The Free Voice of the Fort Leonard Wood MO Area

Opinion Section => Religion Opinion => Topic started by: Hi on March 24, 2014, 05:51:12 PM

Title: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 24, 2014, 05:51:12 PM
Because we scientists are just f**king tired of "it's just a theory", and "Hey you are relying on 'historical science' and not observational science". Guess what? Creationists should perform hypothesis driven research like the rest of us. All creationists and young earthers do it trash existing science and data, and do nothing at all in providing their own experiments to reject said data, and provide empirical evidence their own "theories" are true.
Hey, creationists, you don't agree that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancenstor? OK, please do some actual experiments and provide actual data that prospectively refutes:
Immunological plasma cross reactivity to determine phylogeny: Demonstrate to us that these experiemnts were incorrectly performed, and then perform them yourselves and acquire positive data that humans do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees
Mapping of the endogenous retroviruses and GULO pseudogene: Please falsify this series with actual data where you have PRESPECIFIED a hypothesis, and not just "differently interpret" someone else's data - yes I am looking at you Michael Behe
Fusion of 48 into 46 chromosomes (human chromosome 2): Hows about shotgun sequencing all primate chromosomes that are homologous to this, and provide us some evidence AGAINST this event occurring
The entire hominid fossil record: Don't know what to say here, except I have yet to see a creationist paper that measures and quantifies fossil skeletons and skulls and definitively demonstrates that the sub-family Hominidae is just "one species with a huge variability consistent with biblical interpretation" - yes I am looking at you Ken [ass]Ham.
The human genome project: most every single analysis run for the Order Primitae have demonstrated that sequence homology between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas diverged ~6-7 million years ago. No matter how you slice and dice it, nearly every mathematical model and molecular clock comes up with the same conclusion
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 24, 2014, 09:39:07 PM
what is the source of all your "data"?

creationism is not a theory, it is a fact. science cannot replicate anything God has created.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 24, 2014, 09:48:14 PM
what is the source of all your "data"?
Testing in a lab over and over again, as well testing by other labs.

creationism is not a theory, it is a fact. science cannot replicate anything God has created.
Really. I mean did you just say we can't make anything god created? How about water, by mixing o2 and hydrogen. I mean really...
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 24, 2014, 11:03:28 PM
Fish is either a troll or a stupid old man, either way ill just ignore him from now on.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 25, 2014, 01:12:41 AM
where did the o2 and hydrogen come from?

the purpose of the evolution THEORY, the big bang THEORY, and any other THEORY to explain how the universe came about, is to try and prove God didn't create the universe and does not exist. science has failed miserably to disprove God, but does a great job of proving God! LOL LOL

To explain how God created the universe is one thing, He provides all the ingredients scientists use to try to prove their THEORIES, to keep Him out of the discussion of those THEORIES is a deliberate attempt to dismiss the fact God created all. scientist still cannot create anything God has....fact!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 25, 2014, 01:42:34 AM
where did the o2 and hydrogen come from?

the purpose of the evolution THEORY, the big bang THEORY, and any other THEORY to explain how the universe came about, is to try and prove God didn't create the universe and does not exist. science has failed miserably to disprove God, but does a great job of proving God! LOL LOL

To explain how God created the universe is one thing, He provides all the ingredients scientists use to try to prove their THEORIES, to keep Him out of the discussion of those THEORIES is a deliberate attempt to dismiss the fact God created all. scientist still cannot create anything God has....fact!
Where did god come from. If he does not require a creator why should a universe. If the universe needs a creator because of it's complexity, why does a god that would be infinitely more complex himself not require a creator?
There are lot's of ideas where the energy of our universe came from (And really that is all the universe is, is energy) however I don't know can not mean that I can add god to make it fit.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 25, 2014, 02:33:55 AM
Where did God come from is an irrational question. God created time when He created the universe. He had to be outside of time to do that.  a day is like a 1000 yrs and 1000yrs is like a day(paraphrased).God has always been. We are unable to comprehend God. We try to understand/define God in human terms, it doesn't work.

Romans 1: 18-22

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools .

there are consequences for unbelief.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 25, 2014, 02:51:34 PM
Where did God come from is an irrational question. God created time when He created the universe.
But in the same stroke you could say that the universe created it's own time. If you say that is not possible than you must accept the same thing from your god.
He had to be outside of time to do that.
If he did it, and what does out side of time exactly mean. Action is a time event. If god did anything than he must exist in his own time bubble, which may not run parralla it must run is some direction... Would this not mean that your god would need a first cause.
  a day is like a 1000 yrs and 1000yrs is like a day(paraphrased).God has always been. We are unable to comprehend God.
If we are unable to comprehend him then who can you use him for any answer. That
We try to understand/define God in human terms, it doesn't work.
Then why bother trying. We do well enough without adding god to the equation.

Romans 1: 18-22

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools .

there are consequences for unbelief.
Jack sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean, so between the twix of them they licked the platter clean.
There are ways around being a pig if your husband loves his veggies.
At least my moral makes sense.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 25, 2014, 09:26:11 PM
so you lied when you posted this?? Not a surprise! LOL LOL

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 25, 2014, 09:44:58 PM
 

Chimpanzee

Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

1.Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.


2.Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).


3.Photo copyrightedIf humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!


4.We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.


5.Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.


6.Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].


7.Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:



There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

 There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.


The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!
 
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 25, 2014, 09:59:42 PM
Chimp genome sequence very different from man

by David A. DeWitt, Ph.D., director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA

5 September 2005

For many years, evolutionary scientists—and science museums and zoos—have hailed the chimpanzee as “our closest living relative” and have pointed to the similarity in DNA sequences between the two as evidence. In most previous studies, they have announced 98-99% identical DNA.1 However, these were for gene coding regions (such as the sequence of the cytochrome c protein), which constituted only a very tiny fraction of the roughly 3 billion DNA base pairs that comprise our genetic blueprint. Although the full human genome sequence has been available since 2001, the whole chimpanzee genome has not. Thus, all of the previous work has been based on only a portion of the total DNA.

Last week, in a special issue of Nature devoted to chimpanzees, researchers report the initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome.2 No doubt, this is a stunning achievement for science: deciphering the entire genetic make up of the chimpanzee in just a few years. Researchers called it “the most dramatic confirmation yet” of Darwin’s theory that man shared a common ancestor with the apes. One headline read: “Charles Darwin was right and chimp gene map proves it.”3

So what is this great and overwhelming “proof” of chimp-human common ancestry? Researchers claim that there is little genetic difference between us (only 4%). This is a very strange kind of proof because it is actually double the percentage difference that has been claimed for years!4 The reality is, no matter what the percentage difference, whether 2%, 4%, or 10%, they still would have claimed that Darwin was right.

Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40–45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species.


Substitution

Insertion/deletion

Illustration of nucleotide substitution effect  Illustration of nucleotide insertion/deletion effect

Figure 1. Comparison between a base substitution and an insertion/deletion. Two DNA sequences can be compared. If there is a difference in the nucleotides (an A instead of a G) this is a substitution. In contrast, if there is a nucleotide base which is missing it is considered an insertion/deletion. It is assumed that a nucleotide has been inserted into one of the sequences or one has been deleted from the other. It is often too difficult to determine whether the difference is a result of an insertion or a deletion and thus it is called an “indel.” Indels can be of virtually any length.
 

To put this number into perspective, a typical page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such full pages of text to equal 40 million letters! So the differences between humans and chimpanzees include ~35 million DNA bases that are different, ~45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and ~45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human.

Creationists believe that God made Adam directly from the dust of the earth just as the Bible says. Therefore, man and the apes have never had an ancestor in common. However, assuming they did for the sake of analyzing the argument, then 40 million separate mutation events would have had to take place and become fixed in the population in only ~300,000 generations—a problem referred to as “Haldane’s dilemma.” This problem is exacerbated because the authors acknowledge that most evolutionary change is due to neutral or random genetic drift. That refers to change in which natural selection is not operating. Without a selective advantage, it is difficult to explain how this huge number of mutations could become fixed in the population. Instead, many of these may actually be intrinsic sequence differences from the beginning of creation.

Some scientists are surprised at the anatomical, physical and behavioral differences between man and chimpanzee when they see so much apparent genetic similarity. With a philosophy that excludes a Creator God, they are forced to accept similarity as evidence of common ancestry. However, similarity can also be the result of a common Designer.

It is the differences that make the difference. The most important difference is that man is created in the image of God.

Dr. DeWitt is the director of the Center for Creation Studies and an associate professor of biology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, USA. His Ph.D. is in neurosciences from Case Western Reserve University and the focus of his research is the cell biology of Alzheimer’s disease.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 25, 2014, 10:07:49 PM
Fresh findings in the field of genetics have directly challenged yet another key evolutionary hypothesis by showing that the differences between humans and apes cannot be easily accounted for under the theory of evolution.

A recent 12-page journal article, written by three scientists in Spain and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, details the results of careful analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. After comparing and contrasting thousands of orthologous genes from humans and chimps, the scientists found their final data to be very much at odds with evolutionary theory. In fact, they even titled their article “Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory.”

Why are these findings seen as a “new twist” to the evolutionary theory? In short, because many scientists have claimed that genetic differences between humans and apes can be attributed to a process known as “genetic recombination,” which is a phenomenon that generates slight genetic variation via meiosis. However, this new journal article seriously calls this proposition into question.

In their research, the three Spanish scientists scrutinized differences between human and chimp genes, expecting to find higher genetic recombination rates in these areas of dissimilarity. Even though studies of human-chimp similarities have been conducted in years past, this particular research was unprecedented because the scientists took advantage of new, high-resolution genome maps.

 

 
Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences (“rearranged” chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity (“collinear” chromosomes). This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted.

“The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data,” the scientists explained, “revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes.”

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were “totally backwards” from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is “not occurring where it’s supposed to” under current evolutionary theory.


Connect with Christian News   

Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist.

“It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”

This is not the first time scientists have questioned evolutionists’ assertions regarding humans’ and chimps’ similarities. David DeWitt, a biochemist and Ph.D. neuroscientist, reiterated in an article for Answers in Genesis that evolutionary scientists commonly underestimate the genetic dissimilarities between humans and apes by significant margins. And even relatively small percentage differences equate to formidable genetic discrepancies.

“If 5% of the DNA [between humans and apes] is different,” Dr. DeWitt points out, “this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!”

Ultimately, Dr. Tomkins concluded, genetic evidence is once again stacking up against evolutionary scientists, forcing them to revise their theories.

“Evolutionists are having a lot of problems dealing with current studies in DNA research,” he stated. “Their predictions based on their naturalistic presuppositions are consistently being overturned by scientific discovery. Because they cannot accept the idea of a Creator, they simply change their theory to adapt. The only thing that appears to be evolving is ‘evolution,’ and it’s becoming more and more absurd.”
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: shadylane on March 26, 2014, 01:10:49 AM
Fish is either a troll or a stupid old man, either way ill just ignore him from now on.

It's not that easy.
Fish and others like him want public schools to teach evangelical religious beliefs.
Also, courts of law and politicians to side with them.



Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 26, 2014, 01:55:31 AM
quite a fantasy you are living shady! LOL LOL any proof??? nope!!!LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 26, 2014, 04:05:15 AM
quite a fantasy you are living shady! LOL LOL any proof??? nope!!!LOL LOL LOL
Fish fundies have fought, and lost lawsuit after lawsuit to try to get religion taught in science class. The fact that less then one percent of congress is non-religion is proof that there is a Bias against reason in government. (And we wonder why our government is a failure. Thank you, thank you) Whats that, what just hit the fan.  $%$#@%^
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 26, 2014, 11:27:10 AM
Three scientist from Spain huh? Wonder why the were not named..

Now let's examine the guy who is named and let's ponder who cuts his pay check and expects him to help this grand cover up called religion?

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) << Now there is a guy who can not possibly be biased. Did you notice that you never find articles for Evolution written by guys working for Atheists? That is because all you read on that front come from real scientists not paid fake ones. You have to work hard to convince those who are smarter than you that God exists, even Christians with some brains can't do that ,yet Mark is gonna do it. Good luck with that skippy..


Fresh findings in the field of genetics have directly challenged yet another key evolutionary hypothesis by showing that the differences between humans and apes cannot be easily accounted for under the theory of evolution.

A recent 12-page journal article, written by three scientists in Spain and published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, details the results of careful analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA. After comparing and contrasting thousands of orthologous genes from humans and chimps, the scientists found their final data to be very much at odds with evolutionary theory. In fact, they even titled their article “Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory.”

Why are these findings seen as a “new twist” to the evolutionary theory? In short, because many scientists have claimed that genetic differences between humans and apes can be attributed to a process known as “genetic recombination,” which is a phenomenon that generates slight genetic variation via meiosis. However, this new journal article seriously calls this proposition into question.

In their research, the three Spanish scientists scrutinized differences between human and chimp genes, expecting to find higher genetic recombination rates in these areas of dissimilarity. Even though studies of human-chimp similarities have been conducted in years past, this particular research was unprecedented because the scientists took advantage of new, high-resolution genome maps.

 

 
Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences (“rearranged” chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity (“collinear” chromosomes). This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted.

“The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data,” the scientists explained, “revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes.”

Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were “totally backwards” from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is “not occurring where it’s supposed to” under current evolutionary theory.


Connect with Christian News   

Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist.

“It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”

This is not the first time scientists have questioned evolutionists’ assertions regarding humans’ and chimps’ similarities. David DeWitt, a biochemist and Ph.D. neuroscientist, reiterated in an article for Answers in Genesis that evolutionary scientists commonly underestimate the genetic dissimilarities between humans and apes by significant margins. And even relatively small percentage differences equate to formidable genetic discrepancies.

“If 5% of the DNA [between humans and apes] is different,” Dr. DeWitt points out, “this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!”

Ultimately, Dr. Tomkins concluded, genetic evidence is once again stacking up against evolutionary scientists, forcing them to revise their theories.

“Evolutionists are having a lot of problems dealing with current studies in DNA research,” he stated. “Their predictions based on their naturalistic presuppositions are consistently being overturned by scientific discovery. Because they cannot accept the idea of a Creator, they simply change their theory to adapt. The only thing that appears to be evolving is ‘evolution,’ and it’s becoming more and more absurd.”

Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 26, 2014, 11:31:29 AM
Now let's look at one more article where You unbiased scientist says genetics prove the Christian timeline, LOL.. What a f**king idiot he is.. Hardly any Christians still claim that the earth is only 6000 years old as that has also been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but Mark is gonna convince the world he knows better. good luck with that skippy.

http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/ (http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/)



Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 26, 2014, 11:35:02 AM
Science is a big threat to Christians and they now have to pay people to say differently, it is stupid and such a waste of the money they steal from sick old people.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 26, 2014, 11:45:44 AM
If God created Mark that's a pretty f**ked up joke he is pulling on us all..
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 12:29:27 PM
One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 26, 2014, 12:42:55 PM
proof ebilly?

so this is another lie you posted?

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 26, 2014, 12:48:14 PM
One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL
In a word... Yes.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 26, 2014, 12:54:02 PM
so you no longer stand by this statement you posted?


"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 26, 2014, 12:56:44 PM
proof ebilly?

so this is another lie you posted?

"I have decided to take the stand for christianity, only because I see the good that is still in it. I will defend the teachings of it against the fundamentalist who strip it of meaning. Christianity is a good, I just need to realize that there are some who would turn it to evil."
Yes taking a stand for christianity, not your messed up dream of a westboro baptist church. Just because the bible is false does not mean that there are gems among the rocks. And what proof are you asking for. That creationism has lost court cases. Is that really what you are asking for. Unlike you I will give you proof because you are too lazy to do a simple web search, http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/a/EvolutionCourtCases.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/a/EvolutionCourtCases.htm)

And when I was hungry did you feed me, When I was in prison did you visit me... Perhaps if jesus was alive today he would add. If I was hungry would you teach me to fish. When you alter the real truth, the truth of science, you are not properly teaching a person to "Fish" (Fish meaning to get the best education so they can get meaningful jobs out of school because I know you wouldn't understand if I didn't explain)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: littlebit on March 26, 2014, 01:19:04 PM
I think the problem Fish and Mark have with scientific theory is that they confuse it with the layman's definition of theory.

Here is a link for anyone who wants to learn the difference...

http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/ (http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 26, 2014, 02:56:43 PM
Yes and no, your numbers are way off..

One third of the earths population are Christians.......Yet the atheists from poolaski co. think they are smarter than all those people.  LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 26, 2014, 03:33:08 PM
We have tried many times over to teach them the difference between theory and scientific theory.  They do not see the difference because it doesnt fit their own beliefs.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 04:02:39 PM
The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 04:03:20 PM
Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 26, 2014, 04:29:25 PM
Institution for creation research.......Apparently he doesnt understand what bias is either.

Mark you do understand that it is possible to just copy a paragraph from the text google it and see where its from right?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 04:32:14 PM
Institution for creation research.......Apparently he doesnt understand what bias is either.

Mark you do understand that it is possible to just copy a paragraph from the text google it and see where its from right?
what's your point? 
In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 26, 2014, 04:40:30 PM
And this organization cant get certification from the texas board of education because nobody that runs this place is qualified to teach anything scientific......kinda says something......
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 04:59:08 PM
And this organization cant get certification from the texas board of education because nobody that runs this place is qualified to teach anything scientific......kinda says something......
Yes, It says you can't refute any of the facts in the article...so all you can do is attack the source. I've seen you guys do this time and time again!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 26, 2014, 05:45:13 PM
They arent facts.....they are opinions from people who started the school, that mean nothing in the actual world where the real world practice comes in,  and are selling it to people gift wrapped in a fear when I die box for profit.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 26, 2014, 09:06:08 PM
a theory is an unproven opinion.  facts are just that, facts.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 26, 2014, 10:44:33 PM
DR.Henry M. Morris credentials
◾Creationist
◾Hydraulic Engineering
◾Ph.D. and M.S. from the University of Minnesota (1950, 1948)
◾LL.D.
◾Litt.D.
◾B.S. with honors in civil engineering from Rice University (1939)
◾Former faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57)
◾Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970)
◾Former president of Creation Research Society (1967-1973)
◾Biographical listings in World Who's Who in Science, Antiquity to Present: Who's Who in America: American Men of Science; Who's Who in Engineering; Who's Who in Science and Engineering; Who's Who in the World; Contemporary Authors; etc.
◾Author of over 45 books regarding Creation-Evolution
◾Founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research
◾Deceased
 *Hi's credentials...... Burger flipper!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 12:29:55 AM
Creationisn: Because it's easier to read and believe one book than read several ones based on scientific fact. << Remind you of anyone?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 01:14:14 AM
all those books based on scientific fact prove creation of the universe by God. how many different theories are there on how the universe was came about? none have been proven as fact.  The bible has one fact on who and how the earth was created. It has never been disproven. It is a logical answer to the question on how the universe was created. The only problem with the fact is people refuse to believe that God created the universe. scientists have not been able to replicate any of God's creations the same way He did. All the theories are being used to disprove God's existence and the fact that He created the universe. Any of those theories may have been the way He created the universe, but the absence of acknowledging the role of God in any creation theory science comes up with , confirms the fact those theories are only used to dismiss the existence and fact that God created the universe.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 01:35:40 AM
That's because he does not exist, why would scientists if not employed by the church try and prove God was involved, which God would they start with Yours? Why yours, what makes yours special over the hundreds of others and while the bible has been proved wrong over and over scientist can't prove something that does not exist ever existed or not, they use their brains and use logic, not some supernatural uneducated 4000 year old story book. As if the smartest people stop everything they are doing to check each God story to see how it fits in, how dumb is that? Personally I don't know which God you prefer anyhow..


all those books based on scientific fact prove creation of the universe by God. how many different theories are there on how the universe was came about? none have been proven as fact.  The bible has one fact on who and how the earth was created. It has never been disproven. It is a logical answer to the question on how the universe was created. The only problem with the fact is people refuse to believe that God created the universe. scientists have not been able to replicate any of God's creations the same way He did. All the theories are being used to disprove God's existence and the fact that He created the universe. Any of those theories may have been the way He created the universe, but the absence of acknowledging the role of God in any creation theory science comes up with , confirms the fact those theories are only used to dismiss the existence and fact that God created the universe.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 01:42:55 AM
Your credentials, mental disability right? Cha ching..


DR.Henry M. Morris credentials
◾Creationist
◾Hydraulic Engineering
◾Ph.D. and M.S. from the University of Minnesota (1950, 1948)
◾LL.D.
◾Litt.D.
◾B.S. with honors in civil engineering from Rice University (1939)
◾Former faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57)
◾Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970)
◾Former president of Creation Research Society (1967-1973)
◾Biographical listings in World Who's Who in Science, Antiquity to Present: Who's Who in America: American Men of Science; Who's Who in Engineering; Who's Who in Science and Engineering; Who's Who in the World; Contemporary Authors; etc.
◾Author of over 45 books regarding Creation-Evolution
◾Founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research
◾Deceased
 *Hi's credentials...... Burger flipper!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 01:54:57 AM
Evolved Plagues and Pestilences
 These are also known as the germs and the bugs; and it is precisely with such organisms that we have seen evolution at its fastest! Consider AIDS, or DDT-resistant pests, or the common cold, or antibiotic-resistant superbugs: all evolve fast enough for us to see. Indeed, the rapid evolution of these organisms has become an important medical and economic issue. The critters are out-evolving our poisons and drugs; and so we too must adapt, or pay the Darwinian price.
Therefore to ignore evolution is literally to risk plague and pestilence! How Biblical a punishment for creationism!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:04:36 AM
Supernova 1987a
 This was an important astronomical event that was observed on the Earth in–guess when–1987. The supernova is 169,000 light years away, and lies in the dwarf galaxy called the Large Magellanic Cloud, which can be seen from the southern hemisphere. That means the explosion happened 169,000 years ago. But that can’t be possible if the universe is only 6K years old, so pick your favorite creationist “explanation”:
◾ the universe is way tinier than astronomers say it is
◾ the speed of light has changed
◾ God created the light of the supernova within 6,000 light years of Earth, so that it falsely “reveals” an “event” that never really happened
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:08:23 AM
Genesis Faux Pas: Look it up Mark..
 The 10th chapter of Genesis recounts what happened to Noah’s sons and their descendants after the Flood as they repopulated the Earth. Gen 10:1 through 10:5 recounts Japheth’s line and ends with the refrain “divided in their lands; everyone after his tongue, after their families in their nations.” Gen 10:6-20 recounts Ham’s line and ends with the refrain “after their familles, after their tongues in their countries and in their nations.” Gen 10:21-31 recounts Shem’s line, ending with the refrain “after their families, after their tongues, in their lands after their nations.”
So they went forth multiplying and developing their own languages, cultures and nations, okay, so far, so good. And then at the start of chapter 11 (on the same page in my KJV!) “And the whole earth was one language, and of one speech,” – Genesis 11:1.

OOPS!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:11:40 AM
The more extreme creationists claim that the whole universe is around 6000 years old.  Now this gives us a problem that they have trouble solving: that of constellations.  Since the speed of light can be and has been very accurately measured, it should not be possible to see objects that are farther away than 6000 light years. Obviously we can do so, but let us forget that since it is obviously a satanic scheme anyway.  From the days that the oldest cosmologies were recorded, it is perfectly clear that the ancients saw the same constellations that we do today. 
However, since those ancient observers were only a thousand or two years from the date of creation, the light from the stars farther away than 1000-2000 light years could not have been seen.  Between then and now, the light from the stars 2000 to 6000 light years away would have arrived and altered the patterns of the constellations.  History should have records of ever-changing constellations. However, they are exactly the same as when first recorded, meaning that the age of the universe 4000 years ago was insignificantly different from its age today.
I guess that that means that all stars are closer to the Earth than 1000 light years, and that measurement techniques such as stellar parallax are just the devil’s lies.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:12:42 AM
Like those damn  Egyptians that didn’t seem to notice a world-wide Flood, though they were around at the time and had a liking for writing everything down (they’d write down what people wore to parties, darn it, why would they fail to note a Flood that covered the entire Earth? AND they were there before and after the time of the Flood, so either they stayed there, high and dry, or one of Noah’s sons, who was not Egyptian at all, emigrated to the Nile and reinstituted the dead and damned Egyptian civilization perfectly, including the practices that got them damned in the first place!). Or the Asian Indians, or the Chinese, or any of the other cultures that also possessed written histories, yet failed to note any of the cataclysmic acts of the Judaeo-Christian god. (Satan must have told them to not write it down… yep… that must be it.)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:15:10 AM
Artificial Selection
 Neven Morgan submits an obvious one that I’ve never got around to writing up, so I’ll let him handle it (this one was a major part of Darwin’s case in Origin):
We often hear that “if evolution were true, why aren’t species changing now? Why aren’t monkeys becoming humans as we speak? Why aren’t new species evolving? Huh?”
The easiest answer I can think of is: Have you ever seen various breeds of dogs, horses, etc.? How about kinds of flowers, fruits, shrubbery? Do you think these were around , say, 4000 years ago? Don’t you remember some of them being created just last (and even this) century? Humans are merely helping evolution by being a strong factor in selection–and please, don’t call purposeful ( i.e. by people) selection “unnatural”–I consider myself perfectly “natural.” So if we can create, say, a shih tzu out of a wolf in such a short time, guess how much can happen in millions and millions of years. And don’t tell me it’s different because “people are doing it on purpose, and nature can’t and ergo didn’t ‘know’ what it was doing”–do you think that our ancestors actually KNEW that by keeping the animals they would eventually create a Holstein cow?
You’ve put your finger on it, Neven. Creationists: why are there no wild poodles?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Lepard LLC on March 27, 2014, 02:16:35 AM
Penicillin
…and its numerous derivatives.
The last fifty years or so has seen an astounding increase in the amount of penicillin produced by any means, and a corresponding increase in resistance displayed by bacteria. A somewhat educated creationist might argue that some bacteria have always been resistant to penicillin, and were the only ones that could live near penicillin-producing molds, hence the present resistant strains are simply the product of a shift in the frequencies of that particular gene (a bit like the moth colors). A more perceptive person might then ask about the various synthetic penicillins . While based on the original penicillin, these are almost uniformly designed (using a rather haphazard, trial-and-error approach, which works) to be resistant to the enzymatic activity that confers penicillin resistance. These chemicals have never before existed on the face of the Earth, and yet after a while bacteria gradually become resistant. Why is it so?
Careful examination of the genes of these bacteria reveals a disturbing fact–that the sequence of the gene for resistance is different! That additional copies are present! It would seem that a basic mechanism of evolution is confirmed by these observations: that new characters can arise and, if favored, can increase in numbers.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 02:18:58 AM
The bible has not been proven wrong. There is only one God. The commandments, remember? How many gods were there in greek mythology? where are they now?
 God knew what He was going to create and how He would do it. He did not create living things to evolve over time to what they are now.  Adam was an adult when God created him. All the animals on earth were fully developed when created and when they entered the ark.
the complexity of everything in the universe demands a Creator. The human eyeball for example. how does it focus and adapt to day and night? why is the sun the exact distance it needs to be to warm the earth but not burn it up? God created time, based on the sun and the moon. How can pictures travel to a tv set, sound to a radio? There is too much in the universe to assume it all just occurred. There had to be a God to create all. All the ingredients to be used to try to prove any theory, where did they come from?
It all boils down to what a person chooses to believe. Belief in God also has ties to morality. If people choose to believe God created the universe, they must also accept His rules for living. Those that believe there is no God and the universe happened via any of the theories, do not have to follow or accept rules for living other than man's law.
It is much easier to deny there is a God and to follow or not follow, man's laws.
 To believe in God would require a change in behavior, something many choose to not do.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 02:29:59 AM
Genesis 6:14 God told noah to build the ark
chapter 9 God told noah and his bunch to be fruitful and multiply. this was after the flood waters subsided
chapter 11 is where the tower of babel comes in. everyone spoke one language. they wanted to build a tower that would reach into heaven. God had other plans. gen 11:7-8, God confused their language and scattered them all over the earth. that explains the different races and languages.

I don't believe the earth is 6000yrs old. the age is irrelevant. but the age theorized is used to disprove the bible and God's existence.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 27, 2014, 02:44:36 AM
The bible has not been proven wrong. There is only one God.
3
The commandments, remember?
The ten or the more than 600 in the old testament.
How many gods were there in greek mythology?
100's
where are they now?
Orbiting the sun (Mercury, messanger god, venus god of love, mars god of war ect)
God knew what He was going to create and how He would do it. He did not create living things to evolve over time to what they are now.
According to the book, and the book is right because???
Adam was an adult when God created him.
Did adam have a belly button.
All the animals on earth were fully developed
Were there caterpillars or butterflies in the garden of eden?
when created and when they entered the ark.
That couldn't hold all the animals and would have sank according to the dimensions
the complexity of everything in the universe demands a Creator. The human eyeball for example. how does it focus and adapt to day and night?
Why does it have a major blind spot that our brain's fool us into not noticing.
why is the sun the exact distance it needs to be to warm the earth but not burn it up?
Because it's not mars or venus. When we have mapped our gallaxy and found all the planets and there are none in the goldilocks zone, than you will have a point 
God created time,
Creation is a action. For god to create he must exist in time.
based on the sun and the moon.
that was created on the 3rd day of creation.
How can pictures travel to a tv set, sound to a radio?
It's called radio waves, a part of light... Read a 3rd grade science book please.
There is too much in the universe to assume it all just occurred.
And to much to assume a magic man did either. Assume makes a ass out of u and me.
There had to be a God to create all.
Or natural cause that we don't understand, or a video game programer or we are a dream.
All the ingredients to be used to try to prove any theory, where did they come from?
We don't know, and neither do you.
It all boils down to what a person chooses to believe. Belief in God also has ties to morality.
No, Morality can not be tied to any individual, even a god. If it is then a person who hears gods voice and kills his family is just.
If people choose to believe God created the universe, they must also accept His rules for living.
And if we accept nothing and look at the world we can do what is right because it is right, not to appease a god or earn brownie points. Love our neighbor like ourselves is the whole of the law.
Those that believe there is no God and the universe happened via any of the theories, do not have to follow or accept rules for living other than man's law.
No one does, but there is a cost to all things.
It is much easier to deny there is a God and to follow or not follow, man's laws.
And yet in pulaski county, how many atheist are in jail right now. How many are using drugs and fighting. Is it more or less than the religious people?
To believe in God would require a change in behavior, something many choose to not do.
To believe in god is not necessary to be good. To accept your actions effect others and to live your life to help others is a good thing.

Now when are you going to answer any of the questions brought up?


(Genesis 6:14 God told noah to build the ark
chapter 9 God told noah and his bunch to be fruitful and multiply. this was after the flood waters subsided
chapter 11 is where the tower of babel comes in. everyone spoke one language. they wanted to build a tower that would reach into heaven. God had other plans. gen 11:7-8, God confused their language and scattered them all over the earth. that explains the different races and languages.

I don't believe the earth is 6000yrs old. the age is irrelevant. but the age theorized is used to disprove the bible and God's existence.)
Really, you believe this. A boat that big would not float, this is not a evolution thing. YOU CAN NOT BUILD A WOODEN CRAFT THAT BIG.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: littlebit on March 27, 2014, 03:16:07 AM
a theory is an unproven opinion.  facts are just that, facts.

This post just shows that
1. You just confirmed that you don't know the difference.
2. You didn't even look at the link.
3. You more than likely don't even know the difference between theory,  scientific theory, and a hypothesis..

LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 03:37:25 AM
you confirmed God created the universe! LOL LOL there is only 1 God , not 3. Who did Jesus pray to?

 100's of gods in greek mythology? LOL LOL Prove it.

 The bible is the inspired word of God, f you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would know that!

no, why is the sun the exact distance it needs to be to warm the earth but not burn it up??
the other planets are irrelevant.

you missed the point ....again. how are images  transmitted to the tv or sound to a radio, you can't see the signals, yet they are there. Just like God. You can't see him, but you see His creations yet deny His existence.

 belief in God does have ties to morality and rules for living. If you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would know that!

the ones that assume the universe just "happened" are the asses. that is your club! LOL LOL
all the ingredients were created by God.

so you are back to slamming Christianity? LOL LOL This is the backlash to Christianity I predicted when you stated you were taking a stand FOR Christianity! LOL LOL

you sure ask a lot of stupid questions for a college student, if you are in college as you say you are. did you take a census of the jail for religious preferences? You should really read what you are writing before you post it! LOL LOL LOL

maybe let your son post for you? He would be more mature and make better sense!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 03:47:43 AM
those are all "ideas" or groups of ideas and thoughts. unproven opinions or "questions" to begin a research project. theories are not important as they are unproven, facts are! LOL LOL

follow this; hypothesis premise thesis antithesis synthesis. this is what results in a fact , or a theory that has not or cannot be proven!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 27, 2014, 04:08:07 AM
you confirmed God created the universe! LOL LOL there is only 1 God , not 3. Who did Jesus pray to?
I and the father are one. Triune god. Holy spirit, who is equal to god. Don't even know your own mythos do you.

 100's of gods in greek mythology? LOL LOL Prove it.
Really, ok Poseidon called neptune, son of chrono. He was the god of corn, He had sex with his sister, her mother was Gaia, and bore him two more sons and 3 daughter. Zeus was the eldest, he harnessed the lightning, and Hades, he ruled the dead. Hera his sister married zeus her brother, And that was how hephaestus was born. Apollo, atlas, hercules and hermes (In rome he is Mercury) also had lots of stories to tell, but Venus's birth, from chrono's uh-ohs, made the largest splash of all. Chiron a healer and Athena of wisdom, or sometime of war against Ares, there was Ires, or chaos, and Oceanus a titan, Cupid and hermaphrodite. The fates whos power even outshines zeus, and many more gods in store... But I hope that helps. 

 The bible is the inspired word of God, f you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would know that!
I don't accept any book because it says it's true. Animorphs say it's true but it's just fiction. Come down to the sharing and I can prove it...

no, why is the sun the exact distance it needs to be to warm the earth but not burn it up??
the other planets are irrelevant.
No very relevant. We have one solar system to judge it by. If a percentage of systems have a goldilock planet than your idea is garbage.

you missed the point ....again. how are images  transmitted to the tv or sound to a radio, you can't see the signals, yet they are there. Just like God. You can't see him, but you see His creations yet deny His existence.
No you missed the point. We can measure radio waves, we can know there length and depth. Your god has no physical evidence.

 belief in God does have ties to morality and rules for living. If you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would know that!
No if you knew it and didn't just justify it you would know that every man on earth today is more just than your god.

the ones that assume the universe just "happened" are the asses. that is your club! LOL LOL
all the ingredients were created by God.
Silly rabbit, there was only one ingredent... And energy can be neither made nor destroyed, only change forms. Second law of thermo Dynamics. Energy is eternal... (In more then one way. energy has no time, anything going the speed of light is timeless and can not change. )

so you are back to slamming Christianity? LOL LOL This is the backlash to Christianity I predicted when you stated you were taking a stand FOR Christianity! LOL LOL
No, I am against you bastardizing christianity to make it westboro. 

you sure ask a lot of stupid questions for a college student,
there are no stupid questions, only small minds
if you are in college as you say you are. did you take a census of the jail for religious preferences?
Yes, there are fewer than .1 percent of prisoners in prison that claim they are atheist . http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/ (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/)
You should really read what you are writing before you post it! LOL LOL LOL

maybe let your son post for you? He would be more mature and make better sense!
At least if my son posted he would only be beating you by 30 iq points, right.

 :th_police:those are all "ideas" or groups of ideas and thoughts. unproven opinions or "questions" to begin a research project. theories are not important as they are unproven, facts are! LOL LOL

follow this; hypothesis premise thesis antithesis synthesis. this is what results in a fact , or a theory that has not or cannot be proven! :th_police: No this is a scientific theory. Just because you are too dumb to understand doesn't mean you need to spout your ignorance.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 01:01:59 PM
which verse states the triune God?

westboro? LOL LOL LOL show me where I have made christianity similar to westboro? LOL LOL

that link isn't about pulaski county jail. you asked about the pulaski copunty jail and how many atheists were in it

"No if you knew it and didn't just justify it you would know that every man on earth today is more just than your god." ??????? LOL LOL

that isn't the complete list of the 100's of gods in greek mythology? Let's see the list! LOL LOL

everything around you is physical evidence of God. You are choosing to deny it!

so you are back to bashing God and christianity again? despite your statement that you were taking a stand for christianity? LOL LOL How can you take a stand in something you don't believe in!

only the sun is warming the earth. no planets are blocking it. why is it the exact distance it needs to be?  you are the one not answering questions, because you can't! LOL LOL LOL

if that energy is eternal, it had to be created by God , Whom is eternal!

get back on the midol or  meds, dr jeckyl or mr hyde. whoever you are today
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 27, 2014, 01:38:23 PM
which verse states the triune God?
This page might help http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/20/god-is-triune (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/20/god-is-triune)

westboro? LOL LOL LOL show me where I have made christianity similar to westboro? LOL LOL
Hatred of anyone who doesn't believe the way you do, discrimination against homosexuals, liberals, and atheists.

that link isn't about pulaski county jail. you asked about the pulaski county jail and how many atheists were in it
I don't know, I asked you remember. There are so few nationwide however that morality does not seem dependent on a god or gods.

"No if you knew it and didn't just justify it you would know that every man on earth today is more just than your god." ??????? LOL LOL
Yes it is funny that you don't believe this.

that isn't the complete list of the 100's of gods in greek mythology? Let's see the list! LOL LOL
http://www.gods-and-monsters.com/list-of-greek-gods-goddesses.html (http://www.gods-and-monsters.com/list-of-greek-gods-goddesses.html)

everything around you is physical evidence of God. You are choosing to deny it!
To quote my great uncle Chuck... I don't see his name on it.

so you are back to bashing God and christianity again? despite your statement that you were taking a stand for christianity? LOL LOL How can you take a stand in something you don't believe in!
Not bashing the idea of christianity. I am stating that as a philosophy there is a lot to get from it. Religion on the other hand is stupid.

only the sun is warming the earth. no planets are blocking it. why is it the exact distance it needs to be?  you are the one not answering questions, because you can't! LOL LOL LOL
Ever heard of a eclipse, there are plenty of times that the sun is blocked, partially or fully. Also the exact distance is so great that if the environment was different both mars and venus could have had life. The goldilocks zone is freaking huge. 

if that energy is eternal, it had to be created by God , Whom is eternal!
You just can't make up things and call it god to fill the void.

get back on the midol or  meds, dr jeckyl or mr hyde. whoever you are today
I had a battle of wits, and was charged with assault, It appears when I fought you, you were unarmed.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: littlebit on March 27, 2014, 01:47:43 PM
those are all "ideas" or groups of ideas and thoughts. unproven opinions or "questions" to begin a research project. theories are not important as they are unproven, facts are! LOL LOL

follow this; hypothesis premise thesis antithesis synthesis. this is what results in a fact , or a theory that has not or cannot be proven!

Did you even click the link I posted? Ignorance is acceptable, but willful ignorance?



Have you ever looked to see what your religion has in common with previous religions?
Christianity has borrowed much of it's mythology from many previous religions to help their followers convert to one unified religion. This was done mostly in part to prevent religious wars within the Roman Empire.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 27, 2014, 02:07:05 PM
Of all those credentials I still fail to see one that has anything to do with a biology degree..you know what is needed to be able to explain evolution.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 27, 2014, 02:11:54 PM
The more extreme creationists claim that the whole universe is around 6000 years old.  Now this gives us a problem that they have trouble solving: that of constellations.  Since the speed of light can be and has been very accurately measured, it should not be possible to see objects that are farther away than 6000 light years. Obviously we can do so, but let us forget that since it is obviously a satanic scheme anyway.  From the days that the oldest cosmologies were recorded, it is perfectly clear that the ancients saw the same constellations that we do today. 
However, since those ancient observers were only a thousand or two years from the date of creation, the light from the stars farther away than 1000-2000 light years could not have been seen.  Between then and now, the light from the stars 2000 to 6000 light years away would have arrived and altered the patterns of the constellations.  History should have records of ever-changing constellations. However, they are exactly the same as when first recorded, meaning that the age of the universe 4000 years ago was insignificantly different from its age today.
I guess that that means that all stars are closer to the Earth than 1000 light years, and that measurement techniques such as stellar parallax are just the devil’s lies.
No one understands the concept of "space time" or "time" Look it up! So nothing is dated as scientists would like us to believe!   While the idea of space-time is closely linked with Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity, mathematician Hermann Minkowski actually coined the term three years later in 1908 in response to Einstein's theory.

Time is a measurement of change that takes place in what we call space. The series of changes that makes up your life happens over time and in space. The word "space-time" is our merging of the two concepts into a single continuum: three spatial dimensions plus a fourth dimension of time. While we have the ability to control our experience of the first three dimensions (height, width and depth), we do not seem to have the ability to navigate, manipulate or control our experience of time, even though physics tells us that it is merely a dimension like all the others. For human beings, time seems to be a one-way street with a pretty strict speed limit.

Despite our inability to significantly manipulate our experience of time, we can observe the existence and unity of space-time by using experiments. If you've ever swung a bucket of water around in a circle, you know that with sufficient speed you can turn the entire bucket sideways without any of the water coming out. This is due to the equivalence principle, a key concept in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, which states that gravity working in one direction is equivalent to acceleration in the other. That's also why an ascending elevator provides a feeling of increased gravity and a feeling of decreased gravity during descent. The equivalence principle means gravity affects measurements of time and space, warping space-time itself.

The concept of an object of great mass warping space is familiar to us -- a planet or a star warps the topography of an area of space, causing nearby objects to be pulled into the depression it creates. But scientists have also been able to observe with empirical data that objects of great mass can warp time as well. For example, if you synchronize two clocks and take one of them into space (away from Earth's center of gravity), they will lose their synchronization. This proves that time is part of the same continuum as space, and that space-time is a real and useful concept.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 27, 2014, 02:13:59 PM
Of all those credentials I still fail to see one that has anything to do with a biology degree..you know what is needed to be able to explain evolution.
Why yes I do! A big fat lie!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 03:44:05 PM
from your cut and paste: But the Bible also emphatically and unambiguously declares that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:18; Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10, James 2:19; Mark 12:29 ).

the word triune is not in the bible, just like the word rapture is not in the bible.

show me where I have stated I hate anyone! how do I discriminate against liberals, homos, atheists? Proof??

do your own research. I know you are lazy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out how many prisoners in the pc jail are christian or athiest? I don't care how many are, but you apparently do! LOL LOL

is your list of greek gods complete? the link doesn't show that there were 100's like you said there were! LOL LOL

so you are back to bashing christianity! glad you admitted it. Christianity is a religion,,you know? LOL LOL

how long does an eclipse last? does the tempurature of the earth drop? poor example! LOL LOL  here come the "if's" again! LOL LOL

Then explain where energy came from! how did it start? how long will it last?

keep thinking that, whatever gets you though the day until your next dose is due! LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on March 27, 2014, 05:10:31 PM
How can evolution be a lie when we have seen things evolve in this century?  Its obvious you dont even know what evolution is because you think it has to do with monkeys turning into humans.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 27, 2014, 06:49:03 PM
from your cut and paste:
Though mark does this and you don't care.
But the Bible also emphatically and unambiguously declares that there is only one God
That reveals himself in the persons of god the father, god the son, and god the holy ghost. These three are eternally different but share the same nature. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god. Is it that hard.
(Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:18; Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10, James 2:19; Mark 12:29 ).

the word triune is not in the bible, just like the word rapture is not in the bible.
You are correct, the single word is not in there. But several times jesus mentions that he Is god. (I and the father are one, forgiving sins and casting out demons in his name, even satan.) that the father is greater than he john 14:28, and that he sends a helper who is equal to himself. 2 corinthians 13:14 (

show me where I have stated I hate anyone! how do I discriminate against liberals, homos, atheists? Proof??
You call homosexuals deviants who are not welcome in society. You say they are unfit to have kids. You have questioned my right to have kids because I disagree with you. If fact I don't think there is a single person who has disagreed with you that you haven't attacked. 

do your own research. I know you are lazy, but it shouldn't be too hard to find out how many prisoners in the pc jail are christian or atheist? I don't care how many are, but you apparently do! LOL LOL
I was showing that morality is not from god, I don't even think its possible to get than info.

is your list of greek gods complete? the link doesn't show that there were 100's like you said there were! LOL LOL
125 gods there. I could name the more vague ones but really I have answered it.

so you are back to bashing christianity! glad you admitted it. Christianity is a religion,,you know? LOL LOL
So you are all christians. You who do not believe jesus is god. You are a christian... I am sorry if you can't even accept the trinity you are not a christian.

how long does an eclipse last? does the tempurature of the earth drop? poor example! LOL LOL  here come the "if's" again! LOL LOL
What are you talking about even. No I mean I am totally lost. You said that earth is special. I said we don't know if it's true, You go on this tangent and ask if any planets get in the way. (Which is a stupid question as planets are millions of miles away.) and than this.

Then explain where energy came from! how did it start? how long will it last?
Energy is eternal, it will dissipate as the universe continues to expand outward forever. Though the energy will never change the universe will be so large that the percentage over area will be so small as to be meaningless. Energy has always existed. (Which does not mean it is eternal, as time isn't even eternal. The first click of the universe there was all the energy of the universe

keep thinking that, whatever gets you though the day until your next dose is due! LOL LOL LOL
And accusing me of doing drugs again. This is real close to slander buddie. I have never done drugs, smoked anything, I have had two relationships and care for my son, so stop attacking my character.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 27, 2014, 11:27:15 PM
I was pointing out the source of your information and the bible verses themselves, I was not criticizing. you sure are getting sensitive! LOL LOL

The Word is Jesus.  again, to Whom did Jesus pray to??

Jesus and God are doing the same work. To Whom did Jesus give thanks to for hearing His prayer when He(Jesus) raised Lazurus from the dead? Why did Jesus give thanks in front of everyone? To bring glory to God.

homos are leading a perverted abnormal lifestyle. show me where I have stated they are not welcome in society.

show me where I have questioned your right to have kids.

which ones disagree with me? that list speaks for itself! LOL LOL

If you don't know if you can even get than(that) info, why pose the question?

125 is not 100's

"So you are all christians. You who do not believe jesus is god. You are a christian... I am sorry if you can't even accept the trinity you are not a christian."

you really need to read through your post BEFORE you post it! LOL LOL

1 John 4: 14-15
14We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 15Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

you are now an authority on who is a Christian!!! LOL LOL you don't believe in God but you know WHO is a Christian? LOL LOL

you are confused about an eclipse? reread the post again!

if energy dissipates it is not eternal. if it dissipates it will disappear. if it disappears it is not eternal. it can be transferred and stored, but even batteries go dead!

 your posts suggest you might be on meds. you have played both sides of a topic. whining how you had to give up your belief in God and then stating you will take a stand for christianity, then slamming Christianity. stop making incoherent flip flopping posts!!

you have no character to attack! I describe behaviors, but you are the one that has stooped to name calling. doesn't bother me, just a reflection of your lack of character that you have to respond that way!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: shadylane on March 28, 2014, 12:24:07 PM
The bible has not been proven wrong. There is only one God.

"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."
If there is only one god then why was this commandment necessary?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: shadylane on March 28, 2014, 12:40:25 PM
if energy dissipates it is not eternal. if it dissipates it will disappear. if it disappears it is not eternal. it can be transferred and stored, but even batteries go dead!

"Dissipates" to spread out; to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel;
That doesn't mean energy is gone.
My theory is energy can be turned into matter and visa versa.
Guess that makes me a believer in the steady state universe.

Therefor Fish. "May the force be with you"...
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 28, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
"Dissipates" to spread out; to scatter in various directions; disperse; dispel;
That doesn't mean energy is gone.
My theory is energy can be turned into matter and visa versa.
Guess that makes me a believer in the steady state universe.

Therefor Fish. "May the force be with you"...

At least your realizing that you "believe" in a religion!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 30, 2014, 01:53:15 PM
because people would worship idols(false gods). look up baal in the bible

if energy is scattered it is weakened. how come batteries go dead?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 30, 2014, 02:56:37 PM
because people would worship idols(false gods). look up baal in the bible

if energy is scattered it is weakened. how come batteries go dead?
It isn't weakened its just in more area.
As for why batteries go dead, it changes forms. Light, sound , motion. All of these change energy from one form to another. If your batteries never died you would be breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 30, 2014, 04:18:33 PM
It isn't weakened its just in more area.
As for why batteries go dead, it changes forms. Light, sound , motion. All of these change energy from one form to another. If your batteries never died you would be breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics
So...... doesn't the "evolution theory" break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 30, 2014, 07:33:20 PM
So...... doesn't the "evolution theory" break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Only in a closed environment. Every day we have a huge battery giving us energy (The sun) that is slowly but steadily dying.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on March 30, 2014, 09:03:49 PM
how can the sun be dying if the earth is getting warmer? the sun isn't getting any closer.

the batteries die. their energy is gone. energy cannot be eternal if you say the sun is dying.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 30, 2014, 09:14:35 PM
how can the sun be dying if the earth is getting warmer? the sun isn't getting any closer.

the batteries die. their energy is gone. energy cannot be eternal if you say the sun is dying.
The sun is dying because it is slowly fusing it's elements to iron, and everyone knows that Iron in a core of a star is it's death notice. Until it gets to iron the sun will continue to fuse hydrogen to Helium and Helium to carbon and oxygen.
As for the earth getting warmer, it has nothing to do with the sun... There are these things called green house gasses. They cause heat to get trapped on earth like a greenhouse.
Energy leaves the star every second, it is transformed into electricity, light, heat, ect and goes out to the universe. Those little packets of energy will never die but they will spread out further and further like ripples in a pond. This is not brain surgery but it does require some mental energies so please try to keep up.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on March 31, 2014, 06:03:04 PM
The sun is dying because it is slowly fusing it's elements to iron, and everyone knows that Iron in a core of a star is it's death notice. Until it gets to iron the sun will continue to fuse hydrogen to Helium and Helium to carbon and oxygen.
As for the earth getting warmer, it has nothing to do with the sun... There are these things called green house gasses. They cause heat to get trapped on earth like a greenhouse.
Energy leaves the star every second, it is transformed into electricity, light, heat, ect and goes out to the universe. Those little packets of energy will never die but they will spread out further and further like ripples in a pond. This is not brain surgery but it does require some mental energies so please try to keep up.
This is stuff I was taught in grade school 45 years ago you need to catch up ebilly! The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on March 31, 2014, 07:30:36 PM
Before we go anywhere, these are all the laws of thermodynamics
Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature.
First law of thermodynamics: Because energy is conserved, the internal energy of a system changes as heat flows in or out of it. Equivalently, machines that violate the first law (perpetual motion machines) are impossible. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from one object to another.
Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system cannot decrease. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy of the system. Equivalently, machines that violate the second law (perpetual motion machines) are impossible.
Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any pure substance in thermodynamic equilibrium approaches zero as the temperature approaches zero.[7] The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has.


This is stuff I was taught in grade school 45 years ago you need to catch up ebilly! The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists)
Millions of fossils, retroviral insertions, Speciation in fruit flies, Bananas all say otherwise.
is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy
In a closed system
-- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill,"
No, all systems that are closed tend to go downhill, or become more evenly spread out.
as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
Except if this were the case we would never see a clean yard or bathroom.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
In all closed systems, in a open system where we have more energy going in than coming out it is not the truth.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found
in a closed system.
-- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Again this only applies in a closed system. Our star Sol is becoming more disorganized much faster then we are evolving so there is no problem.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization.
And they do, our star Sol is heading to chaos pretty fast. (For a star)
That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
The largest problem with your idea is that I can disprove it. Any technologically advanced means we are becoming more complex, something you claim is impossible. This isn't even evolution, it is stating that according to your interpretation of the second law states that nothing complex can ever arise.

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
I don't even know where to start. Are you asking about abiogenesis?

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
This is not true. Rivers flowing over the land instead of flowing everywhere, and this is a more ordered system. Heck the rain cycle is a complex system.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial
Except for sickle cell Anemia that stops malaria.
(at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order.
Except it can and does. Lactose tolerance - why humans with significant European ancestry can digest milk as adults.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria - at least beneficial from the point of view of the bacteria.
Radiation resistant fungi[1] (and perhaps other lifeforms) inside Chernobyl
"German Superboy",[2] an individual example of a human mutation that not only doesn't cause any visible disfigurement or impairment, but if anything will probably make it easier to maintain a muscular physique and/or low weight. These are characteristics that could be considered desirable in the modern day, when food is abundant.
The ccr5-Δ32 mutation confers HIV-1 resistance to those with a double copy of the allele (homozygous) [3]. The mutation also confers resistance to plague and smallpox while increasing susceptibility to west nile virus.[4][5][6]
In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
What evolutionist? You bring up a open system and then say that it isn't enough, that no order can come from chaos. This is a mistake: Planets, stars, black holes and Quasars were all created with out in intelligent mind.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 01, 2014, 02:05:33 AM
why do we have power plants? all we need are collectors to get allthat electricity the stars are emiting! LOL LOL you come up with more hinly excuses!!! God created all. how He did it real scientists are trying to figure that out! but their efforts are only to try to disprove God. they as well as you, have failed miserably!! although you have lied more!!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 01, 2014, 02:49:53 AM
why do we have power plants?
To convert fuel into electricity.
all we need are collectors to get allthat (All that) electricity the stars are (emitting) emiting!
Stars don't give of electricity, they give off heat and light.
LOL LOL you come up with more hinly (thinly) excuses!!! God created all. how He did it real scientists are trying to figure that out! but their efforts are only to try to disprove God. they as well as you, have failed miserably!! although you have lied more!!
Wow really this is your argument. The oil we get come from plants that have been dead for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 01, 2014, 04:23:58 PM
What college do you go to? Clown college?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 01, 2014, 10:21:03 PM
What college do you go to? Clown college?
Wow really, best insult hu. Can't argues, insult... I expect that from fish, but Mark I expect a lot more from you. I held you in higher regards... For shame.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: shadylane on April 02, 2014, 01:15:06 AM
What college do you go to? Clown college?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 02, 2014, 01:30:00 AM
another lie?
"Energy leaves the star every second, it is transformed into electricity, light, heat, ect and goes out to the universe."

I said:
LOL LOL you come up with more hinly (thinly) excuses!!! God created all. how He did it real scientists are trying to figure that out! but their efforts are only to try to disprove God. they as well as you, have failed miserably!! although you have lied more!!

you said:
Wow really this is your argument. The oil we get come from plants that have been dead for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Wth are you talking about? but then again, where did the plants that we get the oil from, come from?

I think Mark is spot on again. are you attending whatsamatta U, clown college? LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 02, 2014, 02:18:11 AM
another lie?
"Energy leaves the star every second, it is transformed into electricity, light, heat, ect and goes out to the universe."


I said:
LOL LOL you come up with more hinly (thinly) excuses!!! God created all. how He did it real scientists are trying to figure that out! but their efforts are only to try to disprove God. they as well as you, have failed miserably!! although you have lied more!!

you said:
Wow really this is your argument. The oil we get come from plants that have been dead for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

Wth are you talking about? but then again, where did the plants that we get the oil from, come from?
From the sun, converting photons to electricity by Photosynthesis, and using that electricity as well as carbon and water to make food.

I think Mark is spot on again. are you attending whatsamatta U, clown college? LOL LOL

Basic elementary science. Check yourself, you just wreck yourself.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 02, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
 At least you finally admit that you are using "Basic elementary science" for your argument against Creation! A lot has been learned since this crapola was written, and it always leads to God the Creator!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 02, 2014, 02:28:55 PM
why do we have power plants? all we need are collectors to get allthat electricity the stars are emiting! LOL LOL you come up with more hinly excuses!!! God created all. how He did it real scientists are trying to figure that out! but their efforts are only to try to disprove God. they as well as you, have failed miserably!! although you have lied more!!

We do have ways to harness power from stars, its called solar cells.  Just like your bible you seem to forget the sun is a star.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 02, 2014, 02:44:35 PM
At least you finally admit that you are using "Basic elementary science" for your argument against Creation! A lot has been learned since this crapola was written, and it always leads to God the Creator!
Why use a sledgehammer when a feather will work. Dismantling creationism can only be done by elementary science. I mean you are straining just to understand that. A lot has been learned, but to explain it to you would require more time then the universe has left. I mean if you can't even accept basic engineering (The ark was to big to float, it would have fallen apart) how can you accept Hindenburg uncertainty theorem or Schrodinger's cat. 
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 02, 2014, 08:58:58 PM
"From the sun, converting photons to electricity by Photosynthesis, and using that electricity as well as carbon and water to make food."

where did the sun come from? how much electricity is produced?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 02, 2014, 09:07:23 PM
elementary science proves Creationism (GOD)!
how do you know the ark would not float? ever build one?

"Hindenburg uncertainty theorem or Schrodinger's cat", now you are getting your information from a tv show ? !!!!!!!!!(big bang theory) LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 keep watching tv or whatever you have to do to come up with more lame "theories", I'll stick with the TRUTH ! It all comes back to God created all, a fact that has not and cannot be disproven.

mark is spot on again!

Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 03, 2014, 03:10:38 AM
"From the sun, converting photons to electricity by Photosynthesis, and using that electricity as well as carbon and water to make food."

where did the sun come from?
Hydrogen gas clouds congealing on a nod of dark energy, as more gas collides together it overcomes the strong force and begins fusion.
how much electricity is produced?
130 terawatts Globally.
elementary science proves Creationism (GOD)!
how do you know the ark would not float? ever build one?
you can not build a ship that large without steel frame. It would fall apart with all the torsion stress on it.

"Hindenburg uncertainty theorem or Schrodinger's cat", now you are getting your information from a tv show ? !!!!!!!!!(big bang theory) LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Yep, that's about as much as you know about it. Hindenburg working within Einstein's time stated that you can not accurately measure the location and speed of a electron at the same time. The act of measuring the particle changes it. The cat cares that further by stating that even macro objects are in two states, (Both alive and dead for a cat) and we can only know which by looking. I am sorry that a show uses actual science

 keep watching tv or whatever you have to do to come up with more lame "theories", I'll stick with the TRUTH ! It all comes back to God created all, a fact that has not and cannot be disproven.

mark is spot on again!
Hey look Veggietales are on. Why don't you and mark watch that and let the adults go back to running the nation. It's sad that europe, asia and even africans use america as a insult about intelligence. Are you happy, we are the laughing stock of the world, and we have been that way for the last 25 years.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 03, 2014, 12:34:45 PM
"Hey look Veggietales are on. Why don't you and mark watch that and let the adults go back to running the nation. It's sad that europe, asia and even africans use america as a insult about intelligence. Are you happy, we are the laughing stock of the world, and we have been that way for the last 25 years."
                                                                                                                                                                     Because you "adults" are doing such a great job of running the nation? LOL  FYI... The rest of the world thinks we're idiots for your beliefs and the way our government is being run, NOT OURS!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 03, 2014, 01:08:21 PM
"Hey look Veggietales are on. Why don't you and mark watch that and let the adults go back to running the nation. It's sad that europe, asia and even africans use america as a insult about intelligence. Are you happy, we are the laughing stock of the world, and we have been that way for the last 25 years."
                                                                                                                                                                     Because you "adults" are doing such a great job of running the nation? LOL  FYI... The rest of the world thinks we're idiots for your beliefs and the way our government is being run, NOT OURS!
You realize that america is the most religious nation (Other than the middle east) It's hilarious that you believe the rest of the world is fundamentalist. Even Israel isn't as fundi as america.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 03, 2014, 02:14:20 PM
You realize that america is the most religious nation (Other than the middle east) It's hilarious that you believe the rest of the world is fundamentalist. Even Israel isn't as fundi as america.
I do realize this fact. I also "realize" that people like you and those involved in ruining our Country think they are smarter than the majority! What a joke! lol  If you can prove to me that you are smarter than 1/3 of the worlds population that are Christians, and the well over 50% that live in the U.S. I will run around the Waynesville square naked! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country)  &&*)(*^(&
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 03, 2014, 02:29:05 PM
I do realize this fact. I also "realize" that people like you and those involved in ruining our Country think they are smarter than the majority! What a joke! lol  If you can prove to me that you are smarter than 1/3 of the worlds population that are Christians, and the well over 50% that live in the U.S. I will run around the Waynesville square naked! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country)  &&*)(*^(&
What would prove that I am smarter? I want goal post that will not be moved on me.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 03, 2014, 03:28:19 PM
 I want to say "prove that evolution is fact" But I know that's impossible, and you and your fellow Atheists have been failing miserably for years on this site. So......lets say prove how you are smarter than 2.3 Billion people worldwide that are Christians! This is a huge number that includes millions and millions of PHDs, Scientists, and extremely well educated people! What makes you smarter? I have already put a large list on here, what makes you smarter than them?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 03, 2014, 06:09:30 PM
I want to say "prove that evolution is fact" But I know that's impossible, and you and your fellow Atheists have been failing miserably for years on this site. So......lets say prove how you are smarter than 2.3 Billion people worldwide that are Christians! This is a huge number that includes millions and millions of PHDs, Scientists, and extremely well educated people! What makes you smarter? I have already put a large list on here, what makes you smarter than them?
And what proof would be required. We have fruit flies that can no longer breed together. (Speciation) {Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).}
We have fossil evidence from a common ancestor of both apes to men. (http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/wp-content/Hominidphylogeny.jpg) We have undenyable evidence in the retroviral insertions over time.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html)
The age of the universe can be determined not only with "Science" But also with math. We know what the material the star is fusing by its wavelength of light. Knowing that we can determine how far away it is using redshift. (Closer stars like alpha Centauri we can determine by Trigonometry. By knowing the length of the legs, and the angle of the star we can know the distance of other stars to make sure red shift works.
We can see the remnants of the sudden expansion of the universe with background radiation.
We know stars fuse elements because we already can fuse elements in a hydrogen bomb.
We see the remains of vestigial (Not useless but organs that had a more desired use in other creatures) organs such as the appendix and tonsils. We have rare events where children are born with things that evolved away (Due to the genes being shut off, not being deleted.) http://s9.photobucket.com/user/khmerghost/media/HUMAN20TAIL.jpg.html (http://s9.photobucket.com/user/khmerghost/media/HUMAN20TAIL.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 03, 2014, 06:45:10 PM
Preposterous! Everyone knows all those "facts" are put there by the devil to test your faith in the lord!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 03, 2014, 07:18:35 PM
Preposterous! Everyone knows all those "facts" are put there by the devil to test your faith in the lord!
Yep, satan speeds up light after 4 light years just to mess with humans.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 03, 2014, 07:23:58 PM
where did the hydrogen clouds come from?

who measured the electricity and how was it measured?

how do you know a ship that size could not be built without a steel frame? you are an engineer now?? LOL LOL LOL

you are the laughing stock! LOL LOL  you cannot prove anything you state about the creation of the universe. you are simply reading your bible LOL LOL, of unproven theories by scientists. not one of your fables has been proven with truth and logic. God has been proven every time with truth and logic. which scientist created a planet? which scientist created a person like God did? which scientist created a plant? none. which scientist made it snow or the wind blow or changed the temperature outside and changed a season? your fables(unproven theories) are just lame attempts to try to disprove God. you and science are still failing miserably. give up the clown college, you haven't gotten any smarter! LOL LOL LOL

your fables and tv shows do not prove your statements. there is a blood moon coming on april 15. explain that and the significance on it's occurrence in the past.

you are lost in your own cut and paste! LOL LOL photobucket? LOL LOL neither links work or load, no surprise! photobucket is hard evidence???  LOL LOL oh yeah, you're a genius alright!! LOL LOL smart people don't have to assert their intelligence! LOL LOL LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 03, 2014, 11:01:33 PM
Your "fruit fly" argument is the weakest yet.......They bred flies and made more flies with little wings, short legs, sterile, whatever? But all they made were weaker, non survivable FLIES! They never turned in to a different animal. Just more proof of CREATION!                                                                                             In Time magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science” and “we can call evolution a ‘fact.’” This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. Yet, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?

Too many questions and no answers

It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?
•Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
•How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
•Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other.  For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?  Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?
•Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?

Life from non-life
•How did life develop from non-life?
•Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?
•What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

Spontaneous reproduction

What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate? Why are there two sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

Organ development
•How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
•Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this.
•How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.

The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up.

Misleading textbooks
•Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?
•What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

Who invented gravity?
•Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter? Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in two trillion of the sun’s total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. (It has been written that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world!)
•Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

Evolution—A solution by default

Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?

Truth or dare

If you believe in evolution, can you give just one coercive proof, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

Isn’t it true that, rather than “proofs” of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are “evidences” for evolution to someone who already believes in it?

Let’s see some answers to important questions such as these posed in this article, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world and human life.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 03, 2014, 11:05:56 PM
a PEER reviewed paper

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164 (http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164)

where did the water come from genius? LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 04, 2014, 03:54:45 PM
I hope we start to have physicists build buildings and bridges from now on, its almost like being a physicist qualifies you to do anything.  I for one am going to ask for a physicist to do my next surgery, a 22 year old one at that.

It is a separate matter whether all of the animals would fit inside an ark of these dimensions  – the physics students were simply calculating the buoyancy of the ark, without calculating food weight, waste weight, people weight......difinitive proof though I have to give you that.....
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 04, 2014, 03:58:38 PM
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-single-act-evolution-nearly-wiped-out-all-life-earth-180950341/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-single-act-evolution-nearly-wiped-out-all-life-earth-180950341/?no-ist)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331153608.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331153608.htm)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 04, 2014, 04:11:02 PM
a PEER reviewed paper

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164 (http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164)

where did the water come from genius? LOL LOL
Fishes genuis question... Where does water come from? Oh wait water comes from rain clouds. AND YOU WONDER WHY WE LAUGH.
And 35000 species... Dude there are 35000 different Horned beetle species alone, not to mention the 7 of every clean species.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 04, 2014, 04:32:17 PM
where did the hydrogen clouds come from?
Gravity

who measured the electricity and how was it measured?
Scientest

how do you know a ship that size could not be built without a steel frame? you are an engineer now?? LOL LOL LOL
No I am a mechanic and carpenter. I know that wood just can not have that tensile strength.

you are the laughing stock! LOL LOL  you cannot prove anything you state about the creation of the universe. you are simply reading your bible
Maybe but the difference is that my flew us to the moon, it works. Your religion blows up abortion clinics and flew planes into buildings. (Yes different bible, same god)
LOL LOL, of unproven theories by scientists. not one of your fables has been proven with truth and logic.
Except that we use it in the hospital to extend life. No Doctor for you than.
God has been proven every time with truth and logic.
Then why are so many people dropping out of church. It's really sad man. Really sad.
which scientist created a planet?
Oh this again, every scientist with a computer, I built one last week on Kerbal. Oh whats that it doesn't count. Of course it does, why shouldn't it.
which scientist created a person like God did?
First you assume god exist, second you say he created. But I assert if you can do that Maxxel Atom, Lauren Faust, Craig Mccracken. They have not only created people, (Billy, irwin, grim, Bubbles, Mac, Frankie,) but entire universes. It's fun to assert. And the fun thing about this is I don't have to do anything to prove it. 
which scientist created a plant? none. which scientist made it snow
Dude we have snow machines, it's not hard.
or the wind blow
Fans
or changed the temperature outside and changed a season?
Air conditioner, wood stove, Global warming.
My fables(unproven theories) are just lame attempts to try to disprove Science. you and god is still failing miserably. give up the clown college, you haven't gotten any smarter! LOL LOL LOL

your god and fox news do not prove your statements. there is a blood moon coming on april 15 and I am not smart enough to realize that it is only the moon passing into earths shadow, and people do crazy things.

you are lost in your own cut and paste! LOL LOL photobucket? LOL LOL neither links work or load,
Worked for me, but maybe you shouldn't be lazy and look it up yourself.
no surprise! photobucket is hard evidence, even though I could look it up here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg)   LOL LOL oh yeah, you're a genius alright!! LOL LOL smart people don't have to assert their intelligence and thats why i keep talking bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIETlxquzY)
I fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 04, 2014, 04:57:51 PM
Your "fruit fly" argument is the weakest yet.......They bred flies and made more flies with little wings, short legs, sterile, whatever? But all they made were weaker, non survivable FLIES!
No there was a lot of death but new fruitflys that could not interbreed were made.
They never turned in to a different animal.
That isn't evolution.
Just more proof of CREATION!                                                                                             In Time magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that “evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science” and “we can call evolution a ‘fact.’” This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. Yet, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
Except we have. Banana trees prove it by its self. 

Fossils disprove evolution

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Except that fossils are rare, the older the more rare. I mean we have no trace of the hebrews in the desert and that was only 4000 years ago. There should be hundreds of artifacts...

Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
They didn't make it. Not every organism makes it to the fossil stages.
Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?
No, even if you completely destroyed evolution tomorrow it would in now way support creation. 

Too many questions and no answers
Yeah, to many questions at once usually makes it hard to answer it all. We usually facepalm and keep going past the wall of text. 

It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?
•Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
Came from fusion of lower elements. The bonds are determined by the strong and weak force.
•How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
a balance between the strong and electromagnetic force.
•Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
Read a book on chemistry.
They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other.
WHAT SURE THEY DO. Fire turns carbon to CO^2. I mean really
For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?  Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang?
no, just no.
When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included?
Anything made of atoms.
When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?
Mostly carbon, hydrogen and Oxygen long string molecules.
•Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
They really really do.

Life from non-life
Abiogenesis, not evolution.
•How did life develop from non-life?
Through chemical reactions.
•Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?
From animals that have said emotions.
•What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes,
Natural selection, not chance. Chance creates mutations, Natural selection gives us the best of those mutations.
would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
Because it isn't random.

Spontaneous reproduction

What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
Zero, because that is not how it works.
Why are there two sexes anyhow?
To mix up genetic information and to speed up evolution. Even bacteria have been known to have sex.
This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here? If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents,
Again that is not how it works.
how did the mating pair get to that point? Isn’t evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.
Conclusion, you don't know what evolution is.


You don't care for a answer, so that is all I am giving. If you want a specific question than I would love to talk, but I am sick and tired of you giving a essay (One that you didn't write mind you) And when I spend the time to answer you ignore it anyway.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 04, 2014, 05:04:16 PM
I would just quit spending your time writing these serious rebuttals....he wont take the time to learn about the very subjects he is arguing against, he isnt going to take the time to even think about your responses.  I would also suggest totally ignoring Fish, he is either a really good troll, or a super far gone right wing religious zealot, either way nothing to be gained from interacting with him, his views will never be swayed either, your better off teaching this stuff to a dog.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 04, 2014, 05:31:02 PM
I would just quit spending your time writing these serious rebuttals....he wont take the time to learn about the very subjects he is arguing against, he isnt going to take the time to even think about your responses.  I would also suggest totally ignoring Fish, he is either a really good troll, or a super far gone right wing religious zealot, either way nothing to be gained from interacting with him, his views will never be swayed either, your better off teaching this stuff to a dog.
Yeah you are right. I just hate to admit that I can't teach someone but... There are none as blind as those that refuse to see.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 04, 2014, 07:45:07 PM
I hate to burst your bubble.....but unless I were back in the forth grade there is nothing you could teach me about the "evolution theory" I really hope you can catch up with the times and learn that it ALWAYS points to God the Creator in every scientific field as you advance in that particular field. You are the student, NOT THE TEACHER!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 04, 2014, 08:20:22 PM
I hate to burst your bubble.....but unless I were back in the forth grade there is nothing you could teach me about the "evolution theory" I really hope you can catch up with the times and learn that it ALWAYS points to God the Creator in every scientific field as you advance in that particular field. You are the student, NOT THE TEACHER!
You know what, sure it does. I don't even care anymore, your wrong but you are so far entrenched it doesn't mater. Just keep your religion in church and science in schools ok. You want a god, heaven forbid I take it from you.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 04, 2014, 09:04:45 PM
You know what, sure it does. I don't even care anymore, your wrong but you are so far entrenched it doesn't mater. Just keep your religion in church and science in schools ok. You want a god, heaven forbid I take it from you.
Lesson #1 The teaching of the evolution theory in our schools IS teaching a RELIGIOUS belief to our children, and they could grow up not knowing God, and making up their own rules like the atheists on this site! Please stop teaching the wrong religion to our kids!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 05, 2014, 11:26:36 PM
Lesson #1 The teaching of the evolution theory in our schools IS teaching a RELIGIOUS belief to our children, and they could grow up not knowing God, and making up their own rules like the atheists on this site! Please stop teaching the wrong religion to our kids!
No it is not, Religion is the teaching of god or gods... You have no right forcing god down anyones throats, especially children. If a parent wants their kid to go to church, fine. However the government will make no laws supporting one religion over another. In other words... KEEP YOUR GOD OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS, OR I AM GOING TO BRING MY SCIENCE INTO YOUR CHURCH'S. That is fair.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 05, 2014, 11:52:32 PM
Everyone knows that a child needs authority in order to become a moral individual adhering to certain behaviors and laws. The theory (NOT science) of evolution has no creator at its foundation. Life forms of all kinds sprung from matter. But who created the matter that was its source? If life is that random, then no one governs us; life is just a slow mutation of cells, empty of meaning. Belief in evolution devalues us; our lives and actions become self-directed and we become self-focused.

Remember the movie “Lord of the Flies,” in which a group of marooned pre-teen boys decide to govern themselves? Soon they splinter into two warring groups. Both groups soon prove ineffective as law-makers, law-enforcers and law-followers. The only boy with a semblance of conscience becomes a pariah, vilified by the others. Chaos ensues. It is a bleak tale of morality versus immorality, individual/self versus what is best for the common good. Without God as the higher power and moral compass, the individual is adrift and life becomes random.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 05, 2014, 11:58:48 PM
Evolutionists build their entire theory upon a foundation of assumptions. While they would have us believe that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports their theory, it remains to be seen what IS the evidence to which they are referring, considering that each proof they cite has either been proven wrong or inconclusive at the very least.

The “miracle” of evolution

Furthermore, evolutionism holds to several key “miracles” that magically overcome the laws of nature. Without these miracles—anomalies that defy established scientific understanding—the religion of evolutionism simply could not stand. Evolutionist proponents of the big bang theory claim that planets and stars formed when bits of matter and gas were compressed spontaneously.

But this violates Boyle’s law of gas established in the seventeenth century, which states that gases cannot be compressed without some intervening mechanism. So what is the evolutionists’ intervening mechanism? Nothing. It happened all by itself; it was a miracle. They likewise believe that biological organisms could produce offspring of higher complexity simply by means of natural selection. This is not science, however, and must also fall within the realm of miracle. In fact, evolutionists hold on to many more miracles (or assumptions) in their religion of evolutionism.

Foolishness

While Christian creationists willingly admit that creationism is religious in nature and that miracles have their place in our religious belief system, evolutionists claim that their religion is actually pure science and based entirely upon evidence and scientific reasoning. They then prop up this hypocritical religion using tax funds, not only to fuel their research (desperately searching for that elusive evidence) and pay their preachers…er…professors, but also to teach it in public schools at public expense as if it were objectively scientific. It is time for evolutionists to admit that they do believe in miracles, that evolutionism is a religion, and a hypocritical one at that. Because, while creationists have a God who satisfies the demand for an external agent, evolutionists have nothing, and they claim to need nothing to account for their miracles. They have rejected God, and in so doing, they have rejected common sense itself. Rightly so did the Psalmist conclude, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Ps. 14:1)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 06, 2014, 12:26:03 AM
where did gravity come from?

what is a scientist? how did he  measure the electricity

how do you know wood just cannot have that tensile strength? based on what? you are smarter than the ones drafting the paper and the peer group that reviewed it? LOL LOL LOL

HUH?? LOL LOL ignoring the subject point again? LOL LOL
"Maybe but the difference is that my flew us to the moon, it works. Your religion blows up abortion clinics and flew planes into buildings. (Yes different bible, same god)"

HUH?? LOL LOL
Except that we use it in the hospital to extend life. No Doctor for you than.
we were talking about your unproven theories. which one is proven?

nope, people blew up abortion clinics. that is bad but abortions are ok?
Christianity flew planes into the wtc? LOL LOL better check again! islam also does not follow the same God as Christianity does. if you were as smart as you give yourself credit, you would know that! LOL LOL

the reason people are dropping out of church is satan. satan believes in God. some , like you are choosing to not believe the truth. truth and logic are not the reason people are leaving the church.

you did on a computer what a 5 yr old can do on paper? LOL LOL that IS quite an accomplishment! LOL LOL

I don't "assume" God exists. He is a fact, one you deny at your own peril. one even real scientists acknowledge! LOL LOL

so where is this giant snow machine that created all the snow in all those states? LOL LOL LOL

Where are these fans that caused 50 mph winds here? what powers them? LOL LOL

where are these giant air conditioners , wood stoves that change the temperature? Global warming? LOL LOL happens every sunrise! LOL LOL LOL

doctoring my posts prove your desperation! LOL LOL
 you had to repost a photo bucket you couldn't post correctly the first time? LOL LOL LOL

where did the rain clouds come from? where did the 35,000 species come from? you where the answer is ! LOL LOL you can deny it all you want, evolution is an unproven theory.

ya might want to check the definition of religion again. There is a lot more to it!




Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 06, 2014, 03:26:30 PM
@Mark And Fish... If Evolution is not real, why is it taught in school. Why does every major Scientist lie about it. Why are you laughed out of courthouses... And why can't you perform a single experiment to disprove it. Not a single one. There have been Zero Peer Reviewed journals that have lasted through the scientific community that has proven your god, and you have to attack 6 or more fields of science to attempt to disprove it. And that is all I have to say. Please site a single experiment to disprove evolution, just one.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 06, 2014, 05:45:54 PM
the "THEORY" of evolution is taught, along with other unproven theories. evolutionists are starting with a finished product and working backwards, changing data to try to prove their unproven theories. Even real scientists can't agree on the theory of evolution. there are other subjects that should not be taught in school also, read up on common core.
 there has not been a single experiment to prove evolution as fact, not a single one, evolution is still called a "theory".

I have been laughed out of court houses??

look in a mirror, evolution is disproved every time and God is proven every time. the universe is too complex for scientists to determine exactly how the universe was created.

I perform this experiment daily and it proves God. did you see your son get born? I was there when my kids were born. That event also proves God.

God has not been disproven. you and others (including real scientists) choose to deny God's existence, even though you can't prove He doesn't exist.

God is obvious. reread the section about thomas. he was told Jesus had been resurrected, but would not believe until he saw Jesus and His wounds with his own eyes, thus the origin of "a doubting Thomas". You and other evolutionists will not believe God created all, no matter any evidence. the only truth you believe is man's findings. of course man is perfect! LOL LOL

I don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven. evolution is still a theory and has not been proven. evolution is clouded in semantics. to evolve means to change. much of that change is the result of aging. we evolve everyday. a child develops after conception and after birth. but during your lifetime have animals changed? have humans changed? no. there are the occasional birth defects. but we live and breath the same. our environment and technology affect our daily lives, not the theory of evolution.

God is a self evident fact. that is why many scientists have stated God created all. name one creation of God that science can replicate the way God made it. God is self evident, you simply choose to deny His existence, even though you know better.

those 6 fields (+/-) of science are what some are using to disprove God and all , like you have failed miserably. LOL LOL if one theory doesn't work, come up with another? LOL LOL
Science has not been able to disprove God despite theories. show the peer reviewed journal that disproves God! LOL LOL  God is still a fact!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 06, 2014, 09:24:29 PM
Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

article by Mario Seiglie 



There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

trilobite fossils

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere  micro evolution—small changes within a species—but  macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching,  The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson,  After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book  On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a  fertilized  egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an  illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 06, 2014, 09:28:36 PM
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small. The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.                                                                                                                                                    Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.                                                                                                                                                       Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.                                                                   Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.                                                                                                          Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.                                        Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.                                                                                                                                Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.    Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.                                                                                         Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.                                                                                              Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 06, 2014, 09:32:01 PM
the "THEORY" of evolution is taught, along with other unproven theories. evolutionists are starting with a finished product and working backwards, changing data to try to prove their unproven theories. Even real scientists can't agree on the theory of evolution. there are other subjects that should not be taught in school also, read up on common core.
 there has not been a single experiment to prove evolution as fact, not a single one, evolution is still called a "theory".

I have been laughed out of court houses??

look in a mirror, evolution is disproved every time and God is proven every time. the universe is too complex for scientists to determine exactly how the universe was created.

I perform this experiment daily and it proves God. did you see your son get born? I was there when my kids were born. That event also proves God.

God has not been disproven. you and others (including real scientists) choose to deny God's existence, even though you can't prove He doesn't exist.

God is obvious. reread the section about thomas. he was told Jesus had been resurrected, but would not believe until he saw Jesus and His wounds with his own eyes, thus the origin of "a doubting Thomas". You and other evolutionists will not believe God created all, no matter any evidence. the only truth you believe is man's findings. of course man is perfect! LOL LOL

I don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven. evolution is still a theory and has not been proven. evolution is clouded in semantics. to evolve means to change. much of that change is the result of aging. we evolve everyday. a child develops after conception and after birth. but during your lifetime have animals changed? have humans changed? no. there are the occasional birth defects. but we live and breath the same. our environment and technology affect our daily lives, not the theory of evolution.

God is a self evident fact. that is why many scientists have stated God created all. name one creation of God that science can replicate the way God made it. God is self evident, you simply choose to deny His existence, even though you know better.

those 6 fields (+/-) of science are what some are using to disprove God and all , like you have failed miserably. LOL LOL if one theory doesn't work, come up with another? LOL LOL
Science has not been able to disprove God despite theories. show the peer reviewed journal that disproves God! LOL LOL  God is still a fact!
This is hilarious, OMG every time science disproves god the science is wrong because god is real. It's just so funny. Keep it up fish, mark. Instead of debating you, I am just going to laugh at you. Thank you for showing what happens when you become a fundamentalist.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 06, 2014, 09:35:43 PM
This is hilarious, OMG every time science disproves god the science is wrong because god is real. It's just so funny. Keep it up fish, mark. Instead of debating you, I am just going to laugh at you. Thank you for showing what happens when you become a fundamentalist.
Science has never disproven God! Laughing will serve you well in clown college, but it won't help you win this debate that you lose at daily!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 06, 2014, 10:03:16 PM
Science has never disproven God! Laughing will serve you well in clown college, but it won't help you win this debate that you lose at daily!
Except when it does and you say it isn't real science. Keep the jokes coming. :jester:
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 07, 2014, 01:33:23 AM
you are losing steam ebilly! LOL LOL show a "peer" review disproving God! LOL LOL  IF evolution was proven as a fact, God might be disproven. there was "new evidence" a week or so that might give more weight to the big bang theory. that proves it has not been proven. The great expanse of the universe, the complexity of every minute detail. demands and proves with truth and logic that it took a CREATOR to create all. the bottom line is you want to follow your fables that cannot be proven, even with logic anyone could understand. The fact that God created all is a fact proven with truth and logic ANYONE, but the stupid, can understand. you simply don't want to believe the truth, yet you cannot prove YOUR points! the big bang, evolution, geology, any other hair brained theory used to prove how the universe was created, have failed miserably. the proofs have changed over the centuries and in the same time frame the proofs that God created all have not changed. TRUTH and LOGIC win every time. why are the evolutionists, big bang theorists, geologists, or the other theorists so adamant about disproving God created all? because then they would have an excuse not to follow God's laws.
that is why I scoff at all of you.
 I have asked questions you cannot answer or refuse to answer.
 again, show me a peer review journal that disproves God.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 07, 2014, 04:50:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/N2KIL6V.png (http://i.imgur.com/N2KIL6V.png)



full vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk&feature=youtu.be&t=15m57s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk&feature=youtu.be&t=15m57s)
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: littlebit on April 08, 2014, 03:12:08 AM
First off, anyone who debates someone who doesn't/can't/refuses to grasp the difference between layman's theory and scientific theory has already lost said debate.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 08, 2014, 03:24:48 AM
I deal in facts (truth and logic). I don't waste time on unproven "theories" ! ebilly lost the debate long ago! LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 08, 2014, 01:49:30 PM
This is exactly why I think hes trolling, that last statement makes not a bit of sense.......not even a littlebit.......awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwyeahhhhhhhhh hhhhhh
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 08, 2014, 05:36:12 PM
I deal in facts (truth and logic). I don't waste time on unproven "theories" ! ebilly lost the debate long ago! LOL LOL LOL
Fish you owe me a new mouse. I was drinking milk and read this. Laughed so hard it came out my nose. Thank you for these Pearls, but shouldn't you be saving them for your show you are sure to get. Fish for his own sitcom 2015
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 08, 2014, 06:09:12 PM
Further proof of evolution

Men cant reach their heads to their genital region and orally stimulate themselves because those that could didnt mate and pass on the genes.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 08, 2014, 06:30:15 PM
fun fact!   ...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 08, 2014, 08:08:33 PM
fun fact!   ...anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously [emphasis original] arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the earth is evidently nonsense of the highest order.
Well a A for originality... Kinda. But the blind watchmaker has been dismantled so many times I even sent a video proving that if watches were DNA based they could form through evolution. GET NEW MATERIAL, AT LEAST FISH IS FUNNY
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 09, 2014, 01:11:49 AM


you had a mouse up your nose? LOL LOL LOL
dismiss all you want ebilly. you just keep avoiding questions because you don't like the answers you would have to give. you have not been able to refute my facts. instead you flip flop and lie. one minute you know the bible inside and out, the next minute you can't answer a simple biblical question.

simple question;
IF the big bang theory, evolution, geology, any theory , was proven to be the way the earth was created, who gets the credit for the process, not for the discovery, but for the process that created the universe?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 09, 2014, 01:12:45 AM
but you are still able to have your head up your ass hi! LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: littlebit on April 09, 2014, 03:08:41 AM
Just for you Mark...



Marcell Endrey Rubik's Cube blindfolded World Record 28.80s - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mCyYPimImyM)

Improbable... Yes. Impossible? No.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: shadylane on April 09, 2014, 11:22:32 AM
Further proof of evolution

Men cant reach their heads to their genital region and orally stimulate themselves because those that could didnt mate and pass on the genes.

This isn't proof of evolution. But it does explain why some priest's join the clergy.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 09, 2014, 11:26:51 AM

you had a mouse up your nose? LOL LOL LOL
dismiss all you want ebilly. you just keep avoiding questions because you don't like the answers you would have to give. you have not been able to refute my facts. instead you flip flop and lie. one minute you know the bible inside and out, the next minute you can't answer a simple biblical question.

simple question;
IF the big bang theory, evolution, geology, any theory , was proven to be the way the earth was created, who gets the credit for the process, not for the discovery, but for the process that created the universe?
No fish, computer mouse... Though a actual mouse would have been funny. You know what make it a live mouse... It is a lot funnier, and that is why you are a comedy genius.
I can answer your questions, but you don't listen to the answers... So I have decided just to enjoy them the way you intended, as the funniest jokes ever told.
 
Who who who Throws the lightning? Mt Olympus and Valhalla have been destroyed.
Who who who guides the stars, Now that Ra and Dagon have both died.
Who who who should start the wars, Mankind has grown too strong much too fast.
Asking who has never solved a problem. Dear friend you should ask what instead.
I can not give credit for the lightning, to Zeus, Thor or any other god.
Fish you are asking for a god of the gaps, because we don't yet it must be god...
But we have done this way too often.
When we didn't know we always praised a lord.
Now those lords and gods are all dead and buried.
Wouldn't you rather keep jesus alive in your heart.
Wouldn't you rather keep jesus alive in your soul?
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 09, 2014, 01:48:51 PM
Just for you Mark...



Marcell Endrey Rubik's Cube blindfolded World Record 28.80s - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mCyYPimImyM)

Improbable... Yes. Impossible? No.
I can do it blindfolded too! I can't remember exactly but its 23 turns to the right 16 to the left and so on! Simple math!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 09, 2014, 04:36:40 PM
you can answer my questions? maybe if you wouldn't answer them with lies they might be worth reading.

all your "theories" are just that. nothing has been proven by science. your answers are from journals based on someone else's experiments. what experiments have YOU done that pass a peer review(your standard) wannabe scientists are not reliable information sources for unproven theories by real scientists! LOL LOL

all the scientific gobbleegook is a fancy way for scientists to say" I don't know".

any layman can understand the logic proving God created all ! 

My conclusions are based on fact. truth and logic wins again! LOL LOL you have failed miserably trying to prove otherwise. But keep trying! It is entertaining! LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 11, 2014, 03:32:38 AM
you can answer my questions? maybe if you wouldn't answer them with lies they might be worth reading.

all your "theories" are just that. nothing has been proven by science. your answers are from journals based on someone else's experiments. what experiments have YOU done that pass a peer review(your standard) wannabe scientists are not reliable information sources for unproven theories by real scientists! LOL LOL

all the scientific gobbleegook is a fancy way for scientists to say" I don't know".

any layman can understand the logic proving God created all ! 

My conclusions are based on fact. truth and logic wins again! LOL LOL you have failed miserably trying to prove otherwise. But keep trying! It is entertaining! LOL LOL LOL
Fish did you really just say that you don't care what science says. Then get out, have some dignity and go live with the amish, practice what you preach. We live in a science world. You can't take one step without being on something science helped build. Your world is dead fish, there are no refuge for your ignorance in this world. Adapt or die, Evolve or go extinct.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 11, 2014, 12:54:27 PM
Did I say I didn't care what science says? making up crap again? I don't worship science as you do. I deal in facts. theories are not facts, no matter how you spin them!

You can't take one step on something that God has not created. science is your god. you forget God created science. the entertaining part is scientists and scientist wannabe's like yourself, are trying to use what God created to disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOL

My world is alive and well!! LOL LOL your world is coming to an end! LOL LOL
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: ebilly99 on April 11, 2014, 01:00:44 PM
 
Did I say I didn't care what science says? making up crap again? I don't worship science as you do. I deal in facts. theories are not facts, no matter how you spin them!
all your "theories" are just that. nothing has been proven by science

You can't take one step on something that God has not created.
Now god invented shoes and carpet lol lol
science is your god.
No its a tool...that works.
you forget God created science.
LOL LOL
the entertaining part is scientists and scientist wannabe's like yourself, are trying to use what God created to disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOL

My world is alive and well!! LOL LOL your world is coming to an end! LOL LOL
Wow really
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 11, 2014, 04:48:25 PM
there are theories and there are facts. a theory may lead to a fact, but a theory is not a fact.

God created the ingredients for making shoes and carpet

science works because God created it

what has man created that is everlasting? nothing.

the entertaining part is scientists and scientist wannabe's like yourself, are trying to use what God created to disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOL

My world is alive and well!! LOL LOL your world is coming to an end! LOL LOL

YUP , REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 12, 2014, 02:44:06 PM
 Science and theory (as it relates to this topic) are people trying to figure out either "How God did it" OR " How they can try to explain it without God" The latter has never worked, nor will it ever!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: fish on April 12, 2014, 02:57:49 PM
many are choosing the latter Mark. it frustrates them they can't disprove God and disprove He created the universe!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 13, 2014, 09:39:26 PM
I know, and I fully agree with your statement "the entertaining part is scientists and scientist wannabe's like yourself, are trying to use what God created to disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOL" They always think they have discovered or created something new by changing or altering God's work. It always leads to something less than what God created...Yet they toot their horns as if they have really done, or proven something! I will never figure out how people can't look out the window and know that God's work is everywhere you look!
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: Hi on April 14, 2014, 01:57:19 PM
If any of what you are saying were true, wouldnt it make more sense for god to have made plastic naturally occurring? You would be roaming around in a desert or dead from the bubonic plague if it werent for science.
Title: Re: Questions to Creationists and young earthers from a mad scientist.
Post by: mark on April 14, 2014, 03:23:11 PM
If any of what you are saying were true, wouldnt it make more sense for god to have made plastic naturally occurring? You would be roaming around in a desert or dead from the bubonic plague if it werent for science.
Science and our ability to make plastic was given to us by God.  Its probably not the best invention when it comes to living in harmony with our planet. I would bet that God is disappointed in the way we poison and mistreat our beautiful earth! Science and our ability to think is  a small part of the information that could only have been put in our DNA by an intelligent designer!