knowledge is… most worthy of honor. … other sciences… are more necessary than [theology,] but none more excellent… For by theology you may find reason to continue living and even obtain eternal peace.” Said by Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, over 321 years before the giving of eternal life, Christ, was born into a human body.

Aristotle was wrong. Knowing and understanding God is the most important thing, because, as he said, it is necessary for achieving eternal peace. “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” “It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” – Yeshua, Christ

The Questions:

1) The emotional system (spiritual heart). How many types of emotions can a human feel? Where are the emotions being felt, what location? Do emotions have a color, smell, and can they be felt or directly seen? What is the maximum emotional intensity a person can feel without becoming insane? What causes emotions? Why do humans or animals have desires? Why aren’t humans non-emotional, and simply like programs in an unemotional machine? How is the mind able to be connected to the heart? What caused this connection? What caused self-awareness? What caused the connection of the mind to the brain? Why do humans have different types of personalities? Why do humans interact with happiness, anger or dislike for each other? Why do they have concern of any kind for anything at all, why are they curious about anything?
2) The mental system (mind). What is the cause of human thoughts? Why does a mind think, reason? Where is the will located? Why do humans have a will, rather than simply a program like a computer with no will, that needs to be directly made to do something to perform another function? How did the human mind obtain the ability to create thoughts in the human brain and move muscles by willing/wishing to do so? Is this some sort of psychokinesis? How is the mind able to reproduce sounds and other sensations it’s heard? What caused this ability? How is the heart able to be connected to the mind? What caused this connection? What caused the connection of the heart to the rest of the body’s sensory system and how is it connected to it? Why do all living things, when repeatedly harmed, tend towards an insane/chaotic/disordered/illogical way of life, except humans, which need a guide and training to live a religious/ordered/logical of life and?
3) The neurological system (brain, including spinal cord). How fast is the human brain? How fast is the human brain? How fast are individual brain cells/neurons? What is its maximum memory capacity? How fast can it store a memory? How many neurons does the average adult have? How many functions does the human brain have. Can a brain grow new brain cells? How many regulatory functions (how many systems in the human body) does the brain monitor and control and how complex is this task and how many neurons does it require for the brain to do so? How is the mind able to reproduce sounds and other sensations it’s heard? What caused this ability? Why don’t damage brain cells regenerate faster?
4) The digestive system. Is it simple or complex? How complex is it? How many types of food can be digested?
5) The lingual system. Where did language come from? How many languages can a person speak, how many types of tastes can the tongue taste, and how much heat can the human mouth withstand without being burned, or coldness, without being damaged? And how many types of chemicals can be put in the mouth, and at what level, without it being damaged, or beyond the point of healing, for example, pepper and toxic wastes from various types of bacteria?
6) The optical system (eyes). How many colors can the eye see, and how many mega pixels? How close and far away can optimal eyes see? How many different color combinations do eyes come in? What is the maximum amount of light a human eye can withstand without being damaged?
7) The nasal system (nose). How many smells are discernable? A small simple number? And how is it possible?
8) The touch system (skin and nerves), including sensations from body hairs, which also makes possible the euphoric feeling of feeling fine hair brush against skin and sexual contact.
9) The auditory system (ears). What is the frequency rance of hearing?
10) The nervous system (nerves, including spinal cord). How many nerves does the average human body have, and how many types of sensations can it feel, and to how many organs does it connect to and how fast can a nerve respond to a sensation?
11) The immune system. How are immune cells know how to defend themselves? Why do immune cells not attack each other, helpful bacteria, or the body they are within, or anything? Why do immune cells only attack specific things? Why is it never beneficial for an immune cell to mutate if mutations are what caused immune cells to reach their level of complexity and abilities to defend themselves and the human body against countless types of bacteria and non-living chemicals and be at peace with countless other types of chemicals? How did immune cells get their ability to communicate with each other and other cells?
12) The cardiovascular system (lungs, throat, nasal passage). How many functions are performed by this system and how complex is it compared to that of the simplest known life form?
13) The gastrointestinal system (gall bladder, pancreas, intestines). What are the functions of this system? How complex is this system, it’s total number of functions?
14) The circulatory system. What are the functions of this system? How complex is this system, it’s total number of functions?
15) The skeletal-musculatory system (bones and cartilage). How many bones are in the human body? How many muscles are in the human body? How complex is this system? How many bones does a human have? Why does the body reduce it’s number of bones over time? Why and how does the body know to reduce the number of bones in its body? Why isn’t the human body armored? Why aren’t human skeletons made of titanium or some other extremely strong and light metal? Why doesn’t the human skeletal system regenerate faster? How many total muscles are there in the human body? What is required for a human to balance itself when standing and what amount of programming is necessary for it to be able to walk and to run and to do so while turning its head from side to side or up and down or even with its eyes closed?
16) The hair texture, coloration and pattern. Why do humans have different varieties of hair types? How many different shades of human hair are there? Why is there curly, wavy and straight human hair rather than just one type? How long can human hair grow? What are the total number of functions of human hair? Why is scalp hair different from eyebrow hairs, mouth and chin and pubic hairs, why isn’t there just one type of hair texture? How many different texture types of human hair are there? What are the total number of human hair patterns, why do some humans have different hair covering patterns?
17) How many types of laws of physics does the human body operate by to function?
18) The sleep cycle. Why do humans sleep? What is the average length of time a human sleeps, and why? How did the human body get the ability to continue breathing, moving to keep from blood clotting and suffocation and keep from going to the bathroom, while sleeping, and ability to cease when a person needs to urinate or defecate?
19) The life cycle. Why do humans live on average 70 to 80 years, and at most 250 years? Why don’t humans live indefinitely or even longer, like turtles, alligators, crocodiles, Redwood and Joshua trees and other long-lived trees?
20) The human genetic system (genes, DNA and RNA). How complex is the human genetic system? How many total functions does the human genetic program contain? How does DNA and RNA cause certain molecules to form structures, or entire humans or perform tasks? What caused DNA to form?
21) The human reproductive system. Why are there male and female humans as opposed to non-sexual humans? How many functions do the reproductive systems have? How complex are the female and male human reproductive systems? Why does it take many months for a human to be born?
22) Why don’t human body parts regenerate faster and why only finger and toe tips and other small amounts of skin and muscle parts? Why does it regrow scar tissue instead of the former tissue?
23) Why are some living things born self-sufficient, like ants, bees, caterpillars, spiders, beetles, worms, bacteria, fungi, mushrooms, crabs after hatching, not needing a guide or training, and others needing them, like humans, apes, monkeys, dolphins, whales, birds, dogs, rodents, cats, scorpions, some crabs, elephants, rhinos, giraffes, pigs, cattle, goats and sheep? How do animals that require milk to feed know to suck on a teet for milk, or a baby human on a nipple for milk? How do animals know what to eat and drink? Why do animals run, hide, attack, pretend to be dead or stay still to avoid danger, even when very young? How did they learn to do these things? Why do most animals protect their eggs and angrily if they sense the eggs are in danger? Why do some animals show concern for each other, and others not? Why do some animals get along with other kinds of animals, and others not?
24) How many functions are there in Earth’s ecosystem? How complex is Earth’s ecosystem?
25) The second heaven: How many stars are there? How many planets are there? How many galaxies are there? How many stars far outside of galaxies exist? How many types of stars exist? How many types of planets are there? How many known physical universes are there?
26) What difference would it make if there was one galaxy containing all the stars, planets and comets in the universe, rather than none, and if no star or planet or comet ever diminished, or collided?
27) How many physical laws are there? How complex are all of these laws together, or what is the total amount of information of all of the known laws? How many letters or words would it take to list all of the laws and the total number of ways in which they affect other things?
28) What is science? Can science teach anyone anything?
29) What is religion? Can religion teach anyone anything?
30) What is a human? Can a human teach anyone anything?
31) What is an animal? Can an animal teach anyone anything?
32) What is the Bible? How many books are in the Bible? How many words are in the Bible? How many laws are in the Bible? What are the main laws of the Bible? How many events are in the Bible? When was the Bible written? How many different people are mentioned in the Bible? How many countries are named in the Bible? How many cities are named in the Bible? How many races are named in the Bible? How many languages are mentioned in the Bible? How many concepts are there mentioned in the Bible? How many emotions are mentioned in the Bible? Does the Bible say anywhere to reason? Does the Bible say anywhere to make judgments? Does the Bible mention anything similar to the scientific method? Does the Bible say anywhere to not assume things? Does the Bible anywhere say to take disobedience to God seriously? Does the Bible anywhere say not to take disobedience against God seriously? How seriously does the Bible say to take disobedience against God? What are three other words the Bible uses to describe disobedience to God?
33) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if there Bible was never written, besides people merely not knowing what the Bible was?
34) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if no one ever said what was true, besides that they always lied?
35) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if no one believed in any spiritual or alien being with the ability to imprison or kill any animal or human, besides that no one would believe in such beings?
36) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if no one ever made a judgment? Do you need to know the scientific method or perform it to know what would happen if no one ever made judgments?
37) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if if no one ever pointed out whenever someone lied, stole, murdered, showed hatred towards another person for an unjust reason, or never obeyed their parents?
38) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what the world would be like if everyone believed they were merely an animal, besides that everyone believed they were an animal, and not human?
39) Can you show, even by the scientific method, whether or not an animal is more important than a human, or if any living thing is more important than another? How do you measure “importance”?
40) Can you give twenty historical and twenty everyday examples of what most people would consider evil when humans believe they are merely animals and not beings who are responsible to a god or God?
41) Can you give twenty historical and twenty everyday examples of what most people would consider good when humans believe they are merely animals and not beings who are responsible to a god or God?
42) Can you give twenty historical and twenty everyday examples of what most people would consider good when humans believe they are responsible to a pagan god, including “Allah” and the Yahweh said to have only written the Old Testament?
43) Can you give twenty historical and twenty everyday examples of what most people would consider good when humans believe they are responsible to the Yahweh said to have written the Bible through humans?
44) What is a Catholic? How are they different from Calvinists?
45) Do you know the definition of all of what are commonly called “the major religions of the world” and the alleged origins of and a short history of each?
46) Do you know who the top 50 scientists of the world were, and what their religion or “way of life” was or that of their parents or ancestors?
47) Do you know who the inventor of the pyramid was, when and how all the known pyramids were built, how long it took to make the ones that still stand and what their functions were, or who made the first magnifying glass, microscope, telescope, hot air balloon, blimp, steam engine, gasoline engine, electric motor, modern battery, calculator, telephone, radio, light bulb, airplane, car, bicycle, motorcycle, skateboard, refrigerator, tape recorder, television, computer and satellite were, or of their parents or ancestors?
48) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what difference it would make if everyone believed that Earth was not the center of the universe or not?
49) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what difference it would make if everyone believed in Relativity?
50) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what difference it would make if everyone believed in abiogenesis?
51) Can you show, even by the scientific method, what difference it would make if everyone believed evolution?
52) How many generations of creatures would it take
53) How do you define beneficial, good and evil and why?
54) Is your definition of beneficial, good and evil the same as everyone of every culture, religion, philosophy, city or country?
55) What is the definition of “proof”?
56) What is the definition of “evidence”?
57) What is the definition of “fact”?
58) What is the definition of “truth”?
59) What is the definition of “transitional fossil”?
60) Did you realize how unfathomably complex this universe and the living things in it were? Do you know? How much more do you understand and why should I care? How much do you really know and understand, you who don’t believe in God, who believes the universe was always here, or came from an explosion, and that living things formed without intent and that at least one living thing turned into humans? Do you know and understand as much as you thought you did after reading these questions?
61) Are you my God? If you don’t believe in a god or God, should you tell me right from wrong or command me to do anything?
62) Is there any point in loving anything or getting angry at anything or being curious about anything?
63) What is “circular reasoning” and can you give examples of it?

Three more questions:

64) If evolution truly happened, than how many generations of creatures would it take, starting with the first ancestor of humans, and how long, to evolve into us unfathomably complex humans, along with our differing reproductive organs? Would it take a hundred years? A thousand? 10,000? 100,000? 1 million? 2 million? 50 million? 100 million? 500 million? 1 billion? 5 billion? 10 billion? 14.7 billion years? Think about how long it would take for everything to work out to get to us.

65) If there are no transitional fossils, due to Earth repeatedly having massive changes to its land and ocean scape, why are there many so called “living fossils” which haven’t changed from billions to millions of years? Examples: the giant triops, which the evolutionists at Wikipedia, headed by an atheist, deliberately erased from their triops article, even though a video of it was clearly shown and seen by hundreds of thousands of people? Did billions of people have to see it for it to be admitted what it was to be acceptable to the evolutionist, liberal, anti-Christian, narcissist atheists and greedy businessman who control Wikipedia? And that’s just one of many “living fossils”, which obviously aren’t living fossils, because there obviously is no such thing as evolution. It’s a made up story, believed or used by the bitter, the prideful, and cultists, like Mainstream Scientologists.

Would you like more questions to think about?

66) Animal behavior: Why do nearly blind scorpions, when repeatedly disturbed and not knowing where the location is of what disturbed it, stand tall while walking with their tails raised tall? Are they, which are nearly blind, thinking, “I will scare others with my height and the with the stinger and the poison in my stinger. I will cause them pain or kill them and eat them if they are small enough”? What’s your answer? How do birds know to keep their eggs warm, and at a certain temperature? Did other birds tell them, “It must kept at this amount of warmth, don’t let it get colder than this temperature”? So, who would you say is stupid and delusional? Who would you say is blind and hypocritical Who would you say is, “intellectually dishonest,” whatever that’s supposed to mean? Who would you say doesn’t think for themselves?

The 2 Peter 3 Prophecy

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. – NIV

The Romans 1 Prophecy:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – NIV

The Prophecy Jeremiah Spoke to the Jews,
Concerning Their Punishment

This is what the Lord says:
“Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is,
and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
I appointed watchmen over you and said,
‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’
But you said, ‘We will not listen.’
Therefore hear, you nations;
you who are witnesses,
observe what will happen to them.
Hear, you earth:
I am bringing disaster on this people,
the fruit of their schemes,
because they have not listened to my words
and have rejected my law.

What do I care about incense from Sheba
or sweet calamus from a distant land?
Your burnt offerings are not acceptable;
your sacrifices do not please me.”
Therefore this is what the Lord says:
“I will put obstacles before this people.
Parents and children alike will stumble over them;
neighbors and friends will perish.

Related Article
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution

Categories: agnosticism, atheism, creationism, evolution, ID theory, Inflation Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Creationists Link Evolution With the Big Bang?

…because evolutionists and big bangists keep doing so.

Rather: Why do atheists keep asking when it’s them and their evolution-pushing friends who keep dropping weasel-worded absurdities like this?:

“Many scientists expected Mercury, being a small planet only slightly larger than the moon, to have cooled off not long after it formed and to be essentially ‘dead’ for most of its evolution,” said Maria Zuber of MIT (quoted from Space.com).

As I pointed out about two or three months ago before this post, a “scientist” previously claimed rocks evolved, and now: planets do too! And guess which site I found the “rocks evolve” quote on? Space.com. In fact no doubt to them the entire universe does (just the not religious people for some reason, unless they become atheists or “non-extremist” pandering liberals who fund their silly “science” (delusion-spreading propaganda) projects”). So, why do atheists keep asking? Because you won’t shut up about it. “Evolution” this, “Evolution” that, “Darwin” this, “Darwin” that. Such talk reminds me of cultists with a hatred for Christianity and communists and socialists and Hitler with their relentless propaganda, trying to brainwash everyone into believing them with endless repetition and ignoring reason and their own hypocrisy.

Categories: creationism, evolution propaganda, evolutionism, Mainstream Science Cult Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Intelligent Design Compatible With Darwinian Evolution Theory?

On 6/20/2010 on Coast to Coast AM, radio show host George Noory interviewed “Dr. Bernard Haisch” who the C2C AM website describes as “an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. His professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. In addition, he was also Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.” George almost right away brought up Stephen Hawking asking what was going on with him, and Bernie made it seem as if Hawking had had a change of mind after having written a book (his latest) called The Grand Design and might believe in an intelligent designer who designed the universe, saying that it seemed to Hawking that the laws of the universe were “finely tuned” (designed) for life (an old evidence for God or someone or someones like him having created the universe), but actually Hawking hadn’t changed his mind since writing his book, and was simply stating what seemed true to him, yet is in denial about it as his book The Grand Design shows. Bernie then said that he believed that humans had been created with a purpose and that’s “It’s more likely that the universe is a finely tuned place for life.” Bernie also brought up how astrophysicist George Ellis said that “life would not be possible if there were very small changes”. What Ellis said actually said was, “What is clear is that life, as we know it, would not be possible if there were very small changes to either physics or the expanding universe that we see around us.

However he said that he believed we were created through evolution, and “to learn” and that God didn’t create us in the way the Bible says and doesn’t “interfere” , because that would be “like [the] Santa Claus [story being true]” He also said that “the purpose behind all this is for God to evolve himself”. He said that he went to the “Latin school of Indianapolis” and to a Catholic seminary for one semester in an attempt to become a (Catholic) priest. He also posed the question “was the universe was made in a way that was conducive for life” and answered himself, saying “yes it was.”

Bernie’s misdescribes what it is when God acts within the universe, calling it “interference”. Why so? When a human does something is it automatically “interference”? Obviously not. Further, he compares the claim that God directly created humans instantly as being like the Santa Clause story, but does not explain why, or how such a comparison is evidence against the Genesis record. Further, his claim that God acting within the universe would go against “us” (humans) learning anything is without evidence. He doesn’t explain how that would prevent us from learning anything. And it goes against common sense: why if God gave us information would that PREVENT any human from learning anything? It would be just the opposite: they would learn about God (some way in which he does or can communicate) and learn the information he gave them if he allowed them to understand what he said. Also, why if God was able to create the laws of the universe (which is nothing simple, and which no creature has apparently mastered, not even aliens being that they can crash and die, must travel in vehicles to get to Earth and use created tools to examine us further than what they can learn simply by their senses), why if God could do that, and create a universe itself, would he NOT be able to see the future perfectly as the Bible claims, or alter it in anyway without preventing us or himself from learning or evolving as Bernie implied? Why would God NOT learn anything by altering what he made? Would God NOT learn something he spoke to a human or any of his creatures and observed how they reacted? I also noticed that part of Bernie’s illogical beliefs about reality was due to his belief in randomness, a thing which doesn’t exist being that everything, as he himself acknolwedges, goes by finely tuned laws, and that there is a purpose behind everything, not a “random non-purposed experimental universe by a God who failed at his experiment”. So, he contradicted himself. And because of his belief in randomness (a thing which allows for things to happen for no logical reason, apart from the laws of the universe and therefore unable to be purposed/directed), he also believes in Darwinian evolution. Bernie also believes in the “Big Bang”, a thing which has much evidence against it.

After, George said to Bernie that he didn’t believe that God sent floods and Bernie agreed saying that there were verses in the Bible that were “simply awful” like a verse in Deuteronomy in which if a man discovered his bride wasn’t a virgin, that he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep, and saying that that was man’s evil projection onto God, and so revealing his ignorance about God’s authority, the symbolism in the Bible and his laws, and projecting his evil mind onto God’s, which is obviously a hypocritical thing and which contradicts his self-righteous “spirituality” which he said he had on the show. George asked Bernie if he believed that there was a purpose behind everything, and Bernie said that he believed there was. Bernie then said he believed we had spirits that continued to exist after we died.

After that, but not immediately after, George allowed a caller to correct him and Bernie, but they both rejected the correction. Among other things the caller said that there was no evidence for evolution, and said that the claim that God loving everyone would prevent him from harming anyone was false. George challenged the caller a little asking illogically how God could flood the world (and be loving), which is nonseniscal because the caller didn’t say that God WOULDN’T do that, but was saying the opposite of that, and that probably confused the caller a little, because the caller made the mistake of at first denying that God directly caused the flood, but then said it was necessary to get rid of the corruption in the world, the corrupt people being like a poisoned leg that needed to be removed lest the whole body dies. The caller also believed wrongly that the “Nephilim” were all evil (which he implied were of the corrupt people that needed to be killed), which isn’t something you can know being that that word means “giants” and is debatable as to whether or not it also means “bully” which is another way it can be used. When the caller met George’s challenge George seemed a littled annoyed, and Bernie failed to refute the caller, and in part of Bernie’s reply to the caller, claimed that he was wrong to say that there was no evidence for evolution and that it was “well laid out”, even though the caller made it clear that he was talking about two different types of evolution: micro evolution and macro, but again, Bernie ignored that and simply said “evolution”, ignoring the two types, and so committed the logical fallacy of bait and switch (equating two things which are not equal).

It’s also notable that George is a Catholic and pro-Catholic and anti-fundamentalist Christian, yet by denying “awful” verses in the Bible is committing heresy against Catholicism, and he’s been doing this for many years, in the ears of many millions of people, including Catholics, and yet his Pope has not excommunicated George for this nor rebuked him for it. So, George is a hypocrite, and it is strong evidence that Catholics are poorly unified. Unity is supposedly one of the evidences that Catholicism is the true religion according to various Catholics, including the Popes who has lead them. On about June 6th I had been in a Catholic church and observed Catholics doing mass for the first time, and the priest gave a sermon, and in it said that Catholics had a problem with unity, so, at least one Catholic of standing is in agreement with me (but he didn’t know that that is what I believed).

For those who might argue, “Evolutionists who say that evolution is random don’t understand what they are talking about since evolution really isn’t random but follows the laws of the universe. So really there is no problem with evolution science it’s just one of the laws of the universe.” Still, such a statement doesn’t give any evidence that molecules can by the laws of the universe turn into living things, like the simplist living thing to humans or aliens as intelligent as or more intelligent than humans. And for those who simply argue that it’s a myth that evolution is random, like Cameron McPherson Smith and Charles Sullivan, two evolutionists, they give no evidence for this being a myth, but use this stupid time-wasting insulting argument: “But we know that a glance at a flower or moose or meadow isn’t enough to appreciate all of nature, just as a glance at a book isn’t enough to appreciate a whole story. A glance at a living thing sees the here and now, but is blind to the billions of years of life recorded in the fossil record,” as if anyone has been around to see billions of years go by. And from the rant I took that quote from, they don’t say why it’s a myth, but end their insultingly stupid time-wasting rant with, “Both supporters and critics of evolution use the same phrase–“evolution is random”–to support their claims. To really understand the phrase we need to distinguish between how it’s used to support these opposing viewpoints.” I wish I could punch them for deceiving me into reading their Internet pollution, their misleading search engine dung. Why did these idiots claim that “evolution is random” is a myth and why do they claim to be scientific and scientists and yet use non-scientific ranting like that? It’s digusting and sickening to me. And that I still take a chance and read supposed “why creationist is wrong and evolution is right” evidence refutes the moron evolutionists who claim I ignore the evidence and don’t listen and am deluded and close-minded etc. No morons: I have read your “evidence” very carefully as the many articles in my journal and elsewhere shows, and everytime I take a chance to read some new evidence, it turns out to be a disgustingly time-wasting rant or dumb false cult-minded claims, not evidence. And I think that that is the last time I am going to use my time to read anymore supposed evidence for evolution. I am utterly sickened by being told such and such is evidence for evolution and against creationism, only to read an illogical claim. I see now it’s all a shell game and time-wasting game and show-off “look at me and what I feel” game and spam the net to force it down the throats of non-liberals game. Doesn’t the world refer to people who do this as “trolls”? And yet the world calls true Christians “trolls” in their hypocrisy instead. That is what is truly “hypocrisy” and “blind”.

For those who don’t believe in an intelligently designed universe, or designed laws at least, and yet claim that evolution is not random – they are confused or being contentious, because IF THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WERE NOT DESIGNED, THEN THEY WERE WITHOUT PURPOSE AND LAWS DON’T CREATE THEMSELVES, therefore they would have to be produced by the opposite of something with a purpose, a RANDOM act, and randomness is WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE. Purpose is only something a thing with a mind would have, not a law that came into existence by randomness. And for those who would argue that it’s more likely then that the laws that produced the universe were always in existence or that the universe and the laws of it always existed, then a Creator: such people have no evidence for that claim, it’s just their ignorant opinion, even if they call it a fact.

God didn’t use man-to-molecules evolution because it is a pointless process: God taught man both directly and indirectly what right from wrong was within a few days, and gave further insight over thousands of years to learn about it. To spend billions of years waiting to teach HUMANS that is nonsensical, since humans didn’t exist for billions of years in Darwinian Evolution Theory, but only for at the most, hundreds of thousands of years, and maybe a few million, and so God would have waited billions of years just to say, “It’s wrong to disobey me”. Bernie’s version of learning right from wrong is also nonsensical, since if God doesn’t teach what right from wrong is, then no one would ever learn what it was, since right and wrong would never be known: Darwinian Evolution Theory has nothing to do with right from wrong and there is no evidence that it would cause any living things to think, “This is good and this is bad” or “This is the right way to do something and this is the wrong way”. DE Theory is an UNINTELLIGENT MINDLESS supposed law, but mindless doesn’t produce minds. Further, there is no evidence for Bernie’s claim that we’re all here to learn and then go on as spirits. Yet Bernie insists that his belief is true without evidence, like a cultist would do, an idiot.

People like Bernie who have the contradictory belief that there is such thing as randomness and simultaneously unchangeable laws are confused and say contradictory things.

Related Information:

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link: www.gaydna.tk

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lying About Loch Fossils: Mainstream Science Cult Lies Again

April 14, 2011 1 comment

Post link: http://lochfossils.tk

More sickening propaganda and greed come from the Mainstream Science Cult news source Sciencedaily:

Loch Fossils Show Life Harnessed Sun and Sex Early on [because the greedy cultists said so]

ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2011) — Remote lochs along the west coast of Scotland are turning up new evidence about the origins of life on land [because the greedy cultists said so].

A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College [grant money grubbers], who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains [evidence of a 6,500 Earth, not “billions and billions of years old”] of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago [because the greedy cultists said so].

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the —-> leap <—- [weasel word] from tiny, simple bacterial [because the greedy cultists said so, show the evidence, liars] (prokaryote) [oh look they used a “science” word kids and morons, so they must be smart n’ wise n trustworthy, they must know what they’re talking about!, not those dummy wummy fundie Kwistins] cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) [more complex means it must have evolved from less because the greedy cultists said so: it’s logical fallacy to make such a claim] cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible [because the greedy cultists said so]. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land [HUH?! SO THE EARLIER YOU FIND A COMPLEX ORGANISM THE “MORE RIGHTER WE ARE YOU FUNDIES!” HUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!???????????!?!?!?!!? NO SUPER MORON LIARS: THAT’S MORE EVIDENCE THAT BIBLE, GOD’S WORD IS RIGHT, NO YOUR LIE THAT EARLIER = MORE SIMPLE.] The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land [Sure the cultists do. Just like Mormons don’t doubt their religion when their leaders have them shun learning anything outside of their religion that shows it to be false]. – Source

Well, so much for the “skeptics'” claims that ancient bacteria can’t survive after millions of years, let alone a million. This article didn’t even mention how “skeptics” can’t believe or are “skeptical” that it’s possible for life or even DNA to last that long (yes: it is really unlikely if Earth was billions of years old, let alone a million or millions, right, Mainstream Science Cult and supporters?) I wonder why it’s not mentioned? Could it be because it would make Mainstreamers and their Skeptic sect look anti-scientific, because it would kill the excitement of the story, because it would make it look like Skeptics, which many Mainstreamers claim to be, like hinderers of science, or because it might provoke thought outside of the tiny mental box they try to trap everyone in? Because it might get the thoughtless to lift up their blinders and peek at the things in the light, and try to make out what they are seeing clearly? Can’t have that can we cultists? Thinking for yourself is a sin to cultists.

So, let’s get this lesson clear kids and morons: According to the Mainstreamers, the “earlier” a life form existed, the more simple, but if it’s complex [contradiction], the Darwin Cult of Mainstreamers are still right, cuz its just means like got complex suddenly, and the “earlier” a complex form of life is found, the more sudden it happened, and the later a simpler life form is found, it must not have evolved, or come from something simpler, because complex things only get more complex, never simpler, just like this circular reasoning.”

Anti-Christians and Mainstream Science Cult: Please stop teaching kids and morons bad logic, please stop wasting time and money by promoting lies with your time and the money God allows you to have and use. Please, it’s sickening, and inviting pain and death when you keep stealing, provoking, lying and hiding the truth and wrecking lives and wasting everyone’s time.

Categories: creation science, creationism, Mainstream Science Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lemmiwinks2’S ”Where did the universe come from” refuted

Lemmiwink2’s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:

“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”

And they are mistaken because you said so.

“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”

If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.

“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”

What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?

“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”

No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.

In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.

“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”

And that isn’t recent.

“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”

More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.

“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”

Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.

“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”

That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?

“The universe is eternal,”

And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?

“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”

Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.

“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”

Sounds circular reasoning to me.

“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”

In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.

“Big bang, big crunch.”

That’s not a sentence and makes no point.

“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”

After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.

“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”

Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.