Latest dumbshit creationist (May 9, 2008)

[Ryan Thunder]

In any event, can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus tells me to slaughter all the Jews? I can't.

Can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus says that no one should ever eat donkey shit? I can't. Don't be a fucking retard; you can't prove that something is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity just by saying that it's not found in the Bible.

It also said you shouldn't kill folks, so I assume that if it doesn't explicitly tell me that somebody is exempt from that, I shouldn't do it.

What I am saying is that I don't see any Biblical basis for what they did.

So? Are you saying that everything you do must have a "Biblical basis" in order for you to be a Christian?

On subjects that it addresses, (like treatment of your enemies), yeah.

Bullshit. He ranted at length about how much false prophets and heretics would be tortured and made to suffer in the kingdom of God.

Need I remind you that it's none of my business to send them there prematurely. "You will not murder."

[Akhlut]

Why would I as a Christian ever elect Nazis?

Millions of German Christians elected the Nazis in the 1930s, you goddamned idiot. One of their first acts in power was to bring back the Christian "Lord's Prayer" in German schools.

In any event, can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus tells me to slaughter all the Jews? I can't.

Well, Martin Luther advised it, and I think Martin Luther may have had a bit of an influence in Germany.

[Darth Wong]

In any event, can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus tells me to slaughter all the Jews? I can't.

Can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus says that no one should ever eat donkey shit? I can't. Don't be a fucking retard; you can't prove that something is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity just by saying that it's not found in the Bible.

It also said you shouldn't kill folks, so I assume that if it doesn't explicitly tell me that somebody is exempt from that, I shouldn't do it.

Yeah, it says that IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, where God proceeds to order his people to kill almost everyone they meet.

So? Are you saying that everything you do must have a "Biblical basis" in order for you to be a Christian?

On subjects that it addresses, (like treatment of your enemies), yeah.

Wrong. It does not "address" anything without contradicting itself elsewhere. Saying that you have a "Biblical basis" only means that you've managed to satisfactorily cherry-pick yourself a preferred conclusion.

Bullshit. He ranted at length about how much false prophets and heretics would be tortured and made to suffer in the kingdom of God.

Need I remind you that it's none of my business to send them there prematurely. "You will not murder."

Don't change the subject, asshole. You said that Jesus HIMSELF would never do or order such things. It IS his business, and he's supposed to be like God himself, who set a precedent for telling his people not to kill and then ordering them to kill wholesale.

[Aquatain]

Millions of German Christians elected the Nazis in the 1930s, you goddamned idiot. One of their first acts in power was to bring back the Christian "Lord's Prayer" in German schools.

In any event, can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus tells me to slaughter all the Jews? I can't.

Well, Martin Luther advised it, and I think Martin Luther may have had a bit of an influence in Germany.

This is where Ryan Thunder comes in at states he does not share Luther's point of view and therefore it has no meaning to him, Christianity's greatest achievement is to have retconned itself into the Ireligion you can personalize into your own wet dream of perfect mental slavery.

[General Zod]

RE: Killing -

22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

10:10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.

9:3 When mine enemies are turned back, they shall fall and perish at thy presence.
9:4 For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right.
9:5 Thou hast rebuked the heathen, thou hast destroyed the wicked, thou hast put out their name for ever and ever.
9:6 O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them.

68:23 That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.

144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

I'm sure I could find more if I bothered, but to sum it up trying to say that God wants people to be nice and not kill one another is being grossly naive.

[Phillip Hone]

What I am saying is that I don't see any Biblical basis for what they did. If you were to put up a political figure like Hitler for election, ignoring outside influences (that would probably deal with him before he even made it to the ballot), I would never elect such a party based on my spirituality (or anything else, for that matter...)

Perhaps there isn't a direct biblical basis for what Hitler did*, but the Nazis were able to find support for their opinions from historically important Christians. Just look at this 1936 article giving to advice to those defending Antisemitism:

Argument 2: "There are decent Jews, after all!" — Counterargument: "This little phrase 'after all' proves that they are rare exceptions of no significance to our battle against Jewry as a whole. But Martin Luther saw four hundred years ago that this "decency," proven by charitable deeds done in as public a manner as possible, is nothing but a hidden cost of business, to repaid a thousand times by uneducated Germans. "Know, dear Christian, and have no doubts about it, that next to the Devil you have no more bitter, poisonous and determined enemy than a genuine Jew. . . If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!"

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/responses.htm

*though there was plenty of God sanctioned mass-murder.

[Patrick Degan]

For centuries, it was official Catholic doctrine that Jesus was "killed by the wicked Jews" (struck down by John XXIII in 1963 as part of the Vatican II reforms), and according to Jesus if the Church said it, it was so —in accordance to his commission to Peter that "whatever you declare bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven". The Church said Jews were guilty, and by Jesus' own words that meant they were counted guilty in Heaven as well. Which opened the way for them to be treated by whatever way the Church and believing Christians deemed fit.

[Darth Servo]

In any event, can you find me the bit of scripture where Jesus tells me to slaughter all the Jews? I can't.

I can find the part where the Jews take responsibility for it.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.

Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

According to biblical law, the death penalty is required for murder, along with countless other things.

[Darth Wong]

Heeeeee's back! And with cookie-cutter arguments!

# Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

# Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

# Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

# Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

# Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

# Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

# Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

# Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

# Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

# David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

# Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

# Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

# Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

# Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

# Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

# Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

# Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

# Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

# Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

# Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

# Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

# John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

# Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

# William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

# George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

# D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

# James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

# Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

# John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

# Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

# Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

# Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

# Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

# Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

# James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

# Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

# Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

# Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

# Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

# Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

# Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

# William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

# John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

# Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

# Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

# James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

# Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

# George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

# Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

# William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

# Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

# Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

# Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

# A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

# A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

# John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

list of current scientists with doctorates believing in creation:
1. Agard, E. Theo
2. Allan, James
3. Anderson, Kevin
4. Armstrong, Harold
5. Arndt, Alexander
6. Austin, Steven
7. Barnes, Thomas
8. Batten, Don
9. Baumgardner, John
10. Bergman, Jerry
11. Boudreaux, Edward
12. Byl, John
13. Catchpoole, David
14. Chadwick, Arthur
15. Chaffin, Eugene
16. Chittick, Donald
17. Cimbala, John
18. Clausen, Ben
19. Cole, Sid
20. Cook, Melvin
21. Cumming, Ken
22. Cuozzo, Jack
23. Darrall, Nancy
24. Dewitt, David
25. DeYoung, Donald
26. Downes, Geoff
27. Eckel, Robert
28. Faulkner, Danny
29. Ford, Dwain
30. Frair, Wayne
31. Gentry, Robert
32. Giem, Paul
33. Gillen, Alan
34. Gish, Duane
35. Gitt, Werner
36. Gower, D.B.
37. Grebe, John
38. Grocott, Stephen
39. Harrub, Brad
40. Hawke, George
41. Hollowell, Kelly
42. Holroyd, Edmond
43. Hosken, Bob
44. Howe, George
45. Humphreys, D. Russell
46. Javor, George
47. Jones, Arthur
48. Kaufmann, David
49. Kennedy, Elaine
50. Klotz, John
51. Koop, C. Everett
52. Korochkin, Leonid
53. Kramer, John
54. Lammerts, Walter
55. Lester, Lane
56. Livingston, David
57. Lopez, Raul
58. Marcus, John
59. Marsh, Frank
60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
61. McCombs, Charles
62. McIntosh, Andrew
63. McMullen, Tom
64. Meyer, Angela
65. Meyer, John
66. Mitchell, Colin
67. Morris, Henry
68. Morris, John
69. Mumma, Stanley
70. Parker, Gary
71. Peet, J. H. John
72. Rankin, John
73. Rosevear, David
74. Roth, Ariel
75. Rusch, Wilbert
76. Sarfati, Jonathan
77. Snelling, Andrew
78. Standish, Timothy
79. Taylor, Stephen
80. Thaxton, Charles
81. Thompson, Bert
82. Thomson, Ker
83. Vardiman, Larry
84. Veith, Walter
85. Walter, Jeremy
86. Wanser, Keith
87. Whitcomb, John
88. White, A.J.(Monty)
89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
90. Wile, Jay
91. Williams, Emmett
92. Wise, Kurt
93. Wolfrom, Glen
94. Zuill, Henr



Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.
Many people take evolution as a fact. Some do it because it appears in their science book. Others do it because they think that the majority believes it. There are many other reasons. It appears in many science books as a proven fact. But in reality it is a theory most lacking in proof. There are many scientific difficulties with evolution. Some of them are briefly explained below.

[A] The second law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy will degenerate with passing time (increasing entropy). But evolution requires just the opposite. Life forms increasing in order and complexity. From single celled organisms to multicellular animals. From invertebrates to vertebrates.

Evolution has no solution for the origin of matter. Evolutionists say that matter came from nothing or it does not have an origin (Big bang theory). But it is impossible because it is against I Law of thermodynamics-matter can’t be created.

[C] It has no solution for the origin of life. Evolutionist claim that life was formed from inorganic compounds. It can never be proved. Moreover it is against the law of biogenesis - life comes only from life.

[D] Thousands of missing links wreck the theory of evolution. If evolution was true, we should see in nature millions of ‘missing links’. But there are none. Some fossils are claimed to be missing links between man and ape. Some of the important ones are:

(1) Ramapithecus. Some considered it to have been a hominid (manlike ape) based on the evidence of a few teeth and a few fragments of jaw. Dr Jolly reported that a specie of baboon in Ethiopia has the same dental and jaws characteristics of Ramapithecus. Other anthropologists agree that Ramapithecus is simply an ape.

(2) Australopithecus. Claimed to have ape like skull and man like teeth. The size of its brain is 1/3 of modern man. It was 4 feet tall. Dr. Richard Leakey published evidence that it was a long armed, short-legged knuckle walker, similar to African apes.

(3) Peking man. In China, during the 1920’s, fragments of skull jaws and teeth were found near Peking. However, during World War II all the original bones were lost and were unavailable for examination. All these creatures had been killed and eaten and their skulls were preserved as trophies. Some prominent anthropologists believe the hunter was a true man. Peking “man” must then have been a giant ape.

(4) Java man. It was put together by the evidence of a femur, a skullcap and three molar teeth found within the range of 50 yards. Human skulls were found near it. So humans existed at that time. The femur was probably a human’s and the skull was from a giant ape. Before his death Dubous, the man who discovered Java man, changed his mind and decided that it was a giant gibbon.

(5) Neanderthal man It has a skeleton structure similar to that of modern man. His carnal capacity exceeded that of modern man. All anthropologists now believe that it was just a human.

(6) Nebraska man Claimed to be a pre-historic man on the basics of the evidence a single tooth. When more of its fossils where unearthed it turned out to be a pig.

(7) Piltdown man Based on the evidence of a piece of jaw, two molar teeth and a piece of skull it was claimed to be an ape-man. But in 1953 the hoax was exposed. The jawbone turned out to be that of a modern ape. The teeth were filed down and the bones were artificial colored to deceive the public. The ease with which these fraud fooled the world’s greatest authorities illustrates the powerful influence of pre-convinced ideas among evolutionists.

[E] The science of geology is in favor of creation rather than evolution. Geology is supposed to be be the one branch of science that proves evolution. But when all evidences are examined geology favors creation. Evolution requires intermediary fossils and paleontology can’t provide them. Furthermore they provide many proofs for creation. For e.g.-the human and dinosaur tracks which were found together in Texas. But this is impossible according to evolution because humans came to the world 70 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. There are many other proofs such as Polystrate fossils, frozen mammoth in Siberia etc.

[F] Neo-Darwinism is false. It teaches that many new life forms were the result of mutations. It is false because

1. Mutations are very rare.
2. 99.9% mutations are harmful.
3. Mutations are non-directional.

[G] Too much chance All living cells have DNA. A medium protein might have 300 Amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chains. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides, one with 1,000 links would exist in 4 to the power of 1000 different forms. This is equal to 10 to the power of 600. This number is 1 followed by 600 zeros. So the chance of the formation of a single cell is 1:10 to the power of 600. This is practically impossible.

[H] Wonderful examples that support creation The human brain has about 120,000,000,000,000 connections. Such complexity can’t come by mere chance. There is enough information to build an entire body in the DNA of every cell of a body. It is written in the DNA language. But who made this? Certainly a language won’t be made by accident. There has to be a God.

Time According to many evolutionists earth is millions of years old. This can be contradicted easily. Almost everything in science is manipulated to fit into the evolution modal. As a result we have a faulty dating system. When it was tested on a living snail, it read 27,000 years old. All dating systems are based on three assumptions, which can’t be proved. They are

1. The system under study is an isolated system.
2. The decay rate is constant. But modern researches showed it is not.
3. The initial quantity of the parent element is known. But it’s not.

There are many proofs for a young earth. One of them is the magnetic decay. The magnet of earth is losing its power. The gravitation is decreasing every year. It becomes half every 700 years. At this rate the gravity would so strong millions of years ago that the pre-historic man would not even be able to lift his leg. The other evidences for a young earth are...

1. Depths of meteoritic dust on moon
2. Efflux of helium in atmosphere
3. The shrinking size of the sun
4. Population
5. And much more.

your prob getting tired of reading all this stuff so here is a link if you care to read about einsteins discovery that there must be a super creator.http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... oofs.shtml

Anyways I havent writen back for awhile because Ive been busy.

Dan Hilmer

[Darth Wong]

My response:

Did you notice that only a handful of your listed authorities actually have expertise in the field? Or that many of them lived before the Theory of Evolution was published? Or that your list of 94 current scientists is insignificant compared to the tens of thousands who disagree? Or that there is no reason to believe they think it's a valid scientific theory rather than an admittedly irrational personal belief? Scientists are allowed to hold irrational personal beliefs, apart from their professional work. Or didn't you realize that either?

Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Does it occur to you that nobody WANTS to believe in atheism? Do you really think I relish the idea of disappearing into oblivion upon my own death? Don't you think I'd want to be reunited with my beloved pet dog someday?

How horribly self-absorbed and superficial is your thinking, that you actually buy into this ridiculous notion that atheism is about emotional desire rather than uncomfortable reality? Did you ever stop to imagine what it might be like to be an atheist?

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

That's an ironic thing to say, considering the fact that most scientists can make VASTLY more money peddling creationist books than they can by supporting the mainstream theory. In fact, given the great financial success of people like Dr. Behe, I have to ask why there aren't MORE published creation "science" books, especially with so much money and such low standards. If I were a biologist, I would be tempted to do it myself, pocket millions, and go laughing all the way to the bank. The fact that so few scientists reach out and grab this hanging moneybag is actually quite remarkable in light of the huge financial incentive available.

Many people take evolution as a fact. Some do it because it appears in their science book. Others do it because they think that the majority believes it. There are many other reasons. It appears in many science books as a proven fact. But in reality it is a theory most lacking in proof. There are many scientific difficulties with evolution. Some of them are briefly explained below.

[A] The second law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy will degenerate with passing time (increasing entropy). But evolution requires just the opposite. Life forms increasing in order and complexity. From single celled organisms to multicellular animals. From invertebrates to vertebrates.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what entropy is. In fact, complex systems tend to have MORE entropy than simple ones, not less. You've got it exactly backwards.

Evolution has no solution for the origin of matter. Evolutionists say that matter came from nothing or it does not have an origin (Big bang theory). But it is impossible because it is against I Law of thermodynamics-matter can’t be created.

Why do you think the matter of the universe must have an origin, as opposed to simply existing for all time? You already think God exists for all time, so why not apply that to the universe? At least we know the universe exists NOW, which is more than we can say for God. And what does this have to do with evolution theory, which was devised to solve a particular problem that has nothing to do with cosmology?

[C] It has no solution for the origin of life. Evolutionist claim that life was formed from inorganic compounds. It can never be proved. Moreover it is against the law of biogenesis - life comes only from life.

The law of biogenesis is not actually an ironclad scientific principle. People like you think that if something is called a "law", it must be superior to something called a "theory". That is not true; Einstein's Theory of Relativity is superior to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

And life didn't have to come from inorganic compounds. Chemical processes can produce organic compounds without life. Organic compounds are in fact the most volatile and reactive of chemicals, which is why the same elementary buildings blocks are used in explosives. Were you aware of that? That's why they are so quick to react.

[D] Thousands of missing links wreck the theory of evolution. If evolution was true, we should see in nature millions of ‘missing links’. But there are none. Some fossils are claimed to be missing links between man and ape. Some of the important ones are:

Wrong. Most animal carcasses are destroyed by natural processes before they can fossilize. They get eaten by other animals or decayed by bacteria. We still keep finding new species that we've never heard of before. We do NOT expect to ever construct a complete fossil record; there will always be missing pieces. It doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

(1) Ramapithecus. Some considered it to have been a hominid (manlike ape) based on the evidence of a few teeth and a few fragments of jaw. Dr Jolly reported that a specie of baboon in Ethiopia has the same dental and jaws characteristics of Ramapithecus. Other anthropologists agree that Ramapithecus is simply an ape.

(2) Australopithecus. Claimed to have ape like skull and man like teeth. The size of its brain is 1/3 of modern man. It was 4 feet tall. Dr. Richard Leakey published evidence that it was a long armed, short-legged knuckle walker, similar to African apes.

(3) Peking man. In China, during the 1920’s, fragments of skull jaws and teeth were found near Peking. However, during World War II all the original bones were lost and were unavailable for examination. All these creatures had been killed and eaten and their skulls were preserved as trophies. Some prominent anthropologists believe the hunter was a true man. Peking “man” must then have been a giant ape.

(4) Java man. It was put together by the evidence of a femur, a skullcap and three molar teeth found within the range of 50 yards. Human skulls were found near it. So humans existed at that time. The femur was probably a human’s and the skull was from a giant ape. Before his death Dubous, the man who discovered Java man, changed his mind and decided that it was a giant gibbon.

(5) Neanderthal man It has a skeleton structure similar to that of modern man. His carnal capacity exceeded that of modern man. All anthropologists now believe that it was just a human.

(6) Nebraska man Claimed to be a pre-historic man on the basics of the evidence a single tooth. When more of its fossils where unearthed it turned out to be a pig.

(7) Piltdown man Based on the evidence of a piece of jaw, two molar teeth and a piece of skull it was claimed to be an ape-man. But in 1953 the hoax was exposed. The jawbone turned out to be that of a modern ape. The teeth were filed down and the bones were artificial colored to deceive the public. The ease with which these fraud fooled the world’s greatest authorities illustrates the powerful influence of pre-convinced ideas among evolutionists.

Some of these claims are outright false, based no doubt on the authority of a creationist website you Googled. Others are seriously misinterpreted; of COURSE a "missing link" will have a smaller brain than a modern human. Why wouldn't it? And finally, you are literally talking about this puny list of 7 fossils as if this is the entirety of the evolutionary fossil record! Do you realize how spectacularly wrong this is?

Like all creationists, you focus on a handful of examples where somebody got caught cheating. Human beings try to cheat in their work; this happens in any field, from science to medicine to law to accounting. But they got caught, and not by religious people but by OTHER scientists. The existence of the occasional cheat does not invalidate the entire system he's working in, nor does it invalidate all of the other work being done. Moreover, it does not prove that there is some giant conspiracy; it only proves that people sometimes try to cheat: hardly a remarkable revelation. It's really only devastating if you are so ignorant of how science is conducted that you don't see how it could happen without some kind of great conspiracy in place.

[E] The science of geology is in favor of creation rather than evolution. Geology is supposed to be be the one branch of science that proves evolution. But when all evidences are examined geology favors creation. Evolution requires intermediary fossils and paleontology can’t provide them.

Have you ever tried talking to an actual paleontologist?

Furthermore they provide many proofs for creation. For e.g.-the human and dinosaur tracks which were found together in Texas. But this is impossible according to evolution because humans came to the world 70 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. There are many other proofs such as Polystrate fossils, frozen mammoth in Siberia etc.

Did you ever wonder why these amazing discoveries are only "documented" on creationist websites, not a legitimate scientific journal? Oh wait, I'm sure you will say that it's the giant conspiracy again.

[F] Neo-Darwinism is false. It teaches that many new life forms were the result of mutations. It is false because

1. Mutations are very rare.
2. 99.9% mutations are harmful.
3. Mutations are non-directional.

So many misconceptions here that it's hard to know where to start. First, mutations are not rare. In fact, they happen in every generation. You personally have numerous mutations in your genetic code. The process is not perfect; if mutation were rare, then most reproductions would have to be perfect. Second, the vast majority of mutations are neither harmful or beneficial; they are benign variations. And third, Darwinism REQUIRES mutations to be non-directional; the idea that some sort of pre-destination is required comes from religion, not science.

You are thinking of dramatic mutations, of the sort that Darwin once called "monstrosities" and which are irrelevant to evolution theory.

[G] Too much chance All living cells have DNA. A medium protein might have 300 Amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chains. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides, one with 1,000 links would exist in 4 to the power of 1000 different forms. This is equal to 10 to the power of 600. This number is 1 followed by 600 zeros. So the chance of the formation of a single cell is 1:10 to the power of 600. This is practically impossible.

I have a page discussing probability theory for people who need a refresher on the basic concepts. I suggest you read it.

[H] Wonderful examples that support creation The human brain has about 120,000,000,000,000 connections. Such complexity can’t come by mere chance.

Actually, intelligent designers always strive to design systems which are as simple and elegant as possible. You will never see a group of engineers go into a design meeting and say "Hey, let's make this new system as complicated as possible! I want to use as many components as possible, with as many connections as possible!" The enormous complexity of the typical biological system is proof of its jury-rigged nature, as opposed to intelligent design.

There is enough information to build an entire body in the DNA of every cell of a body. It is written in the DNA language. But who made this? Certainly a language won’t be made by accident. There has to be a God.

DNA is not a language. It is a complicated chemical arrangement.

Time According to many evolutionists earth is millions of years old. This can be contradicted easily. Almost everything in science is manipulated to fit into the evolution modal. As a result we have a faulty dating system. When it was tested on a living snail, it read 27,000 years old.

Did you ever wonder why creationists always talk about snails when they're attacking carbon-dating? Snails absorb bits of rock into their bodies. Think about that for a good long minute. Think about what it might mean.

All dating systems are based on three assumptions, which can’t be proved. They are

1. The system under study is an isolated system.
2. The decay rate is constant. But modern researches showed it is not.
3. The initial quantity of the parent element is known. But it’s not.

1. Isolated from what? Particle accelerators? Yes it is.
2. That's an outright lie. You can force decay by bombarding something with certain kinds of particles or radiation, but that would have recognizable side-effects of its own.
3. The initial quantity does not need to be known for certain dating types. And how you explain the complete depletion of such radioisotopes?

There are many proofs for a young earth. One of them is the magnetic decay. The magnet of earth is losing its power.

The magnetic field of Earth fluctuates over time and has even reversed in the past. It is not on a steady decay.

The gravitation is decreasing every year. It becomes half every 700 years. At this rate the gravity would so strong millions of years ago that the pre-historic man would not even be able to lift his leg.

That may be the most hilariously ignorant thing I've ever heard.

The other evidences for a young earth are...

1. Depths of meteoritic dust on moon
2. Efflux of helium in atmosphere
3. The shrinking size of the sun
4. Population
5. And much more.

Have you ever tried asking real scientists about this stuff, instead of talking only to other creationists or reading websites?

your prob getting tired of reading all this stuff so here is a link if you care to read about einsteins discovery that there must be a super creator.http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... oofs.shtml

Einstein said that the idea of God was "childish". You're grossly misrepresenting the man.

Anyways I havent writen back for awhile because Ive been busy.

Dan Hilmer

Too busy to answer any of the points I made in my previous message, I see.

It's sad how each creationist always thinks he's making new and devastating arguments. I have literally seen EVERY SINGLE ONE of your arguments before, with almost no variation. Worse yet, I have discussed them on my website, which you were obviously too lazy (or perhaps more accurately, too afraid) to read. Not only are you no scientist, but you're not even an individual thinker. You don't read points and respond to them; you just search the Internet for the articles which seem most convincing to you, and then you repeat them to others in the hope that they will work.

If you want to grow up to be a thinker, you will have to learn to think on your own, young man. That means you need to develop your ability to read points, understand them, and then either identify logical flaws therein or concede the point. Instead, you simply ignore them and look for something else to hurl at your opponent. That's no way to think, young man. Your parents have clearly suppressed your critical learning, which is a tragedy, but when you're an adult, you won't be able to use your parents as an excuse any more.

[Feil]

list of current scientists with doctorates believing in creation:
1. Agard, E. Theo
2. Allan, James
3. Anderson, Kevin
4. Armstrong, Harold
5. Arndt, Alexander
6. Austin, Steven
7. Barnes, Thomas
8. Batten, Don
9. Baumgardner, John
10. Bergman, Jerry
11. Boudreaux, Edward
12. Byl, John
13. Catchpoole, David
14. Chadwick, Arthur
15. Chaffin, Eugene
16. Chittick, Donald
17. Cimbala, John
18. Clausen, Ben
19. Cole, Sid
20. Cook, Melvin
21. Cumming, Ken
22. Cuozzo, Jack
23. Darrall, Nancy
24. Dewitt, David
25. DeYoung, Donald
26. Downes, Geoff
27. Eckel, Robert
28. Faulkner, Danny
29. Ford, Dwain
30. Frair, Wayne
31. Gentry, Robert
32. Giem, Paul
33. Gillen, Alan
34. Gish, Duane
35. Gitt, Werner
36. Gower, D.B.
37. Grebe, John
38. Grocott, Stephen
39. Harrub, Brad
40. Hawke, George
41. Hollowell, Kelly
42. Holroyd, Edmond
43. Hosken, Bob
44. Howe, George
45. Humphreys, D. Russell
46. Javor, George
47. Jones, Arthur
48. Kaufmann, David
49. Kennedy, Elaine
50. Klotz, John
51. Koop, C. Everett
52. Korochkin, Leonid
53. Kramer, John
54. Lammerts, Walter
55. Lester, Lane
56. Livingston, David
57. Lopez, Raul
58. Marcus, John
59. Marsh, Frank
60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
61. McCombs, Charles
62. McIntosh, Andrew
63. McMullen, Tom
64. Meyer, Angela
65. Meyer, John
66. Mitchell, Colin
67. Morris, Henry
68. Morris, John
69. Mumma, Stanley
70. Parker, Gary
71. Peet, J. H. John
72. Rankin, John
73. Rosevear, David
74. Roth, Ariel
75. Rusch, Wilbert
76. Sarfati, Jonathan
77. Snelling, Andrew
78. Standish, Timothy
79. Taylor, Stephen
80. Thaxton, Charles
81. Thompson, Bert
82. Thomson, Ker
83. Vardiman, Larry
84. Veith, Walter
85. Walter, Jeremy
86. Wanser, Keith
87. Whitcomb, John
88. White, A.J.(Monty)
89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
90. Wile, Jay
91. Williams, Emmett
92. Wise, Kurt
93. Wolfrom, Glen
94. Zuill, Henr

Sure, they have 94 Ph.D's. But they only have three Steves!

[Ender]

Wait, gravity has a half-life now? And said half-life is 700 years?

Wow. THAT is a new one.

[Darth Wong]

The really sad thing is that creationists are ageless: you really can't tell the 50 year old ones from the 15 year old ones, because their thinking has become calcified. All they do is repeat the same "talking points": something which requires neither skill or maturity.

[Darth Wong]

Wat, gravity has a half-life now? And said half-life is 700 years?

Wow. THAT is a new one.

You're right. Now that I think about it, I've never actually heard that one before.

[Companion Cube]

Wait, gravity has a half-life now? And said half-life is 700 years?

Wow. THAT is a new one.

Hence the shape of the pyramids, you see! The Egyptians had to counter their ancient-world super-gravity.

[PeZook]

You're right. Now that I think about it, I've never actually heard that one before.

That was golden. I guess all those historical accounts about longbows having a range of circa 300 meters, the exact same range they have when built today were grossly wrong. Or altered by a shadowy cabal of evil scientists defending evolution theory.

[Graeme Dice]

That was golden. I guess all those historical accounts about longbows having a range of circa 300 meters, the exact same range they have when built today were grossly wrong. Or altered by a shadowy cabal of evil scientists defending evolution theory.

I'd much rather think about just how awesome somebody like Gilgamesh would be today, given that he would have weighed around 100 tons.

[The Vortex Empire]

Wow, so gravity is half as powerful every 700 years now? Medieval Knights must have been pretty strong to deal with double the gravity, and imagine how strong Roman Legionnaires would have to be.

[Zixinus]

It's sad how each creationist always thinks he's making new and devastating arguments. I have literally seen EVERY SINGLE ONE of your arguments before, with almost no variation. Worse yet, I have discussed them on my website, which you were obviously too lazy (or perhaps more accurately, too afraid) to read. Not only are you no scientist, but you're not even an individual thinker. You don't read points and respond to them; you just search the Internet for the articles which seem most convincing to you, and then you repeat them to others in the hope that they will work.

If you want to grow up to be a thinker, you will have to learn to think on your own, young man. That means you need to develop your ability to read points, understand them, and then either identify logical flaws therein or concede the point. Instead, you simply ignore them and look for something else to hurl at your opponent. That's no way to think, young man. Your parents have clearly suppressed your critical learning, which is a tragedy, but when you're an adult, you won't be able to use your parents as an excuse any more.

Young man?

[Zixinus]

(Moderators, please merge this with my previous one, thank you).

I have the mental image of a pissed-off looking Yoda standing on the guy's desk and lecturing the kid. I wouldn't be surprised if he's younger then me.

[Darth Servo]

And to think this moron stated in his second email that he wasn't attacking evolution. Of course no creationist ever does.

[Darth Servo]

oops, forgot this considering the supposed "list of scientists who reject evolution":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

[DPDarkPrimus]

The gravity comment makes me hope that he has something truly amazingly original to say still, something stupid the likes of which we have yet to hear.

[Kitsune]

Well, i have heard the gravity thing something like 15 years ago and suggested that many constructions of the past would have simply collapse under its own weight

[Aquatain]

How the hell do one explain the presence of tailbones in our asses without resorting to evolution..i really do wonder why God put them there..