@TheAntiV Science develops knowledge based on observable experiments. Evolutionism & creationism are beliefs on how life came about. While no one has observed one kind of animal cahnge into a different kind, as Darwinism teaches, we do see of millions of examples of kinds bringing forth after their kind as the Bible predicts will occur
The ignorance of this preacher is, so the speak of, beyond belief.
Would you like me to educate him?
Though, given his lack of education in ... just basically everything ... and his rock solifd believe in the unprovable, it is probably a waste of time to even try to educate him the basics.
However, I have always been an unrelenting optimist. So, would you like me to explain?
Incidentally, this creationist also accepts evolution as a fact. Would you like me to demonstrate that?
the bible has already lied. it will lie again when i wake up on the 22nd of may, im gonna get up brush my teeth like any other day, eat my breakfast everyday and thank everybody for life, not god. also explain how adam and eve created everyone. they had 2 sons, kane and abel. thank you.
@YuudaiRaiden Population studies reveal if we started with 4 couples 4,400 years ago (Noah & his family) & couples averaged bearing 2.2 kids, we would have about 6.5 billion people on earth today - which is about how many folks there are.
FYI: Adam & Eve had numerous children, only Cane, Abel and Seth are mentioned by name
@CreationMinistries that would lead to imbreeding, and imbreeding produces mentally retarded babies. When you get genious like einstein, mozart and gallileo its gard to believe we are all imbred. oh and by the way, its 21st, wheres the motherfucking "rapture"? i'd rather be a viking and believe in valhalla then then share heaven with stupid americans like you. the world laughs at you how stupid you are and yes thats aimed at your whole country, the southern states mostly.
Laws against marrying close relatives come from the Bible, given to Moses about 2,000 years after creation as mutations were beginning to build up in our gene pools. Whether you believe "God created" or that" you "evolved from a rock" there was breeding with close relatives at the start
@CreationMinistries I really think you need to think this over, you have dug yourself a pretty big hole but its not too late to start thinking logically, imagine where we would be if there was no religion? i bet you support bushes war on terrorism in iraq as well, when god says do unto your neighbour as they have done to you or somthing. what have terrorists done? blow up the twin towers? there is so much evidence it was an inside job. after that they blow up 2 buses in ldon over 10 years. wow.
@CreationMinistries Haha well in the end you lose, as evolution is taught in schools across where I'm from (Australia) with no signs of creationism in the curriculum apart from religious studies but no one does that or they do it because its a bludge. It's the way you were brought up, you were taught creationism is the right way, plus you have a natural charisma so you teamed them up the put forth convincing arguments but unfortunately its too late, stop making pointless arguments.
he states there is no evidence of evolution. is there any evidence of god? the bible is not evidence, anyone could write, give me a billion dollars and ill write a bible. what people say isn't evidence, i could say i was abducted by aliens and yet you won't believe me. the reason people believed all the ruckus about the bible is because they were ordered to. in the middle ages you could be jailed or sentenced to death it you arugued your belief or did not attend church.
@YuudaiRaiden Actually I say there is no evidence for Darwinian style evolution. Kinds do bring forth after their kind via micro-evolution (a brown dog begets a yellow dog). Millions of examples of kinds adapting within their own kind, bringing forth after their kind, can be shown - just as we're told will occur (10 times in Genesis). Real science is a Christian's best friend.
FYI: the Catholic Church tried to PREVENT people from getting the Bible. Most of what you refer was the result
@gregrutz What is a Darwinist? Someone who actulaly believes that an inconcievably tiny dot blew up to form everything including a big rock from which they evoved.
Darwinists have nothing but fraudulent "evidences" (I expose many right out of textbooks in my '50 Facts vs Darwinism' message) and name calling - the last bastion for those with no real evidence to show
It's 2010 and people don't know how to find information on what cosmogony and abiogenesis are or what evolution is and what it does and how? Instead people embarrass themselves by keeping videos up, showing talking clowns such as this one?
Unbelievable is right. All my examples are taken, as shown, directly from high school and college textbooks. Still you try to claim I am somehow making them up. I guess in order to hold to your religious dogma, denial is your only option.
@RussiansArePerfect Actually the oldest known living organism is a 4,300 year old bristlecone pine tree. Of course that is according to tree ring dating which is not a perfect aging system as trees can produce multiple rings in the same year.
@gregrutz Again, exactly what would be there following the global flood. Massive plate tectonics during and shortly after the event produced tremendous volcanic activity
@CreationMinistries There is no lava layers. There is no flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it. There are distinct layers, floods don't do that.
There are different kinds of rocks, floods don't do that.
@HowToBeASerialKiller nk the earth's sedimentary layers of rock, which were laid down by water, were not sorted by their properties in water? Interesting belief!
@CreationMinistries Not a belief at all. It's a demonstrable fact that the strata layers are not sorted according to their collective properties in water. Anyone claiming they are is being either ignorant or deceptive.
@HowToBeASerialKiller So you actually believe that the sedimentary layers which were laid down by water didn't form in water? Might want to reconsider that one!
@gregrutz The Coconino Sandstone was formed underwater and this is rather obvious from the angle of the cross bedded layers; the amphibian tracks laid down in water; the 'lines of parting lineation (only found in underwater dunes; and so much more...get your head out of the Secular propaganda and try to catch up with real science.
@gregrutz Gee Greg, seeing how I lead Grand Canyon hikes, raft trips and bus tours I think I might know GC a little better than you. Did youu know there is a mile deep layer of strta missing from atop the rim of the canyon? Gone from S Utah (Bryce) all the way to the Sea of Cortez? Only a global flood, which destroys old-earth beliefs, can explain this. Also, there are bits of broken coral and volcanic flows in the layers, exactly as would be expected following a global flood
@MahanaimCh About 85% of the branches of modern science were begun in order to study how God made His creation. Knowing there was a Designer they felt they should find laws and principles that guided things as opposed to random chance which would be difficult to follow.
For some reason when people discover how God did something they seem to think that proves there is no God....
@CreationMinistries So true. So sad to see. But back to my original question. How would you account for the advances that took place in China and Persia to mention only two places?
@CreationMinistries Yes, God fearing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
You have it wrong yet again - amazing - but at least you are consistant.
God-hating LAWYERS set off to get folks to not trust God's WOrd and re-interpreted the earth's strata as having formed over never-observed "millions of years."
Radiometrid dating? Open-minded folks should watch our "Old Earth or Global Flood" video to see the many wild guesses isotope dating methods require making them unreliable and unscientific
@CreationMinistries The preacher discussed the potential evidence for a global flood which would allegedly demonstrate the validity of the Noah's Ark event. This would appear to be a moot point since the Noah's Ark fable is purely fictional as detailed in "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore. Not only could the ship NOT have been built but there are a veritable plethora of additional logical fallacies which are presented in depth.
@CreationMinistries If only the size of the ship were the main problem. I'd say the main problem is that the story of Noah is a genetic impossibility, as in it couldn't have happened at all. /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
@CreationMinistries Also, (even though it is impossible) if you still believe that the Noah's Ark event was a factual historical occurrence....then you would have to say that the minimal number of animals that would fit on the Ark must have had some type of SUPER-evolution over only a few thousand years to account for the 1,700,000,000 species (conservative estimate and NOT including bacteria) which we have on the Earth today (some estimates say up to 30,000,000,000).
@gregrutz Goodness. I guess that you're referring to the claims of Desparate Darwinists who counted the rings of living & fossilized plants, like creosote, then claimed this proved "thousands of years of time." However, real science proved many of the plants lived at the same time...in other words, ten trees lived from 1200-1300 AD yet DDs claimed they represented 1,000 years of time. All this really proves is that Darwinists are desparate
@CreationMinistries Since we see absolutely no evidence of this "SUPER-evolution" (or SUPER-adaptation if you prefer) today then it would appear that it only lasted for a short time. So, to believe in the story of creation, not only do you have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old...but also that we had a global extinction and then a level of mutation that would kill any ordinary organism....all to accommodate what is said in a 2,000 year old holy book.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Your 1800's beliefs have not met any of their predictions while God's WOrd holds up just fine. Kinds only produce after their kind and the evidence of the global flood is overwhelming (this MUST be denied (2 Peter 3:3-6) as old-earth beliefs are based on the belief that earth's strata formed slowly - a flood explains how they formed quickly.) DNA mutation rates studies reveal we could have gone from one woman, the mitochondrial Eve, in about 6,000 years.
@CreationMinistries If your God actually does exist (and I would NEVER say with 100% certainty that he doesn't) then he most certainly utilized evolution in his creation. If you don't care to debate then I understand (no offense meant)...but ignoring the information doesn't make it disappear...it is just as relevant and just as accurate.
If you don't respond then I wish you the best. Peace.
@gregrutz Based on a starting belief that earth's strata layers formed over long ages of time, some scientists believed the earth was old. Radioisotope dating is based on this same starting and erroneous presupisition
@PtH888999 This is a perfect example of what I show in our '50 Facts vs Darwinism in the Textbooks." Each is these is a proven fraud yet are employed to mislead folks - like you.
@gregrutz RIght...I guess you're not counting Nebraska man, Ramapithecus; Lucy; Ida; Orce man, Tomei man; Flat-faced man....and that's just a few of the supposed hominids!
Speaking of frauds, never has a feathered dinosaur been found. Some fossils of now extinct flightless birds have been found and called 'dinsoaurs' by desparate Darwinists but real science has debunked such claims. Try catching up with real science.
@gregrutz I shot down each of your fraudulent 'proofs' and, unfortunately I can't OK your response as it is profanity-laced . Frauds and cursing is all you have. You know this fact. And it takes more faith to be an Atheist than it does to believe in anything else....to see all the wonders of creation and claim there is no Creator, that everything came about by accident, is not only illogical, but completely faith-based and against all observable science. Romans 1:20
@StopSpamming1 Of course today only secular beliefs are allowed to be published....bias which has undermined real science as about 90% of the branches of modern science were begun by creationists in order to study God's creation. Newton, Pascal, DaVinci, Maury and and, 90% of the founders of modern science, were creationists. Any other questions?
@CreationMinistries Newton, Pascal, DaVinci, and Maury, huh? You do realize those guys lived several centuries ago, right? Has the world remained exactly the same since their time? No, of course it hasn't. We have all kinds of new technologies, that came from new proofs and theories, that were based on new evidence gathered. I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that if you took all scientists from past ages and took them to today and showed them the evidence, ~90% would abandon religion.
@Aralithe Despite Darwinist claims, Darwinism has nothing to do with real science. Darwinism has held back research and corrupted science education. Science should abandon secular religion and return to being based on observable, repeatable evidences.
I don't understand what you mean by "all people hold a religious belief." I don't seem to believe anything. I don't even believe that I believe nothing. I also don't believe that I don't believe that I believe nothing. And, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't believe that I believe nothing. Further, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't that I don't believe that I believe nothing. Not to mention, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't...
@gregrutz I generally do not approve those with cursing but this reveals the total desparation of the Darwinian faithful so I felt it worth letting by
He's right, we do have the same evidence (in some cases) as christians. But the difference is the misinterpretation of the cause. You say "god" (the answer to everything, not because it's logical, but because it was created to be that way), but I say "science." Time will exalt science and crush religion because one sentence of truth can crush a whole book of lies.
I say "science", you say "given millions of years." Observable science is a Christian's best friend as the DNA Code Barrier+Gene Depletion+Natural Selection make Darwinism impossible. As you said, "one sentence of truth can crush a whole book of lies."
In theory you are correct, however all people hold a religious belief and what ever belief is held by a scientist will bias their interpretation of the evidences at hand
Secular Humanists own the schools and textbooks. Their religious belief is based on Naturalism which is based on the belief that "millions of years led to Darwinism"
Today, all research is forced to fit this religious belief, undermining both scientific research and scientific education
Absolutely correct! Regarding the implications is non-scientific. It is abused and upheld as enlightening truth of the non-existence of a creator. Their agenda is conveniently veiled under the guise of science when it is not actual science. "The God Delusion" is just one of many examples that illustrates it's agenda and implications in it's title! Yet they drool over it's "scientific truths"? Ridiculous. They fool only themselves.
Really really believing that an undetectable omnipotent being created the earth 6000 years ago is not the same as knowing it and it does not constitute evidence.
True. Biblical Christianity is a religious belief just as is Darwinism - one must have faith in either, though the facts fit the biblical interpretation far far better than the Humanistic worldview
Your taking Scripture out of context is not worth my time to respond to
Please submit your very best "proof" for Darwinism and I will be happy to shoot holes in it so everyone will see that you have nothing other than your erroneous interpretations of things
"facts fit the biblical interpretation" theres your problem, trying to cram the facts into your preconceived notion. Real science IE beginning with observation and working from there is what led us to the conclusion of evolution and old earth.
"Your taking Scripture out of context" When and how so?
"Please submit your very best "proof" for Darwinism" Its hard to pin down any one evidence for common descent as the best, but lets start with chromosome 2
If you actually studied the big bang and planet formation in a University, you would understand that everything you said is wrong. Those textbooks are written in ways that children in grade school could understand.
Rocks are mostly made of silicon and magnesium/aluminum. Ergo, life couldn't have formed from them. Rather, scientists suggest that life formed from organic compounds, not rocks.
The textbooks I use to reveal a few of the frauds of Darwinism are high school and college texts
How many years must I study at a university beforel I start to believe that nothing blew up, a big rock formed, it rained n the rock for millions of years and, poof, everything evolved on its own?
Also, please provide a testable, repeatable demonstration of life arising from non-life as Humanists and Darwinists claim
Firstly, I'm not even arguing on whether evolution or abiogenesis is true or not. I don't want to argue there because I'm pretty sure I cannot convince you.
I'm merely saying that you better not be beating on straw man versions of the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
Like I said, if you study science in a University, you would understand that the Big Bang is not something 'exploding'.
And I already told you that scientists don't think living beings came from rocks, but rather from organic compounds.
Oh, now I understand: Nothing did not "blow up" in a Big Bang, it just "expanded extremely rapidly"
Later a big rock formed and it rained on the rock and later, life did not come from the rock, instead, non-living organic compounds formed (from the wet rock) & suddenly came to life and changed into people, giraffes, eagles, etc.
And the scientific proof of any of this would be what?
This is a religious belief that flies in the face of all sciencitfic observations
Your comment is what is known as smoke and mirrors
Your "hydrolysis and organic and dehydration synthesis" acted on what.? Which came from where?
Oh yes, there was a Big Bang and a big rock formed and it rained on the rock and hydrolysis and organic and dehydration synthesis took place. Thanks for clearing that up
And how did this overcome the scientific Law of Biogenesis and create life?
You are promoting a religious belief that flies in the face of all scientic observation
"acted on what" nitrogen, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia etc, which came from fusion which occurs in stars. Pasteur and Redi's work with the law of biogenesis only shows that modern life does not spontaneously arise IE rats from garbage or maggots from rotting meat.
Never have scientists, working in controlled labs, building on the combination of millions of years of other researchers work, with billions of dollars of salaries, lab equipment and computers thrown in been able to get life to come about from non living matter
NEVER - that is real science.
Stop pretending to be a scientist and start your tale with "Once upon a time nitrogen, hydrogen...."
I realize that what I reveal exposes Darwinism for the false religious belief that it is.
I do not do this to upset the Darwinian faithful whose liefstyle is built around Darwinian beliefs and their implications but to help those who are truly seeking the truth.
My suggestion is that you open your mind to the fact that Darwinian change is a scientific impossibility and adjust your life choices accordingly
What you reveal? All i heard is words being moved around in little circles. And what on earth is Darwinism? I think you may be referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution though Natural Selection. Which is a scientific theory, in no way concerned with philosophy or religion.
Real science begins with evidence. A story is built that fits the facts. If the story holds up to scrutiny it becomes an hypothesis which, if it meets years of testing & study, becomes a scientific theory - in real science.
Darwin built his story on misinterpretated evidence (finches bringing forth finches after their kind - just a the Bible said would occur)
Failing to ever find any evidence to support his "theory" Darwinism is a religious belief that flies in the face of real science
Creationists rejecting evidence because it does not fit with their preconceived notions which come from a book that says the earth is flat does not constitute reasonable doubt. Human chromosome 2 alone shows common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.
Darwinists misconstruing evidence in order to fit their preconcieved notions which come from a book teaching we evolved from a rock does not constitute reasonable scientific proof.
Also, it was scientists that formerly taught the earth was flat.
God's Word has always taught that the earth was spherical in shape - eventually mankind proved that as well
Eratosthenes worked out that the earth was spherical 2200 years ago and even worked out its circumference with a margin of error of only a few percent, using science.
Real science, based on testable and repeatable things, has discovered many great things from space shuttles to antibiotics.
Eratosthenes, who proved what the Bible said was correct 1,250 after Isaiah was written, is a prime example - thanks!
However psuedo science, such as when the religious belief of Darwinism poses as if it were science, is another thing. Such false teachings have undermined both scientific research and education
I am sure everyone is happy to know that you can define 'confirmation bias.' I know I am
The bible does not say you can see the world from the tallest mountain. You are as accurate on this as you are with you statements in support of your religious belief in Darwinism - however you did get 'confirmation bias' correct.
My mind is open, and Darwinism does not exist. Darwin's theory of evolution exists, and it is very much scientific, I have no idea who taught you about science, because obviously they did a very crappy job of it. And truth is in your case, completely relative, i search for truth and what you teach is so far from it that to call it truth is laughable at best.
I do, however, admire your brilliant use of semantics, that impressed me, but nothing else did.
Darwin's "theory" was discarded years ago & replaced with Neo-Darwinism, another false religious belief that flies in the face of millions of scientific findings
Supported by frauds in the textbooks which have undermined scientific education & research the USA has gone from being rated #1 in the world in science (when based on creation) to #36 out of the top 40 countries
Real science, based on the facts, finds that kinds will only produce their own kind - just a the Bible said would occur
Then the *cause* that was "outside of the universes space, matter & time" must have then had a *cause* that was outside of the first *causes* space, time (environment).
You people crack me right up.
"Of all ancient religious texts, only the Biblical God claimed to exist outside of space, matter & time. "
LOL...... It also says:
"31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
The Law of Cause and Effect only applies to things that had a beginning. Again, the cause of the universe's space matter and time had to have existed outside of them in order to be scientifically viable and only the Biblical Creator claimed to have existed outside of ,and not be a part of, the space, matter and time that make up the universe. Genesis 1:1 In the beginnig (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).
3] Logic holds that for every result that had a start there was a cause that was not a part of the result
4] The universe is a result - its cause existed before & outside the universe's space matter & time
5] The biblical God claims to be eternal, outside of space matter & time - making the biblical God the only logical cause of the universe and everything in it
6] without a beginning God is outside of the law of Cause & Effect
You assume that the designer is confined to our spacetime continuum and therefore confined to causality. But the Biblical Creator God is exotemporal, existing outside of time (outside of our spacetime continuum) and therefore is not at all restrained or restrainable by the same rules that would so restrict endotemporal entities or objects (objects inside of our spacetime continuum, like us). 2 Peter 3:8 clearly demonstrates that God is not confined to the same flow of time that we are.
The trouble with calling them liars is that this implies they are deliberately misleading people, which I do not expect is the case. For the most part, I think they are honest, but mistaken.
When you talk about religion and you say someone is a person of faith, what does this mean? It means believing in something when there is no direct proof of it. This man is a preacher not a scientist. This man also condemns the text books the children are reading, why doesn't he scrutinize the bible as vigorously? Science isn't perfect, but it sure does explain alot, and I'll take math and science over the vague explaination that GOD did everything.
You are correct about religious faith. And creation & Darwinism are faith-based beliefs
I love real science and use it to refute the religious belief of Darwinism which is the foundation of Secular Humanism, a religious philosophy
Over the past 100 years Humanists have taken over science and greatly undermined both research & education by forcing scientists conclusions & textbooks to have to fit Humanist beliefs
Let's return science to being the search for the truth
Vague? Vague? darwinism is vague! I've listened to many, many arguments on this subject. Even argued myself-many! It's true! I have never ever heard or seen any evidence! The dogma they use is tiresome, because all it amounts to is dodging the question, name calling, cheap insults, and hissing at actual evidence against their belief. It's like we might burn them with a crucifix!
also I would like to know what your in depth analysis of tiktalik is any why you don't think it counts as a transitional. Please provide also your doctorate and PHD showing that you are qualified to make such claims and analysis' Also when was the last time you directly examined a fossil in person. It cant have been too long ago, after all you have all the same evidence.
Tiktaalik Roseae hit the news on April fools day 2006 which was your first hint.
NY Times is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate..the beginnings of digitsand shoulders.
How do you anticipate future random changes? Remember the Coelacanth who supposedly walked on the ocean floor before hiking out to become an amphibian? It is still a fish today with NO evolutionary changes! And it has bones just like Tiktaalik
Ah posting a comment u were ready for and disallowin the rest of my arguments. Such an honest thing to do. Of course you could make a creationist argument against tiktaliik and i threw that one in because its famous and i knew you would know about it. Something for you to "debunk" with prepared unsubstantiated jargon to see if you would be honest and allow and respond to my other arguments. suprise SUPRISE. You didnt. Good job proving yourself a liar for god, just like all creationist preachers.
The ONLY argument YOU put out was Tiktaalik (thanks for making it so easy for me) You did list some proDarwinian websites NOT arguments and you called me names.
3 things:
1] You want me to believe the real evidence for Darwinism is on these sites but NOT in the textbooks?
2] Name calling is the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their position so I normally do not put such comments on my site
3] I only respond if you have something I consider worth responding to
Also you must be familiar with GULOP (after all we "have the same evidence"). Could you please provide me with an explination as to how this could be predicted by creation science, as it was by evolutionary science? What about it might be used to point away from the nested hierarchy and towards special creation. How does it fit the creation model and what studies did creationists use to predict this with the accuracy that biologists did, since they have the same evidence?
The Darwinian tale that psuedogenes are left over in the course of primate to man evolution collapses in the face of the discovery that guinea pig and human GULOP have 36% identical disablement
This logically refutes the entire Darwinian "shared mistakes" argument.
(Unless you think you evolved from a guineapig).
Supposed junk DNA is quickly being found to hold the keys to the RNA/DNA system -again the evo's were wrong and the complexity screams out "Intelligent Biblical Designer."
I have no more interest in this conversation. Your censorship is dishonest if you wont allow me to show my side of the conversation. Especially when you pretend you aren't censoring what i say.
I suggest you are upset because the ONLY arguments YOU have put forth are Tiktaalik & GULOP - I have easily answered both.
3 things:
1] Your strength seems to be name calling, the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their position . I normally do not put such comments on my site.
2] I am not obligated to post your rantings and I only respond if you have something I consider worth responding to.
3] You are passionate about your religious belief and I do respect that.
What? Is something eating you inside? So you have to call someone a liar for no reason? You must live in a world where lying and blaming others is normal everyday life! You must think everyone lies, Is that how you darwinists reason this stuff that comes out of your mind? It's like all of you think in a circle that you just can't get out of! Find the door!! I don't see you offering any evidence either.
Claiming that science is based in faith without evidence is ironic because religion, quite obviously, also is. Why does it become a bad thing when applied to science? How does that invalidate the claim when Christianity is based in faith?
The Bible is assumed to be as true as these textbooks. Come on now. And Calcium isn't even an organic substance. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
I am pointing out a few of the faulty assumptions of Darwinian evolutionism and that Darwinism, like creationism, is a religious belief, not science.
Actual science is based on repeatable events, not on the blind faith. I compare Darwinian and Biblical teachings to observable facts, revealing that true science is a Christian's best friend.
Darwinism on the other hand has greatly undermined true scientific endeavor.
Ok dude. I'll admit he's slick. He's fast. He also makes evolution, abiogenesis and big bang look stupid.
But he has no backed up sources, straw man after straw man and over all he is just running the typical creationist lines that have been TOTALLY ineffectual in the past.
But the audience loves it. As do you.
What ever value that has for you you're welcome to it.
Straw men? The Darwinist bogey-man to take the discussion away from the facts which include the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis. These alone halt naturalistic Darwinian-style evolution before it would have begun.
Next week we will reveal why Darwinism is scientifically impossible and start getting into the frauds in the textbooks which cause people to think that Darwinian change occurred.
For those with open minds it will be a life changer.
Observable science disputes darwinism. You don't need God's Word to do it, but it is important information for validating scientific facts. Also makes it much easier to believe in God, rather than the impossible.
You're missing the point here, it's going right over your head. What he meant was; christians dig up bones, darwinist dig up bones. The evidence is... "something" died. You can either believe real observable science or a story that darwinists made up. Since most of the world doesn't want to be judged by God, they explain it away and call it science. It's a deception. Therefore their science becomes a faith, and the Bible becomes scientific. Do you think the world will tell you the truth?!
Your "champion" of evolution Richard Dawkins denies the Existence of God, but then has a theory that we may have been seeded on this planet by "aliens" who evolved. Utter stupidity! When you die you have to face God whether you believe in Him or not.Stop being a liar, thief, drunk, having sex out of marriage, and all sin, and surrender your whole life to Jesus Christ to go to heaven and escape the lake of fire.Jesus died and rose again for you. God's love revealed on the cross. Repent or perish.
If you thought this session shines light on the lack of science behind the religious philosophy of Darwinism, wait till we post: "Refuting Darwinism In Seven Seconds Flat!"; "Did You Evolve From A Banana?"; "The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism"; and "Apemen: Humans, Apes and Frauds" over the next four weeks.
Name calling: the last bastion for secularists who have no viable evidence to back up their faltering religious beliefs (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries
Science isn't a religion. Creationism is a fairy tale that tries to present itself as science.
TheAntiV 6 months ago
@TheAntiV Science develops knowledge based on observable experiments. Evolutionism & creationism are beliefs on how life came about. While no one has observed one kind of animal cahnge into a different kind, as Darwinism teaches, we do see of millions of examples of kinds bringing forth after their kind as the Bible predicts will occur
CreationMinistries 6 months ago
The ignorance of this preacher is, so the speak of, beyond belief.
Would you like me to educate him?
Though, given his lack of education in ... just basically everything ... and his rock solifd believe in the unprovable, it is probably a waste of time to even try to educate him the basics.
However, I have always been an unrelenting optimist. So, would you like me to explain?
Incidentally, this creationist also accepts evolution as a fact. Would you like me to demonstrate that?
wimahlers 8 months ago
@wimahlers Yes. Please educate me. This will first require you to learn how to speak, type and spell. (-:
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries,
.
"Yes. Please educate me."
.
How about that ... a creationists that actually wants to learn. A pitty though you are spoiling the well with your second remark.
But, ok, here it goes...
0:12 Religious bias. The preacher is totally ignorant of the scientific method and scientific peer review.
0:25 Origins. Is not evolution.And does not invalidate evolution.
0:38 Globol flood. Ignorance again. Because it is falsified by the PATTERN of the fossil layer.
wimahlers 8 months ago
@wimahlers Everyone has a religious bias;
Darwinists can't get life started - end of game;
Right- sedimentary layers laid down by water are not proof of a global flood! LOL
Got anything better?
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries,
.
"Right- sedimentary layers laid down by water are not proof of a global flood! "
.
What are you talking about? What a ridiculous claim. A straw man argument. Let me explain by formulating the observed fact in the form of a question:
What is your explanation of the pattern(!) of the fossil record we observe in the sediment layers?
To emphasize, I am not asking about the sediment layers but asking about the pattern(!) of fossils we find in it. Can you explain this pattern?
wimahlers 8 months ago
the bible has already lied. it will lie again when i wake up on the 22nd of may, im gonna get up brush my teeth like any other day, eat my breakfast everyday and thank everybody for life, not god. also explain how adam and eve created everyone. they had 2 sons, kane and abel. thank you.
YuudaiRaiden 9 months ago
@YuudaiRaiden Population studies reveal if we started with 4 couples 4,400 years ago (Noah & his family) & couples averaged bearing 2.2 kids, we would have about 6.5 billion people on earth today - which is about how many folks there are.
FYI: Adam & Eve had numerous children, only Cane, Abel and Seth are mentioned by name
CreationMinistries 9 months ago
@CreationMinistries that would lead to imbreeding, and imbreeding produces mentally retarded babies. When you get genious like einstein, mozart and gallileo its gard to believe we are all imbred. oh and by the way, its 21st, wheres the motherfucking "rapture"? i'd rather be a viking and believe in valhalla then then share heaven with stupid americans like you. the world laughs at you how stupid you are and yes thats aimed at your whole country, the southern states mostly.
YuudaiRaiden 9 months ago
@YuudaiRaiden
Laws against marrying close relatives come from the Bible, given to Moses about 2,000 years after creation as mutations were beginning to build up in our gene pools. Whether you believe "God created" or that" you "evolved from a rock" there was breeding with close relatives at the start
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries I really think you need to think this over, you have dug yourself a pretty big hole but its not too late to start thinking logically, imagine where we would be if there was no religion? i bet you support bushes war on terrorism in iraq as well, when god says do unto your neighbour as they have done to you or somthing. what have terrorists done? blow up the twin towers? there is so much evidence it was an inside job. after that they blow up 2 buses in ldon over 10 years. wow.
YuudaiRaiden 9 months ago
@YuudaiRaiden Fortunately for you, ignorance can be fixed, only stupidity will last for your entire lifetime.
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
@CreationMinistries Haha well in the end you lose, as evolution is taught in schools across where I'm from (Australia) with no signs of creationism in the curriculum apart from religious studies but no one does that or they do it because its a bludge. It's the way you were brought up, you were taught creationism is the right way, plus you have a natural charisma so you teamed them up the put forth convincing arguments but unfortunately its too late, stop making pointless arguments.
YuudaiRaiden 8 months ago
@YuudaiRaiden Actually, we all lose because of this.
CreationMinistries 8 months ago
he states there is no evidence of evolution. is there any evidence of god? the bible is not evidence, anyone could write, give me a billion dollars and ill write a bible. what people say isn't evidence, i could say i was abducted by aliens and yet you won't believe me. the reason people believed all the ruckus about the bible is because they were ordered to. in the middle ages you could be jailed or sentenced to death it you arugued your belief or did not attend church.
YuudaiRaiden 9 months ago
@YuudaiRaiden Actually I say there is no evidence for Darwinian style evolution. Kinds do bring forth after their kind via micro-evolution (a brown dog begets a yellow dog). Millions of examples of kinds adapting within their own kind, bringing forth after their kind, can be shown - just as we're told will occur (10 times in Genesis). Real science is a Christian's best friend.
FYI: the Catholic Church tried to PREVENT people from getting the Bible. Most of what you refer was the result
CreationMinistries 9 months ago
Sorry. I had to limit comments due to Darwinists posting porn in order to get folks to stop seeing the truth I share.....really says it all.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries What is a Darwinist? Darwin is dead, his ideas are 150 years out of date, try and keep up with modern science.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz What is a Darwinist? Someone who actulaly believes that an inconcievably tiny dot blew up to form everything including a big rock from which they evoved.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
Why are you still being a coward on *these* videos Russ? You should allow comments on all of your videos.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
Darwinists have nothing but fraudulent "evidences" (I expose many right out of textbooks in my '50 Facts vs Darwinism' message) and name calling - the last bastion for those with no real evidence to show
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
Unbelievable.
It's 2010 and people don't know how to find information on what cosmogony and abiogenesis are or what evolution is and what it does and how? Instead people embarrass themselves by keeping videos up, showing talking clowns such as this one?
Totally amazing.
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
@StopSpamming1
Unbelievable is right. All my examples are taken, as shown, directly from high school and college textbooks. Still you try to claim I am somehow making them up. I guess in order to hold to your religious dogma, denial is your only option.
Unbelievable!
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
''produced tremendous volcanic activity''
Wow, all that and just like the flood>> absolutely no evidence left behind. No mud layer, no ash layer, no evidence at all.
gregrutz 1 year ago
6000 years... There are trees older than 6000 years.
RussiansArePerfect 1 year ago
@RussiansArePerfect Actually the oldest known living organism is a 4,300 year old bristlecone pine tree. Of course that is according to tree ring dating which is not a perfect aging system as trees can produce multiple rings in the same year.
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
Some sedimentary layers are volcanic ash, not from a flood. A single flood can not explain the geology we find.
And no, I am not religious.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Again, exactly what would be there following the global flood. Massive plate tectonics during and shortly after the event produced tremendous volcanic activity
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries ''tremendous volcanic activity''
All 4400 years ago and didn't leave a trace of evidence. HMMMMM.
'
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz There is overwhelming evidence of massive lava flows on the upper layers....
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries There is no lava layers. There is no flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it. There are distinct layers, floods don't do that.
There are different kinds of rocks, floods don't do that.
The fossils are sorted, floods don't do that.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries Yet still none of the layers being sorted according to their properties in water.
HowToBeASerialKiller 10 months ago
@HowToBeASerialKiller nk the earth's sedimentary layers of rock, which were laid down by water, were not sorted by their properties in water? Interesting belief!
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Not a belief at all. It's a demonstrable fact that the strata layers are not sorted according to their collective properties in water. Anyone claiming they are is being either ignorant or deceptive.
HowToBeASerialKiller 10 months ago
@HowToBeASerialKiller So you actually believe that the sedimentary layers which were laid down by water didn't form in water? Might want to reconsider that one!
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 Distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK exposed in the Grand Canyon.
Some are slow growing corals like in the Redwall limestone.
Floods don’t do that.
Not all sedimentary rock is from water! Like ash layers and chalk.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz The Coconino Sandstone was formed underwater and this is rather obvious from the angle of the cross bedded layers; the amphibian tracks laid down in water; the 'lines of parting lineation (only found in underwater dunes; and so much more...get your head out of the Secular propaganda and try to catch up with real science.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Here is a fact of geology.
NOT ALL SEDIMENTRY ROCK IS FROM WATER !
There are ash layers, wind blown dust and sand layers, corals, chalk, limestone, etc.
A Flood did not make what we find in nature.
And go see the Grand Canyon, hike to the bottom.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Gee Greg, seeing how I lead Grand Canyon hikes, raft trips and bus tours I think I might know GC a little better than you. Did youu know there is a mile deep layer of strta missing from atop the rim of the canyon? Gone from S Utah (Bryce) all the way to the Sea of Cortez? Only a global flood, which destroys old-earth beliefs, can explain this. Also, there are bits of broken coral and volcanic flows in the layers, exactly as would be expected following a global flood
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
Atheists have a religious bias.
.
LOL
.
Take those sediments NOT laid down by water, OOPS
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
I assumed (wrongly) you were smart eough to realize you're holding to a religious belief. I admit I was mistaken.
Let's see, sedimentary layers laid down by water were.....not laid down by water Okaaaay....
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
I heard that there would be no science without Christianity from multiple sources. What do you base this statement upon?
MahanaimCh 1 year ago
@MahanaimCh About 85% of the branches of modern science were begun in order to study how God made His creation. Knowing there was a Designer they felt they should find laws and principles that guided things as opposed to random chance which would be difficult to follow.
For some reason when people discover how God did something they seem to think that proves there is no God....
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries So true. So sad to see. But back to my original question. How would you account for the advances that took place in China and Persia to mention only two places?
MahanaimCh 1 year ago
@MahanaimCh Mankind always advances, building upon the experience of those before us
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries They were started by people who believed, don't try to correlate, you're reaching.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Yes, God fearing Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
You have it wrong yet again - amazing - but at least you are consistant.
God-hating LAWYERS set off to get folks to not trust God's WOrd and re-interpreted the earth's strata as having formed over never-observed "millions of years."
Radiometrid dating? Open-minded folks should watch our "Old Earth or Global Flood" video to see the many wild guesses isotope dating methods require making them unreliable and unscientific
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries The preacher discussed the potential evidence for a global flood which would allegedly demonstrate the validity of the Noah's Ark event. This would appear to be a moot point since the Noah's Ark fable is purely fictional as detailed in "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore. Not only could the ship NOT have been built but there are a veritable plethora of additional logical fallacies which are presented in depth.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 And how does he explain away the fact that the Greeks and ROmans had huge warships 400+ feet in length?
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries If only the size of the ship were the main problem. I'd say the main problem is that the story of Noah is a genetic impossibility, as in it couldn't have happened at all. /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Also, (even though it is impossible) if you still believe that the Noah's Ark event was a factual historical occurrence....then you would have to say that the minimal number of animals that would fit on the Ark must have had some type of SUPER-evolution over only a few thousand years to account for the 1,700,000,000 species (conservative estimate and NOT including bacteria) which we have on the Earth today (some estimates say up to 30,000,000,000).
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Estimates range from 5,000 - 13,000
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Tree rings go back 13,000 years, the flood must have been longer ago than that.
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz Goodness. I guess that you're referring to the claims of Desparate Darwinists who counted the rings of living & fossilized plants, like creosote, then claimed this proved "thousands of years of time." However, real science proved many of the plants lived at the same time...in other words, ten trees lived from 1200-1300 AD yet DDs claimed they represented 1,000 years of time. All this really proves is that Darwinists are desparate
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Since we see absolutely no evidence of this "SUPER-evolution" (or SUPER-adaptation if you prefer) today then it would appear that it only lasted for a short time. So, to believe in the story of creation, not only do you have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old...but also that we had a global extinction and then a level of mutation that would kill any ordinary organism....all to accommodate what is said in a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 1 year ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Your 1800's beliefs have not met any of their predictions while God's WOrd holds up just fine. Kinds only produce after their kind and the evidence of the global flood is overwhelming (this MUST be denied (2 Peter 3:3-6) as old-earth beliefs are based on the belief that earth's strata formed slowly - a flood explains how they formed quickly.) DNA mutation rates studies reveal we could have gone from one woman, the mitochondrial Eve, in about 6,000 years.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries If your God actually does exist (and I would NEVER say with 100% certainty that he doesn't) then he most certainly utilized evolution in his creation. If you don't care to debate then I understand (no offense meant)...but ignoring the information doesn't make it disappear...it is just as relevant and just as accurate.
If you don't respond then I wish you the best. Peace.
CynicalSkeptic1 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries Geologists knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented.
gregrutz 11 months ago
@gregrutz Based on a starting belief that earth's strata layers formed over long ages of time, some scientists believed the earth was old. Radioisotope dating is based on this same starting and erroneous presupisition
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
Atheists don't have a religious bias, they have no religion.
All rocks are not laid down by water. The Coconino Sandstone, third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is wind blown sand from a desert.
Scientist have millions of fossils.
The Big Bang is not evolution, the universe is expanding, it was smaller in the past.
Rock? Major strawman argument.
Abiogenisis is not spontanious generation, IDiot.
Does he ever get around to Evolution?!?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz - Atheism takes more faith than most any OTHER religious belief;
The Coconino is water deposited dunes;
Sceintists have NO transitional fossils;
The Big Bang is a Big Dud;
Big Bang - Big Rock - Rain - POOF! here we are...isn't that your belief?
Abiogenesis is spontaneous Generation;
Is that how you sign your postings?
This is why I rarely waste time responding to your ilk
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries
Australopithicus aferensis, tiktaalik, archeopteryx, basiliosauras
That's four transional species off the top of my head.
PtH888999 1 year ago
@PtH888999 This is a perfect example of what I show in our '50 Facts vs Darwinism in the Textbooks." Each is these is a proven fraud yet are employed to mislead folks - like you.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries The only ''fraud'' was Piltdown Man. How do you explain feathers on dinosaurs?
gregrutz 10 months ago
@gregrutz RIght...I guess you're not counting Nebraska man, Ramapithecus; Lucy; Ida; Orce man, Tomei man; Flat-faced man....and that's just a few of the supposed hominids!
Speaking of frauds, never has a feathered dinosaur been found. Some fossils of now extinct flightless birds have been found and called 'dinsoaurs' by desparate Darwinists but real science has debunked such claims. Try catching up with real science.
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries
Atheists don't need faith not to believe.
There are many transitional fossils, dinosaurs with feathers, fish with legs.
Creationists believe 'poof' everything from nothing.
Abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous Generation
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I shot down each of your fraudulent 'proofs' and, unfortunately I can't OK your response as it is profanity-laced . Frauds and cursing is all you have. You know this fact. And it takes more faith to be an Atheist than it does to believe in anything else....to see all the wonders of creation and claim there is no Creator, that everything came about by accident, is not only illogical, but completely faith-based and against all observable science. Romans 1:20
CreationMinistries 10 months ago
@CreationMinistries I shot down each of your fraudulent 'proofs'
NO, YOU DELETED THEM !
gregrutz 10 months ago
We did not evolve from a rock. Please learn abiogenesis before you speak.
macomoto 1 year ago
@macomoto I know all about your belief in the anti-scientific tale of spontaneous generation, Please learn about the scientific Law of Biogenesis.
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Could you paste the part of the law of biogenesis that has anything to do with the chemical origin of life?
PunchDubDays 1 year ago
@PunchDubDays You mean like the part that says life can not come from non-life (including chemicals)
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Which part of the law of biogenesis says that?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Only creationists believe man was created from dust.
Is Urey-Miller the only explanation? Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but has, nevertheless been demonstrated and proven.
Has any Bible-based hypothesis been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Has any creationist been awarded a Nobel Prize?
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
@StopSpamming1 Of course today only secular beliefs are allowed to be published....bias which has undermined real science as about 90% of the branches of modern science were begun by creationists in order to study God's creation. Newton, Pascal, DaVinci, Maury and and, 90% of the founders of modern science, were creationists. Any other questions?
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Newton, Pascal, DaVinci, and Maury, huh? You do realize those guys lived several centuries ago, right? Has the world remained exactly the same since their time? No, of course it hasn't. We have all kinds of new technologies, that came from new proofs and theories, that were based on new evidence gathered. I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that if you took all scientists from past ages and took them to today and showed them the evidence, ~90% would abandon religion.
Aralithe 1 year ago
@Aralithe Despite Darwinist claims, Darwinism has nothing to do with real science. Darwinism has held back research and corrupted science education. Science should abandon secular religion and return to being based on observable, repeatable evidences.
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@CreationMinistries Evolution is the backbone of Biology, a science.
Evolution has been seen.
ALL HE DOES IS ATTACK SCIENCE ! It is not about God.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Getting a bit scared for your faltering religious dogma there Greg?
Creation & evolution are both BELIEFS on how we came about - niether is science
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
I don't understand what you mean by "all people hold a religious belief." I don't seem to believe anything. I don't even believe that I believe nothing. I also don't believe that I don't believe that I believe nothing. And, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't believe that I believe nothing. Further, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't that I don't believe that I believe nothing. Not to mention, I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't believe that I don't...
ZZAAAID2 2 years ago
The information in these lectures is excellent. What's even better is the lack of the commenters to even come close to refuting it! God RULES!!
9pt9 2 years ago
@9pt9 He is just bashing science, all of his crap has been debunked.
And still they make up more shit but can't prove evolution didn't happen.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I generally do not approve those with cursing but this reveals the total desparation of the Darwinian faithful so I felt it worth letting by
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@9pt9 Lack of commenters. He approves all comments, IDiot !
gregrutz 1 year ago
He's right, we do have the same evidence (in some cases) as christians. But the difference is the misinterpretation of the cause. You say "god" (the answer to everything, not because it's logical, but because it was created to be that way), but I say "science." Time will exalt science and crush religion because one sentence of truth can crush a whole book of lies.
infectingthecrypts 2 years ago
I say "science", you say "given millions of years." Observable science is a Christian's best friend as the DNA Code Barrier+Gene Depletion+Natural Selection make Darwinism impossible. As you said, "one sentence of truth can crush a whole book of lies."
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Did you evolve from a rib??? evidence please???
macomoto 2 years ago
This speaker is ignorant. Show me in the scientific literature that it is said that we came from rocks???
macomoto 2 years ago
Science has nothing to do with religion or beliefs.
Djeezes 2 years ago
In theory you are correct, however all people hold a religious belief and what ever belief is held by a scientist will bias their interpretation of the evidences at hand
Secular Humanists own the schools and textbooks. Their religious belief is based on Naturalism which is based on the belief that "millions of years led to Darwinism"
Today, all research is forced to fit this religious belief, undermining both scientific research and scientific education
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Absolutely correct! Regarding the implications is non-scientific. It is abused and upheld as enlightening truth of the non-existence of a creator. Their agenda is conveniently veiled under the guise of science when it is not actual science. "The God Delusion" is just one of many examples that illustrates it's agenda and implications in it's title! Yet they drool over it's "scientific truths"? Ridiculous. They fool only themselves.
supergreenangeleyes 2 years ago
Really really believing that an undetectable omnipotent being created the earth 6000 years ago is not the same as knowing it and it does not constitute evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
True. Biblical Christianity is a religious belief just as is Darwinism - one must have faith in either, though the facts fit the biblical interpretation far far better than the Humanistic worldview
Your taking Scripture out of context is not worth my time to respond to
Please submit your very best "proof" for Darwinism and I will be happy to shoot holes in it so everyone will see that you have nothing other than your erroneous interpretations of things
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"facts fit the biblical interpretation" theres your problem, trying to cram the facts into your preconceived notion. Real science IE beginning with observation and working from there is what led us to the conclusion of evolution and old earth.
"Your taking Scripture out of context" When and how so?
"Please submit your very best "proof" for Darwinism" Its hard to pin down any one evidence for common descent as the best, but lets start with chromosome 2
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
You seem unable to distinguish science from conjecture as you assume common ancestry and "try to cram the facts into your preconceived notion"
Take your "best proof" - chromosome 2
Human chromosome 2 contains complex genetic information not found in apes, including many protein coding genes.
Darwinists have never shown how such complex information could come about by natural processes
This data is the big difference between ape & man - not the # of chromosomes holding the data
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"Did you evolve from a rock?"
Of course not! That would be magic! Thank God no Biologist ever suggested that.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
That is odd....the textbooks teach that nothing blew up and a big rock formed. Then it rained on the rock and, well, here we are.
Yes they do believe everything evolved from that rock.
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
If you actually studied the big bang and planet formation in a University, you would understand that everything you said is wrong. Those textbooks are written in ways that children in grade school could understand.
Rocks are mostly made of silicon and magnesium/aluminum. Ergo, life couldn't have formed from them. Rather, scientists suggest that life formed from organic compounds, not rocks.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
The textbooks I use to reveal a few of the frauds of Darwinism are high school and college texts
How many years must I study at a university beforel I start to believe that nothing blew up, a big rock formed, it rained n the rock for millions of years and, poof, everything evolved on its own?
Also, please provide a testable, repeatable demonstration of life arising from non-life as Humanists and Darwinists claim
Of course there is no such example to show
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Firstly, I'm not even arguing on whether evolution or abiogenesis is true or not. I don't want to argue there because I'm pretty sure I cannot convince you.
I'm merely saying that you better not be beating on straw man versions of the Big Bang and abiogenesis.
Like I said, if you study science in a University, you would understand that the Big Bang is not something 'exploding'.
And I already told you that scientists don't think living beings came from rocks, but rather from organic compounds.
nightoftherobots 2 years ago
Oh, now I understand: Nothing did not "blow up" in a Big Bang, it just "expanded extremely rapidly"
Later a big rock formed and it rained on the rock and later, life did not come from the rock, instead, non-living organic compounds formed (from the wet rock) & suddenly came to life and changed into people, giraffes, eagles, etc.
And the scientific proof of any of this would be what?
This is a religious belief that flies in the face of all sciencitfic observations
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
That's whats known as a strawman. The first organic chemicals wouldn't have come from rocks but hydrolysis and organic and dehydration synthesis.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Your comment is what is known as smoke and mirrors
Your "hydrolysis and organic and dehydration synthesis" acted on what.? Which came from where?
Oh yes, there was a Big Bang and a big rock formed and it rained on the rock and hydrolysis and organic and dehydration synthesis took place. Thanks for clearing that up
And how did this overcome the scientific Law of Biogenesis and create life?
You are promoting a religious belief that flies in the face of all scientic observation
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"acted on what" nitrogen, hydrogen cyanide, ammonia etc, which came from fusion which occurs in stars. Pasteur and Redi's work with the law of biogenesis only shows that modern life does not spontaneously arise IE rats from garbage or maggots from rotting meat.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This is your religious belief.
Never have scientists, working in controlled labs, building on the combination of millions of years of other researchers work, with billions of dollars of salaries, lab equipment and computers thrown in been able to get life to come about from non living matter
NEVER - that is real science.
Stop pretending to be a scientist and start your tale with "Once upon a time nitrogen, hydrogen...."
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
wow, this is incredibility amusing!!!
He should go into comedy.
And if you're going to read textbooks read them all!! not just selective parts. You have issues separating your religion from your science.
Oh and Venter takes care of your "never creating life in the lab" problem.
And your math needs a LOT of work.
TopazRavenMoon 2 years ago
I realize that what I reveal exposes Darwinism for the false religious belief that it is.
I do not do this to upset the Darwinian faithful whose liefstyle is built around Darwinian beliefs and their implications but to help those who are truly seeking the truth.
My suggestion is that you open your mind to the fact that Darwinian change is a scientific impossibility and adjust your life choices accordingly
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
What you reveal? All i heard is words being moved around in little circles. And what on earth is Darwinism? I think you may be referring to Darwin's Theory of Evolution though Natural Selection. Which is a scientific theory, in no way concerned with philosophy or religion.
TopazRavenMoon 2 years ago
Real science begins with evidence. A story is built that fits the facts. If the story holds up to scrutiny it becomes an hypothesis which, if it meets years of testing & study, becomes a scientific theory - in real science.
Darwin built his story on misinterpretated evidence (finches bringing forth finches after their kind - just a the Bible said would occur)
Failing to ever find any evidence to support his "theory" Darwinism is a religious belief that flies in the face of real science
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Creationists rejecting evidence because it does not fit with their preconceived notions which come from a book that says the earth is flat does not constitute reasonable doubt. Human chromosome 2 alone shows common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Darwinists misconstruing evidence in order to fit their preconcieved notions which come from a book teaching we evolved from a rock does not constitute reasonable scientific proof.
Also, it was scientists that formerly taught the earth was flat.
God's Word has always taught that the earth was spherical in shape - eventually mankind proved that as well
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Eratosthenes worked out that the earth was spherical 2200 years ago and even worked out its circumference with a margin of error of only a few percent, using science.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Real science, based on testable and repeatable things, has discovered many great things from space shuttles to antibiotics.
Eratosthenes, who proved what the Bible said was correct 1,250 after Isaiah was written, is a prime example - thanks!
However psuedo science, such as when the religious belief of Darwinism poses as if it were science, is another thing. Such false teachings have undermined both scientific research and education
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
The bible says the entire earth can be seen from the highest mountain, that would mean it was flat.
If you reject this and the number of other passages with similar messages it is whats known as confirmation bias.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I am sure everyone is happy to know that you can define 'confirmation bias.' I know I am
The bible does not say you can see the world from the tallest mountain. You are as accurate on this as you are with you statements in support of your religious belief in Darwinism - however you did get 'confirmation bias' correct.
That makes you 1 for 3
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
My mind is open, and Darwinism does not exist. Darwin's theory of evolution exists, and it is very much scientific, I have no idea who taught you about science, because obviously they did a very crappy job of it. And truth is in your case, completely relative, i search for truth and what you teach is so far from it that to call it truth is laughable at best.
I do, however, admire your brilliant use of semantics, that impressed me, but nothing else did.
TopazRavenMoon 2 years ago
Darwin's "theory" was discarded years ago & replaced with Neo-Darwinism, another false religious belief that flies in the face of millions of scientific findings
Supported by frauds in the textbooks which have undermined scientific education & research the USA has gone from being rated #1 in the world in science (when based on creation) to #36 out of the top 40 countries
Real science, based on the facts, finds that kinds will only produce their own kind - just a the Bible said would occur
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
you lie,lie,lielielielielieleileieleieleieleieleieeeeeeeeee
jasason10 3 years ago
Darwinists are left with nothing but name calling which is the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their failing religious philosophy.
Sure, nothing blew up, a big rock formed, it rained on the rock and POOF! Here we are....you guys are funny
An Intelligent Biblical Designer having created the complexity science finds today makes sense. Nothing forming everything is illogical at best
Oh yes, please give an example of one supposed lie...I. will not be holding my breath
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
"An Intelligent Biblical Designer having created the complexity science finds today makes sense. Nothing forming everything is illogical at best"
Then who Designed your Designer?
csadler 3 years ago
The 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics & Einsteins Theory of General Relativity say the universe is a result which had a beginning.
Logic holds such results had a cause outside of the result - the cause of the Universe had to be outside of the universes space, matter & time.
Of all ancient religious texts, only the Biblical God claimed to exist outside of space, matter & time.
This leaves atheists and Darwinists out of step with true science but fits perfectly with the Biblical Creator.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Then the *cause* that was "outside of the universes space, matter & time" must have then had a *cause* that was outside of the first *causes* space, time (environment).
You people crack me right up.
"Of all ancient religious texts, only the Biblical God claimed to exist outside of space, matter & time. "
LOL...... It also says:
"31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
csadler 3 years ago
The Law of Cause and Effect only applies to things that had a beginning. Again, the cause of the universe's space matter and time had to have existed outside of them in order to be scientifically viable and only the Biblical Creator claimed to have existed outside of ,and not be a part of, the space, matter and time that make up the universe. Genesis 1:1 In the beginnig (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
then who created your designer, saying a god made all is just makeing all much more complicated, are you retarded? you clearly dont get evalution
hyvard 2 years ago
1] Again, no evidence
2] At least I can spell
3] Logic holds that for every result that had a start there was a cause that was not a part of the result
4] The universe is a result - its cause existed before & outside the universe's space matter & time
5] The biblical God claims to be eternal, outside of space matter & time - making the biblical God the only logical cause of the universe and everything in it
6] without a beginning God is outside of the law of Cause & Effect
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
You assume that the designer is confined to our spacetime continuum and therefore confined to causality. But the Biblical Creator God is exotemporal, existing outside of time (outside of our spacetime continuum) and therefore is not at all restrained or restrainable by the same rules that would so restrict endotemporal entities or objects (objects inside of our spacetime continuum, like us). 2 Peter 3:8 clearly demonstrates that God is not confined to the same flow of time that we are.
Vertisai 2 years ago 2
The trouble with calling them liars is that this implies they are deliberately misleading people, which I do not expect is the case. For the most part, I think they are honest, but mistaken.
ophecleide 2 years ago
When you talk about religion and you say someone is a person of faith, what does this mean? It means believing in something when there is no direct proof of it. This man is a preacher not a scientist. This man also condemns the text books the children are reading, why doesn't he scrutinize the bible as vigorously? Science isn't perfect, but it sure does explain alot, and I'll take math and science over the vague explaination that GOD did everything.
Jamato84 3 years ago
You are correct about religious faith. And creation & Darwinism are faith-based beliefs
I love real science and use it to refute the religious belief of Darwinism which is the foundation of Secular Humanism, a religious philosophy
Over the past 100 years Humanists have taken over science and greatly undermined both research & education by forcing scientists conclusions & textbooks to have to fit Humanist beliefs
Let's return science to being the search for the truth
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Vague? Vague? darwinism is vague! I've listened to many, many arguments on this subject. Even argued myself-many! It's true! I have never ever heard or seen any evidence! The dogma they use is tiresome, because all it amounts to is dodging the question, name calling, cheap insults, and hissing at actual evidence against their belief. It's like we might burn them with a crucifix!
cathy356 2 years ago
also I would like to know what your in depth analysis of tiktalik is any why you don't think it counts as a transitional. Please provide also your doctorate and PHD showing that you are qualified to make such claims and analysis' Also when was the last time you directly examined a fossil in person. It cant have been too long ago, after all you have all the same evidence.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago 3
Tiktaalik Roseae hit the news on April fools day 2006 which was your first hint.
NY Times is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate..the beginnings of digitsand shoulders.
How do you anticipate future random changes? Remember the Coelacanth who supposedly walked on the ocean floor before hiking out to become an amphibian? It is still a fish today with NO evolutionary changes! And it has bones just like Tiktaalik
Never has a "missing link " stood up to scrutiny.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Ah posting a comment u were ready for and disallowin the rest of my arguments. Such an honest thing to do. Of course you could make a creationist argument against tiktaliik and i threw that one in because its famous and i knew you would know about it. Something for you to "debunk" with prepared unsubstantiated jargon to see if you would be honest and allow and respond to my other arguments. suprise SUPRISE. You didnt. Good job proving yourself a liar for god, just like all creationist preachers.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
The ONLY argument YOU put out was Tiktaalik (thanks for making it so easy for me) You did list some proDarwinian websites NOT arguments and you called me names.
3 things:
1] You want me to believe the real evidence for Darwinism is on these sites but NOT in the textbooks?
2] Name calling is the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their position so I normally do not put such comments on my site
3] I only respond if you have something I consider worth responding to
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Also you must be familiar with GULOP (after all we "have the same evidence"). Could you please provide me with an explination as to how this could be predicted by creation science, as it was by evolutionary science? What about it might be used to point away from the nested hierarchy and towards special creation. How does it fit the creation model and what studies did creationists use to predict this with the accuracy that biologists did, since they have the same evidence?
intelligentfalling 3 years ago 2
The Darwinian tale that psuedogenes are left over in the course of primate to man evolution collapses in the face of the discovery that guinea pig and human GULOP have 36% identical disablement
This logically refutes the entire Darwinian "shared mistakes" argument.
(Unless you think you evolved from a guineapig).
Supposed junk DNA is quickly being found to hold the keys to the RNA/DNA system -again the evo's were wrong and the complexity screams out "Intelligent Biblical Designer."
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
I have no more interest in this conversation. Your censorship is dishonest if you wont allow me to show my side of the conversation. Especially when you pretend you aren't censoring what i say.
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
I suggest you are upset because the ONLY arguments YOU have put forth are Tiktaalik & GULOP - I have easily answered both.
3 things:
1] Your strength seems to be name calling, the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their position . I normally do not put such comments on my site.
2] I am not obligated to post your rantings and I only respond if you have something I consider worth responding to.
3] You are passionate about your religious belief and I do respect that.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
What? Is something eating you inside? So you have to call someone a liar for no reason? You must live in a world where lying and blaming others is normal everyday life! You must think everyone lies, Is that how you darwinists reason this stuff that comes out of your mind? It's like all of you think in a circle that you just can't get out of! Find the door!! I don't see you offering any evidence either.
cathy356 2 years ago
Claiming that science is based in faith without evidence is ironic because religion, quite obviously, also is. Why does it become a bad thing when applied to science? How does that invalidate the claim when Christianity is based in faith?
The Bible is assumed to be as true as these textbooks. Come on now. And Calcium isn't even an organic substance. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Lycaon43 3 years ago 3
I am pointing out a few of the faulty assumptions of Darwinian evolutionism and that Darwinism, like creationism, is a religious belief, not science.
Actual science is based on repeatable events, not on the blind faith. I compare Darwinian and Biblical teachings to observable facts, revealing that true science is a Christian's best friend.
Darwinism on the other hand has greatly undermined true scientific endeavor.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Ok dude. I'll admit he's slick. He's fast. He also makes evolution, abiogenesis and big bang look stupid.
But he has no backed up sources, straw man after straw man and over all he is just running the typical creationist lines that have been TOTALLY ineffectual in the past.
But the audience loves it. As do you.
What ever value that has for you you're welcome to it.
Danmill23 3 years ago 5
Straw men? The Darwinist bogey-man to take the discussion away from the facts which include the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis. These alone halt naturalistic Darwinian-style evolution before it would have begun.
Next week we will reveal why Darwinism is scientifically impossible and start getting into the frauds in the textbooks which cause people to think that Darwinian change occurred.
For those with open minds it will be a life changer.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
Observable science disputes darwinism. You don't need God's Word to do it, but it is important information for validating scientific facts. Also makes it much easier to believe in God, rather than the impossible.
cathy356 3 years ago
"We have the exact same evidence"
If they only would look at the evidence...
Johannes9126 3 years ago
Very good information. I thought it was refreshing.
archkani07 3 years ago
"It's not that evolutionists have some evidence and Bible believing Christians have other evidence."
- You're right. "Evolutionists" have ALL the evidence and "Bible believing Christians" always try and misrepresent it.
Atriviality 3 years ago
You're missing the point here, it's going right over your head. What he meant was; christians dig up bones, darwinist dig up bones. The evidence is... "something" died. You can either believe real observable science or a story that darwinists made up. Since most of the world doesn't want to be judged by God, they explain it away and call it science. It's a deception. Therefore their science becomes a faith, and the Bible becomes scientific. Do you think the world will tell you the truth?!
cathy356 3 years ago
nobody evolved from a rock, stupid.
Desertphile 3 years ago 10
Evolution is stupid! The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1
BurningHearts70 3 years ago
Evoluiton says nothing about existance of invisible magic men. If you like to belive in them, it's your choice.
StandForScience 3 years ago 2
Your "champion" of evolution Richard Dawkins denies the Existence of God, but then has a theory that we may have been seeded on this planet by "aliens" who evolved. Utter stupidity! When you die you have to face God whether you believe in Him or not.Stop being a liar, thief, drunk, having sex out of marriage, and all sin, and surrender your whole life to Jesus Christ to go to heaven and escape the lake of fire.Jesus died and rose again for you. God's love revealed on the cross. Repent or perish.
BurningHearts70 3 years ago 2
"Evolution is stupid! The fool hath said in his h./...."
Okay, I give up: what does evolution have to do with believing in gods?
Desertphile 3 years ago
It's almost like being realistic about the evidence makes you prone to rejecting ancient beliefs in deities, or something like that...
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
"Did you evolve from a rock?"
No, my invisible sky daddy made me out of mud. That makes much more sense. LOL!
AbbeyNormal 3 years ago
If you thought this session shines light on the lack of science behind the religious philosophy of Darwinism, wait till we post: "Refuting Darwinism In Seven Seconds Flat!"; "Did You Evolve From A Banana?"; "The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism"; and "Apemen: Humans, Apes and Frauds" over the next four weeks.
CreationMinistries 3 years ago
No, dust, and you shall return to dust. Not so far fetched is it?
cathy356 3 years ago