All I EVER hear from evolutionist is how stupid creationist and ID are. You're so busy covering your ears and singing "lalala" rather then actually understanding what these creation scientist want to display. Most evolutionist just display ignorance and stupidity rather than solid evidence. All you Darwinist are good at is hoaxes. (Neanderthal man, and all the other missing links).
So where are they??? I have been provoking evolutionists to cough up the evidence for evoluton year after year after year! Not even the ONE of these famous "99% of scientists" can do that!!! Wake up and smell the coffee!
The next step is to throw out a few vulgar swear-words hoping that creationists will just go cringing and scurrying away, all the while desparately hoping that someone ELSE who understands evolution better will come along and save the day by producing the "evidence" that will silence creationists.
So what they do when they realize that they obviously fall short of the mark of producing any real scientific evidence to back up what they say, is to turn to insulting the intelligence of creationists, claiming that they "don't understand evolution", when all the while it is they themselves that don't understand exactly what it is they are trying to assert, and why it fails.
Unfortunately it is VERY hard to find evolutionists that are willing to go all the way in this debate.
After years and years of debating this issue, I find that they ALL copy each others arguments and are extremely confident that with the media, the educational system and "99% of scientists" to back them up then it definitely MUST be a piece of cake to win a debate like this.
Looking at the craters with your "Creation glasses on";What is the problem of having the meteor impacts happen on creation day (creation of the earth)? So all the large impacts happened before life. This would explain the earth being 6000 yrs old, the craters being here and us being here! The flood theory doesn't work. Ballistic physics and common sense says we and the sea creatures would certainly not survive. They also have been proven conclusively to be impacts (by iridium and tektites).
@TheChrisx88 I didn't say I didn't believe in God (but I didn't say I did either) and Einstein belived in evolution. The original particles out of the big bang eventually turned into us and the universe (that's what Einstein was about) and this could show God's omnipotence because you have to believe that God (who can do anything) can design particles that can indeed do this! Slow magic is much more feasible (following Gods laws of physics) than witchcraft like in Harry Potter! lol!
@TheChrisx88 An engine is made from man but we are already dreaming of making things that can Morph (Google morphing nano-science). If we can do it shurely God can design particles that can assemble themselves (If God can do anything). You are just following the Bible (and the Bible alone) and believe that Arron's stick turned into a snake (and call it science). And say that normal science is not science (well I'm saying that the Bible is not science)! It's witchcraft! lol!
Not all causes are natural. One thing evolutionists do is confuse origin science with operation science. A motor can operate purely be natural laws. The law of friction, law of tension, law of motion, law of gravity, a conductor, spark, power source etc..But no one in their right mind would say these laws were responsible for the making of the engine. The engine needed an intelligent cause for its origin but runs buy natural laws for its operation. Empirical science point to a designer..
@Justwantahover No, an engine comes from intelligence. If an engine cannot assemble itself by natural laws than neither can the cosmos. Something cannot come from nothing. But we have something, a very complex and intricate system of life and laws and systems. If something comes from nothing, that would be a miracle, and miracles only come from a being who is outside space, time, and mater, a transcendent being i.e. God..
All these fathers of modern science believed in creation. Science is the search for causes. They can be either natural or intelligent causes. The fallacy of Darwinism is that all causes are natural, but that is a wrong assumption. If a scientist observes and repeats his evidence and concludes that it must of been a intelligent cause(creation), in no way is this religion. No ware is a creationist demanding belief or worship in God which is religion. Creation is science.
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS -HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) FIELD THEORY -MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) FLUID MECHANICS - GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) GALACTIC ASTRONOMY - WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) GAS DYNAMICS - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) GENETICS - GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) GLACIAL GEOLOGY - LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) GYNECOLOGY - JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) HYDRAULICS - LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) HYDROGRAPHY - MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) HYDROSTATICS - BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
@TheChrisx88 yes they were indoctrinated, and the list of evidence now is overwhelming, the only possible way to still beleive the earth is 6000 years is to IGNORE THEM, and the only opposition on the planet is religious in nature,
@Elizrose11 no answer from this glorify high school teacher, dont take anything from him or kent hovind, these are not specialist, they are religious nuts
I actually met Ken Ham once. This creatard is just as scary in person. I was worried his stupid might get all over me. His delusion is so deep you couldn't pry it out with any amount of science of rational thought. His creation museum is an embarrassment to this country. I can only hope that when it finally closes it will be preserved as a monument to our past ignorance, and a reminder of how close minded, superstitious theists brought us to the brink of full blown scientific retardation.
@XchristianHeathen Look at your self in the mirror... What do you see? An angry, God hater! "I was worried his stupid might get all over me." Wow! that was deep! All you can do is insult Ken Ham? You most really feel very little next to him intellectually, you are a very angry, sad and lonely person. Go to NeedGod.com His museum is a Blessing to this Country. God Bless you dear.
What this moron is basicaly saying is that 2+2=4 is not the truth because man came to that conclusion based on evidence and common sense and because god didn't reveal it to us...What a bunch of simple minded, brainwashed village idiots...
@Hinduspy none, the only place they preach anymore is beetween themself wich is fine it is like intellectual masturbation just the way it should be for retard, the only sad thing is that kid will come out of that tottaly brainwashed
@freesailer Calling it "evilution" means nothing. Give me some actual data. I can call all christians as gay assloving satan worshippers but that means nothing.
@freesailer wrong, 68 of the most prestitious scientific organisation in 2006recognizse evolution, as a concensus, plus no university, (real one not like patriot university) will teach creationism on the planet,the only opposition is from religious people for philosiphical reason,analogy,people beleiving gravity isnt real, because you cant actually see what is gravity, you only see its effect,
by the way ill let you talk here cause youtube is one of the last place you can debate this, no debate
@lapmarty Debate? no debate I'm just making a statement.
Gravity, who is denighing gravity?, Newton was a Christian.
Of course not many schools teach Creationism, Satan has got the evilutionists to teach children what is not true.
The problem is of course the evilutionists do not bother to correct their beliefs when it has been proved that they are wrong,are they going to alter the school books now that scientists have proven that the BIG BANG was impossible, I doubt it very much!.
@freesailer your so retarded you mixed evrething up, big bang and evolution are 2 seperate thing,
and i dont know from what creationist site you quote,,but you use most like a single source,,,big bang happend what was before we dont know,,and dont say we do,, we are looking into it, instead of saying god must have done it
maybe the concluion will be god did it,,, but at less we are working on it, we are not just inventing stuff up,
If you want to believe in Creation, go ahead, but that's something you do on your own. If you don't believe that the government should be education your children then take your kids out of public school, but DON'T take away public school from the people who value science and a different worldview other than the Bible. Why is this a hard concept?
@ballsy101 If you want to believe in Evolution, go ahead, but that's something you do on your own. If you don't believe that the government should be education your children then take your kids out of public school, but DON'T take away public school from the people who value real science and a different worldview other than the Evolution. Why is this a hard concept?
If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead (at your own peril), but that IS something you do along with every other God-hater. If you don't believe that your children should hear all perspectives, then keep your kids in socialist school but DON'T extort money to buy your Kool-Aid from the people who value science, recorded history, educational diversity, and a worldview other than your rebellion against your Creator. Why is this a hard concept?
Well I'm not a god hater, and as somebody who went to a public school I DID get all other perspectives. We learned the creation stories in english class. We don't learn creation in the science class for the same reason we aren't taught the earth is flat. There is no evidence to back up either and even if there was, the teaching of creationism violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. Keeping religion out of public schools allows educational diversity and MULTIPLE worldviews
@ballsy101 Oh no, you don’t hate God. You just deny He exists & dispute His Word that properly frames the study of His Creation. You claim an open mind but your mind is closed to any worldview but your own. It is perfectly OK in your Truth-suppressing mind to establish the religion of secular humanism in public schools & close them to even a discussion of Christianity. You assert all the tenets of a closed-minded, exclusive, & archaic religion neatly disguised as open-mindedness and diversity.
@tjotwo Well I actually do believe in god, and if you look at the 50's when prayer was in public schools, I think you would have a hard time finding any other worldview apart from christianity. My mind is open to everything, not just christianity. If that's closed-minded obviously the problem is with you. I already said we learn about religions in history and English classes, we learn multiple worldviews
@ballsy101 U say u believe in “god” but u do not ascribe Creation to ur god. Ur god is apparently a milquetoast idol described in Psa 115:4-8. U think u have Creation figured out, so your god has other functions. You say your mind is open but you do not want to allow Creation to be considered next to evolution in pubic (spelling intentional) school science class. You have an odd way of expressing open-mindedness. The Scopes Trial in 1925 began a change that carried through the 50’s.
@tjotwo I believe that religion and science are two completely different things. Who are you to say who my god is? In science, things must be testable and observable. The story of Creation can never be proven or disproven, and thus lays outside the realm of science.
OK, I’ve got it – your god is Shilo. watch?v=98mxTslGjbs. Testing and observing are only a couple of facets of science. Attestation is another. Just as you know you wrote your last comment, the Creator attests to His Creation. It is evolution that is an unprovable theory. Testing and observing evolution has led to a lot of frustration as the facts of Creation keep spiking the evo-KoolAid – ID; junk DNA ain’t really junk, missing link, etc…
@tjotwo I'm pretty sure I could attest to just about anything, attestation isn't a facet of science. I can attest all I want that the earth is flat, that we never landed on the moon, and that dinosaurs never existed, but I had better have some damn good evidence to back my "attestments" up. In science, to attest is nothing more than saying what has already happened. And no, my god isn't Shilo.
@ballsy101 You relied on attestation when you ate your cornflakes this AM. You rely on the attestations of scientists who perform lab experiments and archeologists who uncover artifacts. And you rely on the attestation of a self-deluded dreamer that shapes and pounds all these facts into a far-fetched evolution scheme. But you refuse to rely on the very coherent and comprehensive Attestation of the Creator of the Universe where everything falls into place very well.
@tjotwo this "very coherent and comprehensive Attestation of the Creator of the Universe" comes out of a book written thousands of years ago. If you were to read a science/history textbook written in the 20's would you rely on it as an accurate source of information? Now think of a "textbook" written thousands of years ago. And the thing about public school is that they will teach you how these scientists arrived at their conclusions, it's not enough to know they did.
A 1920’s science book was written by a finite creature who had little clue outside his sphere of knowledge. The Bible was written by the Transcendent and Immanent Creator of all Who knew you and me by name and how many hairs He would put on our heads (Luke 12:7) while He was telling Moses & others what to write. You do not conduct an authoritative, comprehensive review of every bit of info that comes your way – you accept most attestations by faith.
@tjotwo The only proof that the Bible was written by god is in the bible. Don't you realize that's circular logic? If true, that makes every fiction book ever written non-fiction unless it has a preface saying its fiction. And no, I don't "conduct an authoritative, comprehensive review of every bit of info that comes [my] way" but the people who do are called scientists.
Don’t you realize your logic is circular as well? You start and end with a denial of God and His Word. If you call a book fact or fiction based on whether the information has been observed by all who are deemed credible in the eyes of every reader, no book is fact – they are all fiction. But if you are looking for a very coherent and cohesive collection of books that explains the events of the world from Creation to the end, the Bible is it.
@tjotwo The people who wrote the bible were not scientists, they did not have an accurate understanding of the world around them, so they explained it the best way they could, by taking what they didn't know and attributing it to something greater than themselves. And how is my logic circular? Calling me a god hater doesn't make my logic circular. The scientific method doesn't require or need a god to exist.
@ballsy101 The keyboard that typed your comment was not a human but the comment was authored by a human. Likewise the Creator Authored the Bible. Two groups of scientists look at the same evidence. One believes it was created. The other believes it is random. If they are looking at a bridge, the latter group wears little jackets with sleeves that tie in the back but for some reason they let the latter group run around loose if the focus is our beautifully ordered Universe.
@theminztrel I have read & evaluated the Bible & its History.There are 4 independent accounts, based on eye witness testimony to the Life, Death, & Resurrection of Jesus Christ, written & avidly circulated within the lifetimes of those who could credibly refute these accounts. But no credible refutation has come from this era. Ergo, Jesus is Lord and His affirmation of the OT Scriptures stands. Trans & Imm are revealed throughout the Bible but nowhere more succinctly than John 1:10.
@tjotwo You speak with Wisdom, which comes from God. It is amazing how many of these ignorant so called "atheist" attack with profanity. They get so angry, because they hate God, and His Commandments. God Bless you!
@alwaysproverbs31 Thank you for your kind words. Eph 2, Col 1:21ff, Col 3, Titus 3:3ff, & 1 Pet 2:10-12 remind us that only by the Grace of God are we any different than those who denounce God and worship the idol of self and "science". What an undeserved privilege and blessing to be granted the opportunity to think some of God's Thoughts after Him! God Bless you as well!
@tjotwo Thank you. I am sorry it is three weeks later, but I only check this email once a month. I will not reply to any of the insults from the unbelievers. May Our God Almighty protect you, and bless you. :)
@alwaysproverbs31 you mean man and his commandement right, cause if it came from god, he would have included no salavery, no incest, do i need to say more, indoctrination is a bitch, hang in there youll free yourself maybe, chance are 80% vs 20% sadly
@lapmarty What is salavery? All of those things you mention, are all sin. You have a conscience, you know what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to free my self, God's done that already. You unbelievers can only reply by cussing? Please, spare me the details, stop being so angry. Communicate without harsh words. It is so, so easy to sit and type insults, feeling like a hero behind the screen. Try a new approach, be kind.
@alwaysproverbs31 i meat slavery, it is in the bible,accepted, and they even tel you instruction to sell slave,and what to do when you beat one,cherry pick right about consience,doesnt come from the bible at all, iv meet lots of people that have never heard about jesus christ and the bible and were a lot better moraly then most christian,the bible clearly says to sell evrething you have,your house your car, close your accont and give it to the poor,mathew (19,21) how come no christian doest it??
@lapmarty Wrong! Science like gravity and aerodynamics is empirical science. The criteria of empirical science is observation and repetition. I can drop an apple a thousand times a day and prove to you that gravity exists. I can test the air flow over an aircrafts wing a thousand time a day, to see what the result is. This is good science – empirical science...
@lapmarty Evolution is not empirical science. Evolution is not something that we can observe and repeat. The big bang is not observable, the first pair of life arising from non life was not observable, one animal evolving into another was to another was not and is not observable. The whole theory of evolution is not operational science...
@TheChrisx88 i see evolution in every experience we do, under a microsocope every day, we design antibiotique base on the prediction the theory make, and more then that you can observe dna evidence evrywhere!!!! you are late in the information,,,,get some fact,,,plus you dont see directly a kid growing,, still he does grow,,same as tree,,,you can only observe the ring,,even if you spend hours there you wont see the tree growing,,,,,your time scale isnt appropriate same for ecolution
@freesailer if evolution is a religion, beleiving in gravity is one, aerodynamism and aviation is one too, so his cancer depistage, brain scan technology,
dna analysis, and pretty much all the science,
quantum mecanic too, even know you use a computer right now,!
get over it,
dna alone proove evolutino the problem, is you listen to idiot like kent hovind that get fake doctorat from fake university,,
@lapmarty Both creation and evolution are past singularities. That is, events that happened in the past that cannot be repeated. Both creation and evolution are both forensic sciences. In the same way a dead body is found, the forensics team looks at the current evidence, to find a cause, either a natural cause or an intelligent cause. Thats what we have to do for the origin of the cosmos and life.
So no, evolution is not in the same basket as gravity and the others you mentioned..
@TheChrisx88 it is actually, it make prediction,,the prediction works, and we can see all the evidence,, you refuse them, and the only opposition is reigious in nature,
the theory is accepted if you religious nut job dont wanna accept evidence its your problem
@lapmarty While talking about gravity, Isaac Newton the man who discovered gravity. considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived said;
“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”
“A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator,Whom I call the Lord God"
@TheChrisx88 what the fuck the opinion of man who wasnt a biologist has to do with evolution,,againt you religious freak mix evrething in one big giant i love god pot,
evolution doesnt explain the origin of life you morons, it explain its evolution,
Wrong again. Evolution is change, but it’s a certain kind of change. Yes, we observe change such as a bacteria adapting to antibiotics, of a fruit fly gaining another set of wings. But we only ever see changes because we have lost information by random mutations.
@lapmarty Think about it! To get from an amoeba to a human, you need allot of information being added to the evolution process along the way. For example, If you have a dictionary with one definition in it, how do you get to a dictionary with a 100 000 definitions in it, you need more letters and numbers, more ink, more pages arranged in the right order. The same goes for evolution. .
@lapmarty Random mutations only ever give you a loss of information, but we need an increase of information. Yes we see change, but its change because information is lost not gained. Nowhere have scientists ever observed random mutations gaining information. We only ever see a loss of information which is the opposite of evolution.
@lapmarty Its like this, Say you want to go on a train to a town north of where you are. But you get on the wrong train, which is heading south. No matter how slow that train goes you will never go north because the train is going in the wrong direction. Same for evolution, it cannot work. Evolutions know this. Richard Dawkins knows this and cannot give a single response.
@lapmarty Dr Lee Spetner “All point mutations that have been studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it”
@lapmarty This is how funny you are. You no nothing on mutations or the whole theory of evolution so you have to copy and paste all you augment from webpage’s. Then you block me from sending replies to your argument. Haha.. and you cant speak English very well. You probably tell yourself tonight “gee i won a debate today how good am I” haha wonder why..
@lapmarty I was commenting on evolution not other facets of science.
When evolutionists find that they have been wrong they will not rectify it most of the time as it is too embarrassing for them to show that their religion is wrong.
Spirituality is religion. The differences are as significant as those betwixt unbelievers and nonbelievers. There is no such thing as a human atheist, as we, unlike chimps & crocodiles, deny our physical needs to contemplate and research and question. Man is not of the jungle. "Atheists" are determined, nonetheless, to deny the uniqueness and importance of Man in order to enslave him.
In Vietnam the people eat bamboo in larger quantities than Westerners eat potatoes. One-third of humanity relies on bamboo as a staple crop. Bamboo is a nitrilosidic food, i.e. abounding in Amygdalin: the preventative, treatment & cure for malignant (tumorous) growth. Pesticides are concoctions. The components are medicinal: internally and/or topically.
So basically Ken Ham is saying that everything in his life and those like him is based upon, and in many ways bound, by their particular interpretation of biblical scripture... written by men, and variously interpreted and translated by men. An interpretation that can never be changed. So what do they do when a discovery is made which does not fit their scripture constrained viewpoint?
Hasn’t happened – won’t happen. You left out that Biblical Scripture is Breathed by God. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pe 1:21 ESV) In all things, those that God has chosen see the donut and those that remain God-hating rebels see the hole and insist there is no donut and anybody who believes there is a donut is a narrow-minded idiot.
@tjotwo "Mmm.. doughnuts" wasn't it Homer Simpson who said that? Of course, the bible is the word of god, and we know that because the bible says so (!?!). Ok, but you have not actually answered my question which was "what do religious fundamentalists such as Ken Ham do when a discovery is made which does not agree with the scripture by which their view of life, the universe, and everything, is bound"? Maybe they just sit there and think "Mmm.. Doughnuts".
Yes, your leading (Have you stopped beating your mother yet?) question was answered – just not the way you would like. OK, it’s a deal - I quote the Bible and you quote Homer Simpson. Homer’s a good idol for God-haters – man-made, irrational, always bent on corrupting a new generation. Just as my reasoning follows what is in the Bible, yours follows anything that defies the Bible. Both are circular and stem from preconceived premises.
@tjotwo You are obviously somewhat disturbed... I refer to your "mother beating" reference. As for hating god.. how can I hate something if I don't believe it exists? How is my reasoning circular in the way that your affirmation that "the bible is the word of god because it claims to be" is? And when a discovery is made that does not agree with Ken Ham's YEEC fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, do the fundamentalists just deny it?
@CarajilloDulce I’ll type slower so maybe you will catch it this time. The premise of your question begs the question and belies your circular reasoning. You claim not to hate God but your world view (WV) is built on theories that you claim to be scientific. However, you will accept any source of information so long as it is NOT God’s Word and does not support God’s Word. You begin with denying God, your reasoning goes in that circle, so your conclusion is inevitable.
@tjotwo I have not claimed that my world view is based upon scientific theories. I simply stated that I personally do not believe in a creator deity, the like of which you call god. Why should I? Obviously I cannot hate something if I do not believe in it. And as for my original question... what happens when a discovery is made that does not fit with the YEEC fundamentalist world view? Is it simply ignored? Scripture cannot be re-written as can scientific theories for example.
You are dealing entirely in myth and theory. “What if…” “…when a discovery is made..” are theories that suppress the Truth/deny God. Your premises are begging the question and tipping your hand that you are presupposing God does not exist therefore everything exists by chance rather than design. I know God Created the Universe, so I reject your false premises, I know every discovery will comport with the Word, and ONCE AGAIN answer, your fairy-tale premises will not happen.
@tjotwo OK, so just the usual self righteous nonsense that one would expect from a religious fundamentalist, forever restricted by scripture which was written by men. The most consistent characteristic of the religiously deluded is their arrogance in expressing their absolute correctness and their absolute knowledge with nothing more than variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths for evidence. Fortunately, fundamentalists amongst religious adherents are in the minority.
Amazing how God-haters exude Pharisaical arrogance while unabashedly accusing Christians of their sins. If not for God changing my way of thinking, I would be doing what you are doing. You accuse me of arrogance for maintaining the Truth of our Creator’s Word while you exalt your own words and thinking. What greater arrogance than for the pot to say to the potter, “You do not exist. I am just a cosmic lottery winner.”
@tjotwo I've no idea what so called "god haters" think, and I doubt that I'll bother to find out. As for christians and their sins that's really more your department than mine. There are many interesting religious theories regarding the nature of life, the universe, and everything. It is unfortunate that narrow minded fundamentalists are blinkered to the possibilities of exploration by their particular interpretation of scriptures and doctrines. Secure in self righteousness I suppose.
Theories that contradict the revealed Truth do not interest me. Yes, fundamentalists that are as narrow-minded as most God-haters are a real drag. As for me, exploring and working daily with the wonders of God’s Creation is a real blessing. You may want to throw away the manual, thinking you know it all, but I love to read the Manual God Gave us for His Creation – over and over. Secure in His Righteousness and Propitiation for His elect.
@tjotwo Ah.. there you go again with your self righteousness. I have never been so arrogant as to claim I know it all. In fact my position is that I do not know., and in truth nor does anybody really know, how life, the universe, and everything began, or for that matter it's true nature. Religiously deluded fundamentalists of many faiths claim to know exactly those things and usually, as you admit to doing, refuse to acknowledge anything that does not support their delusions.
Your claim of not knowing is that of an unruly student. You have the Textbook & the Lab (Creation) & God gave you the capacity to know. Yours is the arrogance for accusing me while claiming there is no Judge – for saying you do not know ergo nobody else can know – for claiming greater knowledge when in your WV, that means you are more highly evolved. You lay personal claim to what you know while I claim what I have was given to me by God. You stand in my WV to accuse me.
@tjotwo So claiming not to know something is arrogant, & claiming to know everything by rite of a variously translated and interpreted book of bronze age myths and anecdotes is not? You provided excellent evidence that your outlook is constricted by scripture if only by your grandiose statement that no discovery has, or ever will, run contra to it. Fortunately it is simply your highly subjective opinion. I remain unconvinced that your religious doctrine explains life, the universe & everything.
No, claiming not to know when you have the Creation and the Creator’s Explanation is like a student claiming not to know what he was shown in lab and what was explained in his textbook. Like you, there are plenty of things I do not know and we are on opposite sides of the fence as to whether something will be discovered that contradicts the Word of God. I rely on THE Supreme Being & you think you are a supreme being but providentially you are not.
@tjotwo I have never claimed to be a supreme being.... that's just another one of your fantasies. Reading something in a text book, and then performing an experiment in a lab in order to observe the effect is, to be honest, somewhat different from reading a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes and simply saying that they're true and that they can never ever be proved otherwise. I guess you can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to.
You have placed your knowledge above mine and over the Word of your Creator, thus you make your “self” supreme. You will blindly believe anything in a textbook that does not acknowledge God but you reject out-of-hand anything that acknowledges your Creator. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Pr 1:7 ESV)
We can both tell the difference. You know little except God is wrong and I know little except God is Right.
@tjotwo I don't blindly believe anything. I simply understand it or I don't. Just because blind faith is your way it does not mean that everyone is so inclined.
So what you do not understand you condemn as “bronze age myths and anecdotes”. You know my test of what is true or not, the Word of God. Is that your test – whether you understand it or not? The only other test besides God is self – placing “self” above God.
@tjotwo No. That which I do not understand is exactly that.. something I do not understand. The bible is a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes. Look at the amount of arguments that surround it's translation and interpretation within the christian community alone. Having studied comparative religions, one of which was christianity, I would not say that I "do not understand" the bible, I just don't believe it to be the word of some celestial deity.
Authored by the Creator of the Universe, far and away the bestselling book of all time, people have dedicated and otherwise given their lives adhering to this Word, for they were supremely confident to Whom they gave their lives. And you dismiss it because you studied comparative religions with a group of like-minded God-haters. You are a person drowning while insisting he does not believe in water.
@tjotwo It was written by men. You are a bible belt scripture restricted YEEC fundamentalist so will never be able to accept that. Have a nice day y'all.
Thank you! Yes, I am a follower of the Word of God who believes the Bible was written by men who submitted their own will to the Will of God and wrote “as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21).
@tjotwo I wish that you would understand that im not saying the bible is just a fairy tale.I know it is the inspired word of god. What i find ironic is you making the same mistake that the sadducees made during Jesus's day. They didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead because they took a straight literal interpretation of the bible without looking at the deeper spiritual meaning of many of its teachings. In fact Matthew chp 22 records an instance(continued)
Your analogizing me to a Sadducee falls back on you. “…Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit…” (Ac 23:8 ESV). “Angel” is used in the ESV of the OT 114 times; “spirit” 226 times; & Job speaks of seeing Resurrected Jesus in Job 19:25. Likewise you take a 6-day Creation account and God’s Word that He Created everything in 6 days & defy what is written. Like the Sadducees, you deny the supernatural element of Creation done like the Bible states.
@tjotwo Oh, and type as slowly as you like but please, this time, try to answer my original question rather than trying to turn away from it by asking another question. It's really quite simple. Either the YEEC fundamentalist world view is restricted by scripture or it is not.
No turning away or being drug away from the Truth by your Satanic question (Did God really say?). You ask an improper and misleading question and you will get an answer that is hard for a God-hater to swallow. Ask a question with a real premise and you might get an answer you find easier to swallow.
@tjotwo "Drug away from the truth"? What does that mean? I wasn't suggesting using drugs to change people's minds. Give up on the "god hater" nonsense. I can't hate something that I do not believe exists. There is nothing improper or misleading about my question, your world view is either restricted by scripture or it's not. Obviously yours is because you will not accept that there is any possibility that a discovery has or could be made that would run contra to it. Now that was easy, wasn't it.
I will explain some nuances of the English language while you guzzle your sweet coffee. The southern part of the USA uses drug as the past tense of drag. My present perfect use of drug is to be differentiated from the term “drugged” that you extracted from what I communicated. A more widely accepted expression would have been “…dragged away from the Truth…” Romans 1:18-32 asserts you know about God and hate Him. Amen to your last 2 sentences.
Creationists insist they wish only to see the 'controversy' taught in public schools between two viable scientific propositions: Creationism / Intelligent Design vs. evolution. But as you well know (both via intellectual honesty and via U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' landmark ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) Intelligent Design and, by extension, Creationism are neither of them scientific propositions but, rather, are both of them religious doctrines.
Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, there is no 'controversy'. And you know it.
If teaching Abrahamic creationist doctrine in place of science as regards origin of species is so critically important to you -- as quite obviously it is -- then do so in the context of private religious education.
I attended twelve years of private religious schooling. With all the millions spent on mega-ministries and football stadium sized 'churches', surely it is possible to provide
the type of private education you wish to see in public schools on a private basis at no cost to believers.
But that you already have. What you now want is to spread your religious beliefs using in the public school system. You know full well that, for good, or for ill, this is not permitted under our system of government.
@tjotwo Bro, there's no point in discussing why you're wrong. The other dude already told you why. You're all like ''Guyz! i no phaysic yo! U no no shit ya?!'' but you just wiki stuff and then think you understand everything. Sorry man. Go talk to a physic teacher and tell me what happens.
Why don't you read some history. No, they did not show a hatred for "all things religious". They did not want a religiously motivated government like what existed in England. They also recognized the many faiths that existed and did not in any way a single government endorsed religion. Get a clue.
No, Ken Ham has arguments, the evolutionary biologist have tested facts showing there work.
DrEelectricbio 4 days ago in playlist Ken Ham
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you seen the meme from Family Guy showing the scale chart for intelligence :
Normal - Retarded - Peter Griffin - Creationist ?
LiberalElitistMedia 5 days ago
All I EVER hear from evolutionist is how stupid creationist and ID are. You're so busy covering your ears and singing "lalala" rather then actually understanding what these creation scientist want to display. Most evolutionist just display ignorance and stupidity rather than solid evidence. All you Darwinist are good at is hoaxes. (Neanderthal man, and all the other missing links).
14dimaspartak 5 days ago
@14dimaspartak If that's all you've ever heard from 'evolutionists' (aka SCIENTISTS), then you're obviously just not listening.
D3PyroGS 3 days ago
@jisaid08 I think you're the one mentally ill. Stop trolling and closing your ears and not paying any attention to what he tries to say. Moron.
Don't watch this video then.
14dimaspartak 5 days ago
I now know the definition of "delusional".
tweekyseagull 6 days ago
This guy is mentally ill.
jisaid08 1 week ago
So where are they??? I have been provoking evolutionists to cough up the evidence for evoluton year after year after year! Not even the ONE of these famous "99% of scientists" can do that!!! Wake up and smell the coffee!
updr12 1 week ago
The next step is to throw out a few vulgar swear-words hoping that creationists will just go cringing and scurrying away, all the while desparately hoping that someone ELSE who understands evolution better will come along and save the day by producing the "evidence" that will silence creationists.
updr12 1 week ago
So what they do when they realize that they obviously fall short of the mark of producing any real scientific evidence to back up what they say, is to turn to insulting the intelligence of creationists, claiming that they "don't understand evolution", when all the while it is they themselves that don't understand exactly what it is they are trying to assert, and why it fails.
updr12 1 week ago
Unfortunately it is VERY hard to find evolutionists that are willing to go all the way in this debate.
After years and years of debating this issue, I find that they ALL copy each others arguments and are extremely confident that with the media, the educational system and "99% of scientists" to back them up then it definitely MUST be a piece of cake to win a debate like this.
updr12 1 week ago
I made the like bar Even again ;)
MrJackHax 2 weeks ago
Looking at the craters with your "Creation glasses on";What is the problem of having the meteor impacts happen on creation day (creation of the earth)? So all the large impacts happened before life. This would explain the earth being 6000 yrs old, the craters being here and us being here! The flood theory doesn't work. Ballistic physics and common sense says we and the sea creatures would certainly not survive. They also have been proven conclusively to be impacts (by iridium and tektites).
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
lol!
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
If something is not natural, all it can be is witchcraft.
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
@Justwantahover Albert Einstein said “The more I study science the more I believe in God."
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 I didn't say I didn't believe in God (but I didn't say I did either) and Einstein belived in evolution. The original particles out of the big bang eventually turned into us and the universe (that's what Einstein was about) and this could show God's omnipotence because you have to believe that God (who can do anything) can design particles that can indeed do this! Slow magic is much more feasible (following Gods laws of physics) than witchcraft like in Harry Potter! lol!
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 An engine is made from man but we are already dreaming of making things that can Morph (Google morphing nano-science). If we can do it shurely God can design particles that can assemble themselves (If God can do anything). You are just following the Bible (and the Bible alone) and believe that Arron's stick turned into a snake (and call it science). And say that normal science is not science (well I'm saying that the Bible is not science)! It's witchcraft! lol!
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
Evolution scenario is not complete, so therefore it is wrong. Witchcraft is right!
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
lol what a fucking idiot xD
nikolathereal 2 weeks ago
Not all causes are natural. One thing evolutionists do is confuse origin science with operation science. A motor can operate purely be natural laws. The law of friction, law of tension, law of motion, law of gravity, a conductor, spark, power source etc..But no one in their right mind would say these laws were responsible for the making of the engine. The engine needed an intelligent cause for its origin but runs buy natural laws for its operation. Empirical science point to a designer..
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 And nobody is going to believe an engine can exist by the result of witchcraft either.
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
@Justwantahover No, an engine comes from intelligence. If an engine cannot assemble itself by natural laws than neither can the cosmos. Something cannot come from nothing. But we have something, a very complex and intricate system of life and laws and systems. If something comes from nothing, that would be a miracle, and miracles only come from a being who is outside space, time, and mater, a transcendent being i.e. God..
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
All these fathers of modern science believed in creation. Science is the search for causes. They can be either natural or intelligent causes. The fallacy of Darwinism is that all causes are natural, but that is a wrong assumption. If a scientist observes and repeats his evidence and concludes that it must of been a intelligent cause(creation), in no way is this religion. No ware is a creationist demanding belief or worship in God which is religion. Creation is science.
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 So we must be the result of witchcraft. "Pow" there's cow, and "pow", there's a horse!
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
COMPUTER SCIENCE -CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS - LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS -ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
ELECTRONICS -JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS -JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
The fathers of moden science beleived in creation, many after charls dawin.
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY -JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY -LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS - ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS - JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY - ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY -GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 yes they were indoctrinated, and the list of evidence now is overwhelming, the only possible way to still beleive the earth is 6000 years is to IGNORE THEM, and the only opposition on the planet is religious in nature,
get over it
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
Isaac Newton
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"
TheChrisx88 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 It can only be here from witchcraft.
Justwantahover 2 weeks ago
@TheChrisx88 apparently i died at 96 a virgin,,,some people are genius in some area and really stupid in other one,
at the time of newton,,there was a excuse to beleive that, there is none today
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
Evolution has many such as Ceolocant, Haekels Fraud Piltdown man plus many other like him.
tendele7 3 weeks ago
Fuck your God, your Lord, your Christ
toolarmysniper 3 weeks ago
@toolarmysniper I love you.
thinktothemax 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Ken Ham is amazing, I have so many answers I didn't have before
Elizrose11 1 month ago
@Elizrose11 no answer from this glorify high school teacher, dont take anything from him or kent hovind, these are not specialist, they are religious nuts
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
I actually met Ken Ham once. This creatard is just as scary in person. I was worried his stupid might get all over me. His delusion is so deep you couldn't pry it out with any amount of science of rational thought. His creation museum is an embarrassment to this country. I can only hope that when it finally closes it will be preserved as a monument to our past ignorance, and a reminder of how close minded, superstitious theists brought us to the brink of full blown scientific retardation.
XchristianHeathen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XchristianHeathen Look at your self in the mirror... What do you see? An angry, God hater! "I was worried his stupid might get all over me." Wow! that was deep! All you can do is insult Ken Ham? You most really feel very little next to him intellectually, you are a very angry, sad and lonely person. Go to NeedGod.com His museum is a Blessing to this Country. God Bless you dear.
alwaysproverbs31 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What this moron is basicaly saying is that 2+2=4 is not the truth because man came to that conclusion based on evidence and common sense and because god didn't reveal it to us...What a bunch of simple minded, brainwashed village idiots...
caporalchef4 1 month ago
95% of all scientists support evolution. what support does creationism have apart from wackos like this guy?
Hinduspy 1 month ago
@Hinduspy none, the only place they preach anymore is beetween themself wich is fine it is like intellectual masturbation just the way it should be for retard, the only sad thing is that kid will come out of that tottaly brainwashed
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty What a pity you did not take more notice of your spelling lessons LOL.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer im french if you can writte to me in french you may comment otherwise that is just showing how you dont have any logic arguments,
LOL is on you
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty Ferme la bouch, indeed LOL is on you.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer we dont say that, and even if we did, bouch, is spelled bouche, joke on you
but you need that just beleiving in creationist is ridiculous enough
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty Hi, sorry about the typo, but you are still an evilutionist.LOL
freesailer 1 month ago
@Hinduspy The scriptures are supported by thousands of scientists who actually recognize the truth.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer 93% of the members of the national science academy reject god.
Hinduspy 1 month ago
@Hinduspy Of course they reject God, He does not fit into there religion of evilution.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer Calling it "evilution" means nothing. Give me some actual data. I can call all christians as gay assloving satan worshippers but that means nothing.
Hinduspy 1 month ago
@freesailer They don't know the truth that is the problem with them, Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer wrong, 68 of the most prestitious scientific organisation in 2006recognizse evolution, as a concensus, plus no university, (real one not like patriot university) will teach creationism on the planet,the only opposition is from religious people for philosiphical reason,analogy,people beleiving gravity isnt real, because you cant actually see what is gravity, you only see its effect,
by the way ill let you talk here cause youtube is one of the last place you can debate this, no debate
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty Debate? no debate I'm just making a statement.
Gravity, who is denighing gravity?, Newton was a Christian.
Of course not many schools teach Creationism, Satan has got the evilutionists to teach children what is not true.
The problem is of course the evilutionists do not bother to correct their beliefs when it has been proved that they are wrong,are they going to alter the school books now that scientists have proven that the BIG BANG was impossible, I doubt it very much!.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer your so retarded you mixed evrething up, big bang and evolution are 2 seperate thing,
and i dont know from what creationist site you quote,,but you use most like a single source,,,big bang happend what was before we dont know,,and dont say we do,, we are looking into it, instead of saying god must have done it
maybe the concluion will be god did it,,, but at less we are working on it, we are not just inventing stuff up,
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
Man doesn't determine truth bitch! Evidence does.
RedGiant81 1 month ago
I wonder if Ken admits being fallible when it comes to the God question...
smarthandsomeguy 1 month ago
Brilliant. Man.
LacyeFay 1 month ago
what a load of bollocks.
willhum 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
No doubt what this mean nothing to interpret. " our image" mean more than one god which blows monotheism out of the water.
clubber400 2 months ago
Falsify your claims and submit your shit for peer review or STFU!
TheMrgoku1985 2 months ago
If you want to believe in Creation, go ahead, but that's something you do on your own. If you don't believe that the government should be education your children then take your kids out of public school, but DON'T take away public school from the people who value science and a different worldview other than the Bible. Why is this a hard concept?
ballsy101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ballsy101 If you want to believe in Evolution, go ahead, but that's something you do on your own. If you don't believe that the government should be education your children then take your kids out of public school, but DON'T take away public school from the people who value real science and a different worldview other than the Evolution. Why is this a hard concept?
vincwadvi 2 months ago
@ballsy101
If you want to believe in evolution, go ahead (at your own peril), but that IS something you do along with every other God-hater. If you don't believe that your children should hear all perspectives, then keep your kids in socialist school but DON'T extort money to buy your Kool-Aid from the people who value science, recorded history, educational diversity, and a worldview other than your rebellion against your Creator. Why is this a hard concept?
tjotwo 2 months ago
Well I'm not a god hater, and as somebody who went to a public school I DID get all other perspectives. We learned the creation stories in english class. We don't learn creation in the science class for the same reason we aren't taught the earth is flat. There is no evidence to back up either and even if there was, the teaching of creationism violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. Keeping religion out of public schools allows educational diversity and MULTIPLE worldviews
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101 Oh no, you don’t hate God. You just deny He exists & dispute His Word that properly frames the study of His Creation. You claim an open mind but your mind is closed to any worldview but your own. It is perfectly OK in your Truth-suppressing mind to establish the religion of secular humanism in public schools & close them to even a discussion of Christianity. You assert all the tenets of a closed-minded, exclusive, & archaic religion neatly disguised as open-mindedness and diversity.
tjotwo 2 months ago
@tjotwo Well said!!
Hoogz20 2 months ago
@tjotwo Well I actually do believe in god, and if you look at the 50's when prayer was in public schools, I think you would have a hard time finding any other worldview apart from christianity. My mind is open to everything, not just christianity. If that's closed-minded obviously the problem is with you. I already said we learn about religions in history and English classes, we learn multiple worldviews
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101 U say u believe in “god” but u do not ascribe Creation to ur god. Ur god is apparently a milquetoast idol described in Psa 115:4-8. U think u have Creation figured out, so your god has other functions. You say your mind is open but you do not want to allow Creation to be considered next to evolution in pubic (spelling intentional) school science class. You have an odd way of expressing open-mindedness. The Scopes Trial in 1925 began a change that carried through the 50’s.
tjotwo 2 months ago
@tjotwo I believe that religion and science are two completely different things. Who are you to say who my god is? In science, things must be testable and observable. The story of Creation can never be proven or disproven, and thus lays outside the realm of science.
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101
OK, I’ve got it – your god is Shilo. watch?v=98mxTslGjbs. Testing and observing are only a couple of facets of science. Attestation is another. Just as you know you wrote your last comment, the Creator attests to His Creation. It is evolution that is an unprovable theory. Testing and observing evolution has led to a lot of frustration as the facts of Creation keep spiking the evo-KoolAid – ID; junk DNA ain’t really junk, missing link, etc…
tjotwo 2 months ago
@tjotwo I'm pretty sure I could attest to just about anything, attestation isn't a facet of science. I can attest all I want that the earth is flat, that we never landed on the moon, and that dinosaurs never existed, but I had better have some damn good evidence to back my "attestments" up. In science, to attest is nothing more than saying what has already happened. And no, my god isn't Shilo.
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101 You relied on attestation when you ate your cornflakes this AM. You rely on the attestations of scientists who perform lab experiments and archeologists who uncover artifacts. And you rely on the attestation of a self-deluded dreamer that shapes and pounds all these facts into a far-fetched evolution scheme. But you refuse to rely on the very coherent and comprehensive Attestation of the Creator of the Universe where everything falls into place very well.
tjotwo 2 months ago
@tjotwo this "very coherent and comprehensive Attestation of the Creator of the Universe" comes out of a book written thousands of years ago. If you were to read a science/history textbook written in the 20's would you rely on it as an accurate source of information? Now think of a "textbook" written thousands of years ago. And the thing about public school is that they will teach you how these scientists arrived at their conclusions, it's not enough to know they did.
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101
A 1920’s science book was written by a finite creature who had little clue outside his sphere of knowledge. The Bible was written by the Transcendent and Immanent Creator of all Who knew you and me by name and how many hairs He would put on our heads (Luke 12:7) while He was telling Moses & others what to write. You do not conduct an authoritative, comprehensive review of every bit of info that comes your way – you accept most attestations by faith.
tjotwo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tjotwo The only proof that the Bible was written by god is in the bible. Don't you realize that's circular logic? If true, that makes every fiction book ever written non-fiction unless it has a preface saying its fiction. And no, I don't "conduct an authoritative, comprehensive review of every bit of info that comes [my] way" but the people who do are called scientists.
ballsy101 2 months ago
@ballsy101
Don’t you realize your logic is circular as well? You start and end with a denial of God and His Word. If you call a book fact or fiction based on whether the information has been observed by all who are deemed credible in the eyes of every reader, no book is fact – they are all fiction. But if you are looking for a very coherent and cohesive collection of books that explains the events of the world from Creation to the end, the Bible is it.
tjotwo 1 month ago
@tjotwo The people who wrote the bible were not scientists, they did not have an accurate understanding of the world around them, so they explained it the best way they could, by taking what they didn't know and attributing it to something greater than themselves. And how is my logic circular? Calling me a god hater doesn't make my logic circular. The scientific method doesn't require or need a god to exist.
ballsy101 1 month ago
@ballsy101 The keyboard that typed your comment was not a human but the comment was authored by a human. Likewise the Creator Authored the Bible. Two groups of scientists look at the same evidence. One believes it was created. The other believes it is random. If they are looking at a bridge, the latter group wears little jackets with sleeves that tie in the back but for some reason they let the latter group run around loose if the focus is our beautifully ordered Universe.
tjotwo 1 month ago
@tjotwo please, go check out this video: /watch?v=YEt22y8uCbo
Hinduspy 1 month ago
@Hinduspy Nice handle. Out for a little trolling, eh?
I take it you place your faith in the drivel you just subjected me to and in 330,000,000 Hindu gods...
Please check out this series of videos by a former Buddhist with a doctorate who studied at Oxford.
tjotwo 1 month ago
@tjotwo I am not hindu. I am atheist....
Hinduspy 1 month ago
@tjotwo ...failed to supply the link to the video series I intro'd
watch?v=EPNraxxxRO8
tjotwo 1 month ago
@ballsy101 The scientific method does NOT WANT God to exist, they ere too afraid to recognize the truth. Jesus is the light of the world.
freesailer 1 month ago
@tjotwo "The Bible was written by the Transcendent and Immanent Creator". What is your reason to believe this?
theminztrel 1 month ago
@theminztrel I have read & evaluated the Bible & its History.There are 4 independent accounts, based on eye witness testimony to the Life, Death, & Resurrection of Jesus Christ, written & avidly circulated within the lifetimes of those who could credibly refute these accounts. But no credible refutation has come from this era. Ergo, Jesus is Lord and His affirmation of the OT Scriptures stands. Trans & Imm are revealed throughout the Bible but nowhere more succinctly than John 1:10.
tjotwo 1 month ago
@tjotwo You speak with Wisdom, which comes from God. It is amazing how many of these ignorant so called "atheist" attack with profanity. They get so angry, because they hate God, and His Commandments. God Bless you!
alwaysproverbs31 1 month ago
@alwaysproverbs31 Thank you for your kind words. Eph 2, Col 1:21ff, Col 3, Titus 3:3ff, & 1 Pet 2:10-12 remind us that only by the Grace of God are we any different than those who denounce God and worship the idol of self and "science". What an undeserved privilege and blessing to be granted the opportunity to think some of God's Thoughts after Him! God Bless you as well!
tjotwo 1 month ago
@tjotwo Thank you. I am sorry it is three weeks later, but I only check this email once a month. I will not reply to any of the insults from the unbelievers. May Our God Almighty protect you, and bless you. :)
alwaysproverbs31 2 weeks ago
@alwaysproverbs31 you mean man and his commandement right, cause if it came from god, he would have included no salavery, no incest, do i need to say more, indoctrination is a bitch, hang in there youll free yourself maybe, chance are 80% vs 20% sadly
lapmarty 1 month ago
@lapmarty What is salavery? All of those things you mention, are all sin. You have a conscience, you know what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to free my self, God's done that already. You unbelievers can only reply by cussing? Please, spare me the details, stop being so angry. Communicate without harsh words. It is so, so easy to sit and type insults, feeling like a hero behind the screen. Try a new approach, be kind.
alwaysproverbs31 2 weeks ago
@alwaysproverbs31 i meat slavery, it is in the bible,accepted, and they even tel you instruction to sell slave,and what to do when you beat one,cherry pick right about consience,doesnt come from the bible at all, iv meet lots of people that have never heard about jesus christ and the bible and were a lot better moraly then most christian,the bible clearly says to sell evrething you have,your house your car, close your accont and give it to the poor,mathew (19,21) how come no christian doest it??
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
@lapmarty Wrong! Science like gravity and aerodynamics is empirical science. The criteria of empirical science is observation and repetition. I can drop an apple a thousand times a day and prove to you that gravity exists. I can test the air flow over an aircrafts wing a thousand time a day, to see what the result is. This is good science – empirical science...
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Evolution is not empirical science. Evolution is not something that we can observe and repeat. The big bang is not observable, the first pair of life arising from non life was not observable, one animal evolving into another was to another was not and is not observable. The whole theory of evolution is not operational science...
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 i see evolution in every experience we do, under a microsocope every day, we design antibiotique base on the prediction the theory make, and more then that you can observe dna evidence evrywhere!!!! you are late in the information,,,,get some fact,,,plus you dont see directly a kid growing,, still he does grow,,same as tree,,,you can only observe the ring,,even if you spend hours there you wont see the tree growing,,,,,your time scale isnt appropriate same for ecolution
lapmarty 1 week ago
@alwaysproverbs31 You are quite right, "from the contents of the heart so speaks the mouth".
freesailer 1 month ago
@ballsy101 That's all very well but, evolution is a religion and by that standard also not be taught in schools.
freesailer 1 month ago
@freesailer if evolution is a religion, beleiving in gravity is one, aerodynamism and aviation is one too, so his cancer depistage, brain scan technology,
dna analysis, and pretty much all the science,
quantum mecanic too, even know you use a computer right now,!
get over it,
dna alone proove evolutino the problem, is you listen to idiot like kent hovind that get fake doctorat from fake university,,
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
@lapmarty Both creation and evolution are past singularities. That is, events that happened in the past that cannot be repeated. Both creation and evolution are both forensic sciences. In the same way a dead body is found, the forensics team looks at the current evidence, to find a cause, either a natural cause or an intelligent cause. Thats what we have to do for the origin of the cosmos and life.
So no, evolution is not in the same basket as gravity and the others you mentioned..
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 it is actually, it make prediction,,the prediction works, and we can see all the evidence,, you refuse them, and the only opposition is reigious in nature,
the theory is accepted if you religious nut job dont wanna accept evidence its your problem
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty While talking about gravity, Isaac Newton the man who discovered gravity. considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived said;
“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
“A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator,Whom I call the Lord God"
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 what the fuck the opinion of man who wasnt a biologist has to do with evolution,,againt you religious freak mix evrething in one big giant i love god pot,
evolution doesnt explain the origin of life you morons, it explain its evolution,
the theory says it!! are you retarded?
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty
Wrong again. Evolution is change, but it’s a certain kind of change. Yes, we observe change such as a bacteria adapting to antibiotics, of a fruit fly gaining another set of wings. But we only ever see changes because we have lost information by random mutations.
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Think about it! To get from an amoeba to a human, you need allot of information being added to the evolution process along the way. For example, If you have a dictionary with one definition in it, how do you get to a dictionary with a 100 000 definitions in it, you need more letters and numbers, more ink, more pages arranged in the right order. The same goes for evolution. .
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Random mutations only ever give you a loss of information, but we need an increase of information. Yes we see change, but its change because information is lost not gained. Nowhere have scientists ever observed random mutations gaining information. We only ever see a loss of information which is the opposite of evolution.
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Its like this, Say you want to go on a train to a town north of where you are. But you get on the wrong train, which is heading south. No matter how slow that train goes you will never go north because the train is going in the wrong direction. Same for evolution, it cannot work. Evolutions know this. Richard Dawkins knows this and cannot give a single response.
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Dr Lee Spetner “All point mutations that have been studied on a molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it”
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty Hahaha you are saying Isaac Newton doesn’t know what his talking about haha
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@TheChrisx88 newton beleive in alchemy,,,and try to make the philosophical stone all his life !!!
lapmarty 1 week ago
@lapmarty This is how funny you are. You no nothing on mutations or the whole theory of evolution so you have to copy and paste all you augment from webpage’s. Then you block me from sending replies to your argument. Haha.. and you cant speak English very well. You probably tell yourself tonight “gee i won a debate today how good am I” haha wonder why..
TheChrisx88 1 week ago
@lapmarty I was commenting on evolution not other facets of science.
When evolutionists find that they have been wrong they will not rectify it most of the time as it is too embarrassing for them to show that their religion is wrong.
freesailer 1 hour ago
@tjotwo he should hear on the flyng spagetti monster too
lapmarty 2 weeks ago
Creation Science.... a classic example of the term oxymoron.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
This is a pathetic human being that leaches his living from the stupid.
DarwinsFriend 3 months ago 2
That's right Ken. The difference between my presuppositions and yours is that mine are called facts.
ptango101 3 months ago
Comment removed
kelbykross1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Spirituality is religion. The differences are as significant as those betwixt unbelievers and nonbelievers. There is no such thing as a human atheist, as we, unlike chimps & crocodiles, deny our physical needs to contemplate and research and question. Man is not of the jungle. "Atheists" are determined, nonetheless, to deny the uniqueness and importance of Man in order to enslave him.
KenyanObama 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Vietnam the people eat bamboo in larger quantities than Westerners eat potatoes. One-third of humanity relies on bamboo as a staple crop. Bamboo is a nitrilosidic food, i.e. abounding in Amygdalin: the preventative, treatment & cure for malignant (tumorous) growth. Pesticides are concoctions. The components are medicinal: internally and/or topically.
KenyanObama 3 months ago
So basically Ken Ham is saying that everything in his life and those like him is based upon, and in many ways bound, by their particular interpretation of biblical scripture... written by men, and variously interpreted and translated by men. An interpretation that can never be changed. So what do they do when a discovery is made which does not fit their scripture constrained viewpoint?
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Hasn’t happened – won’t happen. You left out that Biblical Scripture is Breathed by God. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Pe 1:21 ESV) In all things, those that God has chosen see the donut and those that remain God-hating rebels see the hole and insist there is no donut and anybody who believes there is a donut is a narrow-minded idiot.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo "Mmm.. doughnuts" wasn't it Homer Simpson who said that? Of course, the bible is the word of god, and we know that because the bible says so (!?!). Ok, but you have not actually answered my question which was "what do religious fundamentalists such as Ken Ham do when a discovery is made which does not agree with the scripture by which their view of life, the universe, and everything, is bound"? Maybe they just sit there and think "Mmm.. Doughnuts".
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Yes, your leading (Have you stopped beating your mother yet?) question was answered – just not the way you would like. OK, it’s a deal - I quote the Bible and you quote Homer Simpson. Homer’s a good idol for God-haters – man-made, irrational, always bent on corrupting a new generation. Just as my reasoning follows what is in the Bible, yours follows anything that defies the Bible. Both are circular and stem from preconceived premises.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo You are obviously somewhat disturbed... I refer to your "mother beating" reference. As for hating god.. how can I hate something if I don't believe it exists? How is my reasoning circular in the way that your affirmation that "the bible is the word of god because it claims to be" is? And when a discovery is made that does not agree with Ken Ham's YEEC fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, do the fundamentalists just deny it?
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce I’ll type slower so maybe you will catch it this time. The premise of your question begs the question and belies your circular reasoning. You claim not to hate God but your world view (WV) is built on theories that you claim to be scientific. However, you will accept any source of information so long as it is NOT God’s Word and does not support God’s Word. You begin with denying God, your reasoning goes in that circle, so your conclusion is inevitable.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo I have not claimed that my world view is based upon scientific theories. I simply stated that I personally do not believe in a creator deity, the like of which you call god. Why should I? Obviously I cannot hate something if I do not believe in it. And as for my original question... what happens when a discovery is made that does not fit with the YEEC fundamentalist world view? Is it simply ignored? Scripture cannot be re-written as can scientific theories for example.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
You are dealing entirely in myth and theory. “What if…” “…when a discovery is made..” are theories that suppress the Truth/deny God. Your premises are begging the question and tipping your hand that you are presupposing God does not exist therefore everything exists by chance rather than design. I know God Created the Universe, so I reject your false premises, I know every discovery will comport with the Word, and ONCE AGAIN answer, your fairy-tale premises will not happen.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo OK, so just the usual self righteous nonsense that one would expect from a religious fundamentalist, forever restricted by scripture which was written by men. The most consistent characteristic of the religiously deluded is their arrogance in expressing their absolute correctness and their absolute knowledge with nothing more than variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths for evidence. Fortunately, fundamentalists amongst religious adherents are in the minority.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Amazing how God-haters exude Pharisaical arrogance while unabashedly accusing Christians of their sins. If not for God changing my way of thinking, I would be doing what you are doing. You accuse me of arrogance for maintaining the Truth of our Creator’s Word while you exalt your own words and thinking. What greater arrogance than for the pot to say to the potter, “You do not exist. I am just a cosmic lottery winner.”
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo I've no idea what so called "god haters" think, and I doubt that I'll bother to find out. As for christians and their sins that's really more your department than mine. There are many interesting religious theories regarding the nature of life, the universe, and everything. It is unfortunate that narrow minded fundamentalists are blinkered to the possibilities of exploration by their particular interpretation of scriptures and doctrines. Secure in self righteousness I suppose.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Theories that contradict the revealed Truth do not interest me. Yes, fundamentalists that are as narrow-minded as most God-haters are a real drag. As for me, exploring and working daily with the wonders of God’s Creation is a real blessing. You may want to throw away the manual, thinking you know it all, but I love to read the Manual God Gave us for His Creation – over and over. Secure in His Righteousness and Propitiation for His elect.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo Ah.. there you go again with your self righteousness. I have never been so arrogant as to claim I know it all. In fact my position is that I do not know., and in truth nor does anybody really know, how life, the universe, and everything began, or for that matter it's true nature. Religiously deluded fundamentalists of many faiths claim to know exactly those things and usually, as you admit to doing, refuse to acknowledge anything that does not support their delusions.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Your claim of not knowing is that of an unruly student. You have the Textbook & the Lab (Creation) & God gave you the capacity to know. Yours is the arrogance for accusing me while claiming there is no Judge – for saying you do not know ergo nobody else can know – for claiming greater knowledge when in your WV, that means you are more highly evolved. You lay personal claim to what you know while I claim what I have was given to me by God. You stand in my WV to accuse me.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo So claiming not to know something is arrogant, & claiming to know everything by rite of a variously translated and interpreted book of bronze age myths and anecdotes is not? You provided excellent evidence that your outlook is constricted by scripture if only by your grandiose statement that no discovery has, or ever will, run contra to it. Fortunately it is simply your highly subjective opinion. I remain unconvinced that your religious doctrine explains life, the universe & everything.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
No, claiming not to know when you have the Creation and the Creator’s Explanation is like a student claiming not to know what he was shown in lab and what was explained in his textbook. Like you, there are plenty of things I do not know and we are on opposite sides of the fence as to whether something will be discovered that contradicts the Word of God. I rely on THE Supreme Being & you think you are a supreme being but providentially you are not.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo I have never claimed to be a supreme being.... that's just another one of your fantasies. Reading something in a text book, and then performing an experiment in a lab in order to observe the effect is, to be honest, somewhat different from reading a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes and simply saying that they're true and that they can never ever be proved otherwise. I guess you can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
You have placed your knowledge above mine and over the Word of your Creator, thus you make your “self” supreme. You will blindly believe anything in a textbook that does not acknowledge God but you reject out-of-hand anything that acknowledges your Creator. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Pr 1:7 ESV)
We can both tell the difference. You know little except God is wrong and I know little except God is Right.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo I don't blindly believe anything. I simply understand it or I don't. Just because blind faith is your way it does not mean that everyone is so inclined.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
So what you do not understand you condemn as “bronze age myths and anecdotes”. You know my test of what is true or not, the Word of God. Is that your test – whether you understand it or not? The only other test besides God is self – placing “self” above God.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo No. That which I do not understand is exactly that.. something I do not understand. The bible is a book of variously translated and interpreted bronze age myths and anecdotes. Look at the amount of arguments that surround it's translation and interpretation within the christian community alone. Having studied comparative religions, one of which was christianity, I would not say that I "do not understand" the bible, I just don't believe it to be the word of some celestial deity.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Authored by the Creator of the Universe, far and away the bestselling book of all time, people have dedicated and otherwise given their lives adhering to this Word, for they were supremely confident to Whom they gave their lives. And you dismiss it because you studied comparative religions with a group of like-minded God-haters. You are a person drowning while insisting he does not believe in water.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo It was written by men. You are a bible belt scripture restricted YEEC fundamentalist so will never be able to accept that. Have a nice day y'all.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
Thank you! Yes, I am a follower of the Word of God who believes the Bible was written by men who submitted their own will to the Will of God and wrote “as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21).
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo I wish that you would understand that im not saying the bible is just a fairy tale.I know it is the inspired word of god. What i find ironic is you making the same mistake that the sadducees made during Jesus's day. They didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead because they took a straight literal interpretation of the bible without looking at the deeper spiritual meaning of many of its teachings. In fact Matthew chp 22 records an instance(continued)
jamaicanification 3 months ago
@jamaicanification
Your analogizing me to a Sadducee falls back on you. “…Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit…” (Ac 23:8 ESV). “Angel” is used in the ESV of the OT 114 times; “spirit” 226 times; & Job speaks of seeing Resurrected Jesus in Job 19:25. Likewise you take a 6-day Creation account and God’s Word that He Created everything in 6 days & defy what is written. Like the Sadducees, you deny the supernatural element of Creation done like the Bible states.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo Oh, and type as slowly as you like but please, this time, try to answer my original question rather than trying to turn away from it by asking another question. It's really quite simple. Either the YEEC fundamentalist world view is restricted by scripture or it is not.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
No turning away or being drug away from the Truth by your Satanic question (Did God really say?). You ask an improper and misleading question and you will get an answer that is hard for a God-hater to swallow. Ask a question with a real premise and you might get an answer you find easier to swallow.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo "Drug away from the truth"? What does that mean? I wasn't suggesting using drugs to change people's minds. Give up on the "god hater" nonsense. I can't hate something that I do not believe exists. There is nothing improper or misleading about my question, your world view is either restricted by scripture or it's not. Obviously yours is because you will not accept that there is any possibility that a discovery has or could be made that would run contra to it. Now that was easy, wasn't it.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
@CarajilloDulce
I will explain some nuances of the English language while you guzzle your sweet coffee. The southern part of the USA uses drug as the past tense of drag. My present perfect use of drug is to be differentiated from the term “drugged” that you extracted from what I communicated. A more widely accepted expression would have been “…dragged away from the Truth…” Romans 1:18-32 asserts you know about God and hate Him. Amen to your last 2 sentences.
tjotwo 3 months ago
@tjotwo Oh right.... southern bible belt. That explains a lot.
CarajilloDulce 3 months ago
thank you, you are a good man ken a dang good man.
vadarman9906 3 months ago
Creationists insist they wish only to see the 'controversy' taught in public schools between two viable scientific propositions: Creationism / Intelligent Design vs. evolution. But as you well know (both via intellectual honesty and via U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' landmark ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) Intelligent Design and, by extension, Creationism are neither of them scientific propositions but, rather, are both of them religious doctrines.
cont...
lduych 3 months ago 2
Thus, from a purely scientific standpoint, there is no 'controversy'. And you know it.
If teaching Abrahamic creationist doctrine in place of science as regards origin of species is so critically important to you -- as quite obviously it is -- then do so in the context of private religious education.
I attended twelve years of private religious schooling. With all the millions spent on mega-ministries and football stadium sized 'churches', surely it is possible to provide
cont...
lduych 3 months ago
the type of private education you wish to see in public schools on a private basis at no cost to believers.
But that you already have. What you now want is to spread your religious beliefs using in the public school system. You know full well that, for good, or for ill, this is not permitted under our system of government.
cont...
lduych 3 months ago
You would like to dispense with the Constitution of the United States of America in favor of theocratic rule based upon the biblical word of God.
You are striving for the end of America as we know it.
I hope you go to Heaven soon.
lduych 3 months ago
@lduych i just watched a debate, and the candidates said the constitution separated church and state to keep government out of church.
Wow.
How bad do you have to distort history to come to that conclusion?
kelbykross1 3 months ago 2
LMFAO the guy say he's a PE & own an ME firm HahahHAHAhaHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
What a joke. But it just keeps going! Now he's saying there's proof that humans lived with dinosaurs and so forth and so on.
simonfield29 3 months ago
@tjotwo Bro, there's no point in discussing why you're wrong. The other dude already told you why. You're all like ''Guyz! i no phaysic yo! U no no shit ya?!'' but you just wiki stuff and then think you understand everything. Sorry man. Go talk to a physic teacher and tell me what happens.
simonfield29 3 months ago
Why don't you read some history. No, they did not show a hatred for "all things religious". They did not want a religiously motivated government like what existed in England. They also recognized the many faiths that existed and did not in any way a single government endorsed religion. Get a clue.
jknengr796 3 months ago
@DanielFourThirtyFive Everything you say, I already know and heard. My father is just like you.
fenix144 3 months ago