Hey if you got some real proof, please feel free to share it.

Thank you Jean, for more displays of ignorant assertions. You are just pathetic.

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampr-E

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

Date: 1592

The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

definition of religion is:

Main Entry: religion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:

Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.

faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

Evolution Is The Religion:

look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.

Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

Submitted by Anonymouse on January 2, 2011 - 7:13am.

 

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist home base and bring more chumps with chimp envy.

 

Again with the "my" and the "challenge".

You're just lucky that spamming is allowed here.

-->your feeble rebuttals serve a lost cause! and you are the one spamming on this thread. you never responded with proper info. you did waste space.

please prove evolution of life from nothing !

demonstrate millions of years in real time! Oh thats right you do not have a time machine for morons! you just imagine millions of years because someone else projected unseen time into your numb skull. you just put faith in it and then you have the chump standard to call it knowledge based in observation.

does it hurt your brain to have to think for yourself?

I do not need to invent stupid theories for idiots to hide behind. nor would I say it takes too long  to see happening in realtime. I do not need mutations and natural selection and fossils to prove a fact that supports a worldview that is a majority in the worlds population even if we people of are not on the same page as to the truth identity of the ALMIGHTY CREATOR. the fact remains that  the need for communion with our CREATOR ALMIGHTY is relevent becuase there is a issue of life and death for us all.   HE WHO IS ETERNAL /self existent ->  YAHUWAH and He manifests HIMSELF  in so many many ways beyond your atheist capacity to grasp.

since there was by your foolish beliefe no life to evolve all you have is death/nonliving matter/materials that can be found today in living matter.

I  can show through repeatable science that life only comes from life fully funtional with no need to evolve. It happens every day.

A man by the name of Louis Pasture had just finished a set of experiments that proved that micro organisms lived in the air. This was a finding that everyone was waiting for. The reason was there had been a scientific fight between two theories. One was called spontaneous generation and the other theory dictated that life comes from life. The spontaneous generation camp would quickly point out that maggots appeared from meat, that mosquitoes came from a pond or the mice would appear from warm moist soil. How could a maggot appear where there were no other maggots present? How could mold appear on bread where no mold was present? They concluded that matter contained the vital material and energy that would cause life to spontaneously generate if combined with other chemicals or conditions that were right. in 1862 we see that Louis Pasture indeed published the proofs that bacteria is in the air and that is were the "new life" comes from and effectively demolished the theory of spontaneous generation once and for all. In fact, the Law of Biogenesis, that life only comes from life, was formed in part thanks to Pasture's work. We call curing milk pasteurization in honor of Louis's work in bacteria. Pasture had once and for all killed the silly notion that life can come from matter or did he?
 

scientists of all persuasions have missed a critical issue when discussing the validity of evolution. And that is evolution has a pillar, that is a support beam to the theory as a whole, which is based on an assumption that has been disproved centuries ago. This fact is repeatable, demonstrative, and very predicable. In fact, the assumption that life only comes from life, and not inorganic matter, is given the highest level that any assumption is given in science and that is the level of a Law. If there is anything that science knows to be true it is Laws. Laws trump theory. If you take out the idea of spontaneous generation from evolution, I cannot see how the house of evolution can stand. If indeed spontaneous generation is that critical to evolution, then the Law of Bio Genesis trumps the theory of evolution.

present day, one might be mystified to see many great scientists still peddling the evolution myth which is based on a retired old idea. Not only that, we are forcing teachers to teach our kids this myth. One side says that life comes from life and this is observed 100% of the time with not one observable inconsistency, the other side being satanic dumbass monkey wannabe bitchnugget drones says life comes from inorganic matter at some time in the past, which has never been observed or duplicated in labs once ever! Yes, that means no repeatable facts of science.  I am not sure about you as you will have to make up your own immaterial mind, but I think I would place my bets on something that is right 100% of the time and not rely on something that is right 0% of the time as in your case according to your false manmade religion for drones.

So why do so called scientists claim to posses so much evidence of evolution, to the point that the establishment agrees with them?

Simply because these asshole scientists had an assumption where they then went out to find the proofs to support the assumption.

However, if your foundational assumption is wrong, the house of evidence you build on that foundation becomes very suspect. The idea that life can erupt from nonliving matter has been soundly dismissed by the strongest demonstrative methods known to science and as such, the evidence that support that assumption become very suspect. It does not matter how eloquently and skilfully the evidence is built, if the foundation is falling apart the building must be condemned. evolution cannot occur in the first place because it has no foundation in science.

This is also a repeatable fact. you are mentaly deaf dumb and blind .

 Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding



So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&ampr-E

Function: noun

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

Date: 1592

The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b :an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

definition of religion is:

Main Entry: religion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith <-atheists pay attention to your hypocrisy (you are just closet pagans who worships a manmade entity called mother nature) You are for pro choice which is really pro murder of unborn humans. pity no atheists were aborted through that mentality.

Another dictionary explains "religion" in these terms:

Religion: a belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of, a higher, unseen controlling power or powers with the emotion or morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief or worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life.

faith

Pronunciation: 'fAth

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/

Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

Date: 13th century

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

You will notice that the Webster's definition of "faith" is the same as the Biblical definition. I think that we can, in simple terms, explain the faithful of a religion as those who have become an institution by their faith, which is belief in something in which there is no scientific proof. If you can't see it, and no one has ever seen it, and there is no proof that it happened then to believe it is certainly faith and when it is instituted with a group of others, it is a religion.

Evolution Is The Religion:

look at ways in which those who believe in evolution are faithful in their religious beliefs.

1. Belief in a "Big Bang," that they have no proof of.

2. Belief in life which resulted from chemical processes, of which they have no proof.

3. Belief in an old Earth, for which no convincing proof has ever been found.

4. Belief in macro-evolution without producing any transitionary forms.

5. Belief in uniformitarianism, that all environmental processes have always been the same on Earth, with no proof of that hypothesis.

First, since evolution is a religion, it should not be subsidized by the government. To me this seems like what the ACLU terms a violation to the separation of Church and State, as accorded in the Constitution. Billions of dollars of government grants are given each year for the furtherment of evolutional study.

Secondly, evolution should not be taught as a theory or fact in public schools. This is another clear violation of the constitution. I have proved that evolution is a faith, and if one looks at it clearly, it takes more faith to believe in it than other faiths do. So, lets get it out of our schools.

 I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge. now run along back to your atheist

 Genesis 1:1 States that earth was created (Perhaps billions of years ago) Science proves earth to be 4.5 billion years old

However,

Genesis 1:2 states the earths surface was being restored because it became dark and void because Satan had defiled it. God restored the surface in preparation of the creation of man. (Perhaps 6000 years ago)

It is recorded that human civilization began approximately 3500 to 5000 B.C 

To the information that we have all of this aligns perfectly well with the Bible.

Submitted by Anonymouse on January 2, 2011 - 10:57am.

I accept  your failure to meet my posted challenge.

And I accept your failure to understand what any of those words actually mean.

now run along back to your atheist home base for fartards

We seem to have reached the point where we both just have to cut and paste our replies.

Kewl.

--------------->LOL  that is what I expect from your kind!  ignore and rant! put them together and you get an atheist drone chump with chimp envy who will do tricks for treats.

your whole world view is satanic. and it is entirely cut and pasted from babylonian times.

do want to know the difference between you and hitler?

Genesis 1:1 States that

 Genesis 1:1 States that earth was created (Perhaps billions of years ago) Science proves earth to be 4.5 billion years old

WRONG! you are being a scamwad.    lets take a look at your profound fratarted statement!

:PERHAPS billions of years ago!   stop right there and freeze, scumbag!

"perhaps" is not how real science is practiced when claiming facts based on observation. dumb ass drone!

then you continue with: science proves the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.  did you copy and paste that lie or did you do use science which means you actually tested a 4.5 billion years in real time to get that sense of time? science does not do anything, dumb ass. it is not a person. only a person can prove something using the scientific method.  So infact you did not prove 4.5 billion years to say you know what you are talking about when preaching the earth is 4.5 billion years old. it is clear you chose to believe what someone told you and you put faith in what they said.

your faith as an atheist is misplaced.

ok you assume its true because you are a chump who hates the idea of being accountable to YAHUWAH when you die.

it is pathetic to see atheist drones try in vain and with contempt to interpret the modern currupt translations of scriptures of the WORD of YAHUWAH. 

However,

Genesis 1:2 states the earths surface was being restored because it became dark and void because Satan had defiled it. God restored the surface in preparation of the creation of man. (Perhaps 6000 years ago)

------>ok now you are preaching a new story. I have heard it before.  you have a satanic demon in you, that much is clear.  Your altered version of reality is your delusion and your borrowed lie that reinterprets history is proof you are just a programmed drone.  trying to twist  the creation account to somehow allow you to use words like perhaps is truly a failure .

you are not reading the WORD OF YAHUWAH as your source.  that is too bad for you. for if you were you would have a knowledge that cannot be replaced with assumptions.

It is recorded that human civilization began approximately 3500 to 5000 B.C 

To the information that we have all of this aligns perfectly well with the Bible.

----->the time line is nearing 6000 years  and the global flood is 4500 years ago.

todays world is already a post apcalypstic world.  we are living on continental mountains the rose when the sub terrainean water chambers  emptied of water and compressed down to become  the ocean basins we see today.  all the fossils we find bearied in the mud are clustered dead creature including humans.

that is why we also find fossilised marine auqatic remains at the top of mountains.

it is common sense to apply the records of history as documented in scritpures of YAHUWAH to better understand the world and the rotating universe we see everyday with no tricks or atheist delusions of a moving earth.  science means to know from experience. anyone can look up and see the universe is moving and not the earth. just because an atheist cartoon says it is the earth that is moving does not make it a fact of science.

the delusions con of man runs deep.

Submitted by jcgadfly on January 25, 2011 - 11:05am.

 this is how the theory of evolution works.  it branches out to people who like getting screwed from behind by people just like them. PEOPLE who prefer the fuck thy neighbor world view as opposed to the love thy neighbor . It is these materialistic humanistic pagan mystic nihilistic selfish humans who laugh.

 

BIOGENESIS trumps every aspect of evolutiuon

 

My thanks to Thunderf00t

"Evolution talks about the diversity of life - not how it began"

Are you having fun knocking down your straw man definition of evolution?

--->lol more athleats foot that is moldy and mentally fartarded.

evolution preaches to the atheist drone choire.  so sayeth the scumbag so sayeth the goats.

a strawman is a character with a drone mentality who refuses to think for himself. is that why you relate to a strawman? DRONE!

evolution is a hand me down pagan false relgion copy and pasted  for weak minded drones who are easily bought for selfish pride and material gains that will only last as long they have their health.

evolution talks about killing off the weak and innocent out of selfish convenience and self material gains. examples of this include abortions, mass genocide of humans that is legalised and supported by non believers in YAHUWAH who says thou shall not kill.  then you have your queers who protest for repsect because they are heathens who pervert their own humanity, and then there is the moral degradationof society as a result of preaching to young impressionable mind that you are an animal and that animals must forsake humanity to survive.

the non believer in YAHUWAH says,

 "you have nothing to look forward to in life except death and from death is where you came from. because we atheists know for a fact that dead non living things came into being billions of years ago. and we atheist / satanic  minions also know that dead non living things that came from nothing billions of years ago evolved into life which we call scum. and from this wonderful scum we know it evolvedinto a scumbag like you! and so now you know what we atheist scumbags know. so go outinto the world and live like you are going to die tommorrow. because dead things suck and we do not like knowing where we  atheists know we  came from and where we are going to end up."  quote the loser evermore.

 satanic humanist moral depravity know no depts.   teenage pregnancy , increase in youth crime rate, millions of abortions daily , same sex marriage, dictatorships running wild and satanic islam is on the rise to top it off. 

actually variation within a limited kind explains the diversity of life. you have different kinds of humans but they are still humans anothing else inless you want to fuck with the dna and combine it with animals? or maybe make clones ? or perhaps mutate it horribly.

tell me wadfly, do you take pleaure in the killing of millions of unborn humans daily as you give thanks to natural selection and killing the weakest links that cannot defend themselves?

when a bitch conplains about her rights to kill her baby does that rock your atheist world? do you say to her, its just an animal, it is not even human yet.

 You know hitler felt the same way.

do you want to know the difference between you and hitler? you are just a twig on a branch of the tree of evil. hitler was a bigger twig than you.

He also followed the dogma of evolution. and he put natural selection into practice by killiing humans in the most vile ways including abortion.

abortion is practiced by people like you who believe unborn humans are not human.

 I would love in on this but I get a headache whenever I read a post that claims scientific evidence without understanding fundamental scientific method.  Also, try to keep your posts to a few paragraphs, especially when you are making no sense.  I'm not going to name any names but we all know who we are.  

Anyone that believes that the earth is 6000 years old is either delusional, brainwashed or has sever gaps in their education.  One more hint, please don't post entire paragraphs in bold it makes you seem as though you spit when you talk.  It also makes anything you say sound crazy.  For example I can say something like.  They have fresh bread at the bakery.  or THEY have fresh bread at the bakery! can you feel the spit?... 

P.S. Ad Hominem attacks make you seem unfocused, and do nothing to further your argument.

Thank you for your consideration.

Two Vastly Different World Views, with Vastly Different Conclusions:
Let's not kid ourselves.  What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself.

Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of T-I-M-E, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?

It's also about God's future judgment of mankind.  That's because Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it.  See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12.

Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood.  Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.  

Polystrate Fossils: 
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils."  Such fossils are found all over the world.  They usually consist of fossil  trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple  layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. ^1,2,3,4  They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. ³   Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it.  For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate  tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet  long,  ^5,6 and, at least  one was 40 feet long. ^5,6,7  

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 ⁸  have both roots and rootlets attached.  Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in  The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. ⁹  Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and  broken-off  Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets. ⁹ 

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. ⁹  This strongly  suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were  uprooted and re-deposited there.  

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France.  Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is  Axel Heiberg ^10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access.  One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils  constitute a crucial phenomenon  both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition.  Curiously  a  paper on  polystrate fossils appears to be a  'black swan’  in geological literature.  Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of  the relevant  phenomena was never published.  However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils.  In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." ¹²

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is (still) the case has more to do with one's personal bias against the concept of a Creator / God to whom we might very well have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions of years old Earth that it requires (to appear plausible).  However, T-I-M-E is simply not enough: not even BILLIONS of years of it.

See also The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest ¹³ and  The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests"  ¹⁴ by Harold Coffin.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today,  nor are they found  forming on the bottom of the sea. ¹⁵  Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it  dies. ¹⁶  Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a  flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.  See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes:  According to  Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass."  ¹⁷

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in  igneous and  metamorphic rocks.  The process of  formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." ¹⁷

Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in  that  massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata.  This  must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state. 

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would  think that a million  years would be more than enough  time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone,  yet we have an example of sediments which  are said to be  80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in  a wet and plastic state when an earth movement  caused them to be forced  up into the (supposedly  much) "younger" sediments.  Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary  method of  "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. ^17,18,19 

Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced  sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick.  One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin  laminations up to 25 feet thick  ^10,11,12  The third eruption was a  lava flow,  which  turned into a hot mud-flow as it  crossed the Toutle River.  This hot mud flow not only diverted  the  river, but carved a 17 mile long  series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours.  They call it the Little Grand Canyon of  the Toutle River." ^20,21,22   And to this very day, the neither the mass media, nor any  popular  "science" publications have told the public what happened. ²³  For more on this see  Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:  
In Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded  through solid  basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is  300 to 500 feet deep.  See references below for more information. ^{24,25,26,27,28} 

Observations at an Australian Beach:  
At Greenmount  Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: "clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed  by  the separation of  normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark  in color.. The  layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed." ²⁹   Emphasis Added

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of  sand  from  (a) sand bar (on) the Tweed River and  carrying it  by ship several kilometres north to the southern  Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach."  ²⁹  See also Talking About Geology / Varves. ³⁰  Emphasis Added

Spontaneous Sorting of Layers:
Laboratory experiments have shown  that spontaneous sorting and layering occurs with a sand, mud and clay slurry.  When the mixture slows down, the sand, mud  and clay will  spontaneously precipitate (settle out) and form individual layers.   Dr. Guy Berthault  has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. ^31,32,33  Those who wish to see for themselves,  may do so by simply ordering one of the following videos :  Evolution: Fact or Belief?  Or  Experiments in Stratification. 

Turbidity Currents:
A turbidity current is  an  underwater  mud flow, the discovery  of  which caused somewhat of a revolution in  geology.  As  a  result, many sedimentary  strata layers throughout  the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites. ^{34,35,36,37,38,39,40}

For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard, ⁴¹ said the following in his paper on this topic: 

My physical geology professor said, "Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it  with a grain of salt."  After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the courageous professor's advice. To  paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while ... recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours. {1}  Emphasis Added

In  1972 Burgert  identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon's Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University's Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world's sedimentary rocks might be turbidites. Emphasis Added

Modern geologists discarded the terms flysch sediments and geosyncline because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline  and adopting the new catastrophism is almost a shock to ... creationists. Geologists are finally beginning to grudgingly agree with ... creationists about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of  a global  flood.  The idea of  geosynclines is  unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics.   Emphasis Added

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world  we see  almost  everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake&quot  layered strata.  Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states.  Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and  millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits  or river deltas.  ^42,43  Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. ^44,45  First because there is virtually no evidence of  erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of  the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas.  That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.

We can say  for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine  fossils that are buried  in  much  of this strata.  For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself,  old Earth geologists  have said  that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six  different occasions.  Young Earth geologists say it  was probably only once.

A "Whale" of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry. 

"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected  anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.

 

"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long.

^46,47

More Fossil Whales:

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"   ⁴⁸

"Bones of Whale have been found 440  feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." ⁴⁸

Marine Fossils In The Mountains:  
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea  shells and other marine fossils.  These include the Sierras,  the Swiss Alps, the  Himalayas and many more. ^{49,50,51,52,53}   For more on this subject see the following  video ⁵⁴ by Dr. Walter Brown.

Frozen Mammoths:   
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large  numbers in  Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe.  Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs  meat from them when they became exposed due to melting  ice and snow: that  is, if wolves didn't get their first.  For those who want to know more see:  Frozen Mammoths. 

Fissures In The Rocks:  
In caves and fissures in  England  and Whales  and all over western  Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the  mammoth, hippopotamus,  rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf  and cave lion.  In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered. ⁵⁵

"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay -- a flat-topped hill  near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon  and Lyons -- there is a fissure filled with animal bones.  'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a  hill  isolated on  all sides?'  asked Albert Gaudry, professor at  the Jardin des  Plantes.   According to him, the  bones in this cleft are mostly  broken  and splintered  into innumerable... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of  prey;  nor  have  they been broken by man.  Nevertheless,  the remains  of  wolf  were ... abundant, together  with those  of  cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and  deer... Prestwich thought that the animal bones... were found in  common  heaps because,  '... [they] had  fled [there]  to  escape  the  rising waters.'"  ^55,56

Erratic Boulders: 
All  over Europe and  North America are found extremely large "boulders" which  were transported many miles by some mysterious force -- the most likely of  which  is a  massive flood  that swept over the Continents.  Concerning these Velikovsky writes :

"Some erratics are enormous.  The block  near Conway,  New Hampshire, is  90  by 40 by 38 feet and weighs  about  10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship.  Equally large is Mohegan Rock,  which towers over the town of Montville, in  Connecticut.  The great flat  erratic  in  Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and  covers three quarters of  an acre;  the Ototoks erratic, thirty  miles south  of  Calgary, Alberta, consists  of  two pieces  of  quartzite 'derived from at least 50 miles to the west,'  [and weighs] over 18,000 tons." ⁵⁷

Was the Flood Local or Worldwide? 
In the late 60's and early 70's:

"Two American  oceanographic  vessels pulled  from  the bottom of  the Gulf of  Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment.  Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera.  While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a  chemical record of  the temperature and salinity of  the water.  When they  reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the  bottom.  A cross-section  of  that bottom ... carries a record  of climates  that  may go back more  than 100  million  years.  Every  inch of  core  may represent as  much as 1000  years of  the earth's  past." ⁵⁸  Emphasis Added

"The  cores  were analyzed  in  two  separate  investigations,  by Cesare  Emiliani  of the University  of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and  Nicholas Shackleton  of Cambridge University.  Both analyses indicated a dramatic  change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood  of  fresh water  into the Gulf of  Mexico.  Using  radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of  the  University  of Miami  dated  the  flood at  about 11,600  years  ago." ¹  To Emiliani, all  the  questions and  arguments are  minor  beside  the  single fact that a vast  amount  of  fresh  melt  water  poured  into the Gulf  of  Mexico.   'We  know  this,'  he  says,  'because  the  oxygen  isotope ratios of  the  foraminifera shells  show a  marked  temporary decrease  in  the  salinity  of  the waters  of  the Gulf  of  Mexico.   It  clearly  shows that  there  was  a major  period  of  flooding  from 12,000  to 10,000  years ago... There  was no question that  there  was a  flood  and  there  is  no  question that  it  was  a  universal  flood. ⁵⁸  Emphasis Added

"Emiliani's  findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett  and Shackleton,  who concluded  that there was a 'massive inpouring of  glacial melt water  into the Gulf  of Mexico via the Mississippi  River system.  At  the time of maximum  inpouring of  this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent." ⁵⁸

The Black Sea Speaks:

"Science... has found evidence for  a massive deluge  that may ... have  inspired  Noah's tale.  About 7,500 years ago, a  flood  poured ten  cubic miles of  water a day -- 130 times more than  flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black  Sea, abruptly  turning the formerly  freshwater lake into a  brackish inland sea." ⁵⁹ Emphasis Added

"In  1993,  William Ryan  and  Walter Pitman  of  Columbia University's  Lamont-Doherty Earth  Observatory  dug up cores of sediment  from  the bottom of  the Black sea.  The cores showed  that  the sea's  outer margins had once been dry  land, indicating it had been two-thirds  its  present size.  Furthermore, over  the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer  of sediment that  could only have been deposited  during  a  flood.  The researchers  also found that within that layer saltwater  mollusks appear, all  from the Mediterranean and all dating from around  7600 years ago." ⁵⁹ Emphasis Added

 

Miracle or Worldwide Flood?

"Such a hypothesis would  require assumption of a  highly  unlikely pattern of  faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras  are followed, everywhere at the  same distance and  the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras,  the two waves  preserving their  separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and  without ever  becoming mixed..." 

"It  would  be  easy to repeat this investigation for  almost every critical zone  fossil  or  fauna throughout the geological column  for  hundreds,  perhaps thousands of... cases.  The conclusions would be the same.  In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we  would have  to  'invoke a miracle', if,  for example, we were to assume  anything but world-wide  contemporaneous  deposition for  each of  the 55 ammonite  zones of the Jurassic.  Not  all  of  them occur everywhere, but wherever  two or more  are  found in  superposition  they occur  in the same order. ⁶⁰ Arkell (1957,  p.  L112) ⁶¹  summarized  the picture of  ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:   Emphasis Added

'Evolution is above all  very uneven.  Certain periods were outstandingly productive  of  new and verile  forms  which  often  seem  to have sprung  into existence  from  nowhere ...  and  to have become dominant  almost simultaneously over a large part of  the world ...  

How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is  a task  for the  future  to determine.'" ^60,61  Emphasis added                                                                                                    

Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:
The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself. ⁶² 

"I regard the failure to find  a  clear  'vector  of progress' in  life's  history as  the most  puzzling  fact of the  fossil record." 

And that:
  
"Heretofore, we  have thrown up our hands in frustration at  the lack  of expected pattern in  life's  history --  or  we  have  sought to impose  a  pattern that  we hoped  to find on a  world that does not really display it...  If we can develop a...theory of mass extinction, we  may finally understand  why life has thwarted our expectations, and...extract an  unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos." ⁶²   Stephen Jay Gould      Emphasis added.

"One of  the ironies of  the evolution-creation debate is  that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the  fossil record shows a  detailed  and orderly progression..." ⁶³   David M. Raup   Emphasis added.

"only  15-20%  of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic  periods appearing in 'correct'  consecutive order."  ⁶⁴  John Woodmorappe   Emphasis added       
                    
"Any sequence in which an  older  fossil occurs  above a  younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may  be  from  millimeters to  many meters  ... (and) is produced by  the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since  these processes occur to  an extent in  virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic  disorder  at some scale is  probably  a  common  feature of  the  fossil  record." ⁶⁵  Emphasis Added           

"The  extent of disorder ...is not well documented;  however, the widespread occurrence  of anomalies  ... suggest that disorder should  be taken  seriously..."  ref. 61  p. 234.  W. J. Arkell.   Emphasis added 

"Examination  of Britain's record of  the Ice Age levels  discloses  a  'complex  interbedding of drift sheets derived from  different sources.'  'When  we add the additional complications  imposed  by thin  drifts, scanty  interglacial  deposits, and  the  frequent  presence  in  fossil-bearing beds of  secondary [displaced]  fossils  derived from  the reworking of older horizons,  we get a  truly difficult overall problem ... All in  all, British glacial  stratigraphic research  has encountered  exceptional  difficulties,' writes  R. F. Flint, professor of geology  at Yale University. ^66,67  Immanuel Velikovski   Emphasis added
   

A Note about "Problematica": 
"Problematica"  is the "code word" Paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are "mixed" in with  one's they shouldn't be with.   

If  one  were to perform an internet search on this word he or  she  may be  surprised at  how many web pages there are on it: especially considering that the word isn't even in the Dictionary: at least not an English one.  
For more on this see: Sea-Sloths and Out of Order Fossils.   

For those seeking more information on this Worldwide Flood which almost  certainly did occur, or  how a Boat with Thousands of Animals onboard could possibly have survived Here is  a  link that may  answer  some of  your  questions.  If not, feel free to email the  author, or to take the  IQ test.   

Copyright, 2006, Randy S. Berg; 
 Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.     

⁶⁰ Emphasis Added

Humanism: The Atheist's Religion!!!

 

the earth is proven to be 6000 years old by eyewitness testimony and written records  and through real science based on observations of data that amounts to a huge mountain sized pile of facts . also the fact of geocentricity refutes any theory of a big bang from nothing to evolve.

Also you would be wise to consider the fact the we all live on mountainous continents and the remaining ocean basins serve as a reminder that we live in a post apcalytpic world.

any attempt to say what happend beyond 6000 years ago when noone was present to give an account is futile. you would have to lie and invent non existent facts to support your lies.  enter the closet pagans atheist drones who pretend they are wise when they are really fools in disguise.

 

You relate to nothing because you believe in nothing as a starting point for evolution.

 

Wow, a great quote from the movie 'Seven' comes to mind.

"David Mills: I've been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading "Guns and Ammo", masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, "Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!"? Yeah. Do you guys do that? "

I'm sorry to have to resort to an ad hominem attack but really the position has been refuted so well in the past as for you to have no position.  All is left is trying to understand why someone that can dress themselves in the morning still believes in this idiotic fairytale.  Do you at any point become aware of your idiocies? Do you perhaps stop and ponder for a moment how idiotically contradicting the bible is?  

I'm really curious if your delusion is marked by brief moments of lucidity or if you constantly believe this crap.

 --------->

OK dumb ass drone , you got it! takes notes and pass them on to youur fellow scumbags who believe they are the offspring of scum from billions of years ago.

To summarize MoM's screed.

Atheists give people information and teach them how to think so they can gather new information.

Christians (Yahuwah Believers) like to keep people stupid and subservient.

Submitted by B166ER on February 9, 2011 - 2:45pm.

Evolution and the American Abortion Mentality

by Paul G. Humber, M.S.

 

Number of Abortions!

if (milisec>=9){
milisec=0
seconds+=1
}

}
else
microsec+=1

// The following code puts commas into the final number
Number.prototype.insertComma = function(){
var s = this.toString();
var temp = '';
for (var i=s.length-1;i>=0;i-=3){
if ((i-3)>=0) temp = "," + s.substr(i-2, 3) + temp;
else temp = s.substring(0, i+1) + temp;
}
return temp;
}

document.d.d2.value = seconds.insertComma() + "." + milisec + microsec
setTimeout("display()",10/abortionsSecond)
}
display()
//-->

The Counter above is the estimated average number of American

abortions that have taken place since it became legal (1973).

the number one cause of human death right now in realtime worldwide is abortion

4,511,300+ and the counters is the fastest rate of all the present day causes according to several stats and sources combined

clink on this link for a cool free app  world clock and stats counter

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks/worldclock/

The stats in the World Clock updated as of July, 2010, using several resources for statistical data:
 

• World Health Organization
• CIA Factbook
• US Census bureau
• UK HomeOffice
• Avert.org
• International Union Against Cancer
• StateMaster
• NationMaster
• Center for Immigration Studies
• National Wildlife Federation
• EarthPolicy.org
• Wikipedia

We will do our best to keep this data current. This is not an easy task as much of it varies widely throughout the year and many sources report contradictory figures. We recommend that you double-check any stats with other sources.


 

Submitted by jcgadfly on February 9, 2011 - 3:56pm.

1. Damn good thing no one here believes in evolution as a result of abiogenesis. See, that's a position held by theistic evolutionists.

2. It still beats your position of "Magic Man done it" using abiogenesis.

3. If you don't believe Yahuwah didn't enjoy seeing people slaughter the born and the unborn you haven't been reading your holy book.

->

1, abiogenesis never happend and never will, so you have no cause for evolution in the first place

2.only you believe in Magic man. and noone to this day has been able to use abiogenesis.  BIOGENESIS trumps evolution.

also  you do not understand that when you quoate atheist written text books and preach it as if you have first hand knowledge you are not proving you know anything with out first putting faith in what someone else has already said and did .

you believe a pagan creation myth that worships nature as a person. because you made a claim as usual and did not post any info to back it up you show what a poser you really are in this life.

3. you talk the talk but when you insist on accusing YAHUWAH of demanding human sacrfice please give an example of what you read so I may know that you actually read anything other than a mad magazine talking about evolution. you are quoting satan when you accuse YAHUWAH of anything false.

Yahuwah doesn't change. If you make a vow to Him, be forewarned, just as He is Elohiym of His word, He expects us to keep ours, and He expects us to follow through with our vows. That is why Scripture tells us that it is better that we not make vows to Yahuwah. If you are going to "open your mouth to Yahuwah" you had better be prepared to follow through with your words.

Yahuwah of course would never require a human sacrifice. That is pagan stuff.many modern day sins are actually re-cast versions of old sins - eg., sacrificing children to moloch and abortion, or Ashtarot goddess worship and obsessing over models/actresses etc,

many sins of today occur on a much deeper, spiritual level than one would think..

 ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (See Abortion section) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population.[65] She believed in removing what she called "the dead weight of human waste." [59] In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also argued that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that targets minority women.[65]

• Natural Selection and the Columbine Killings

1. You also have no cause for Yahuwah's special creation if you take out abiogenesis.

2. So you don't believe that Yahuwah created everything from speaking the word? You are a self-contradictory bugger.

3. I didn't accuse him of human sacrifice - I accused him of commanding his "chosen people" to kill men, women, children, animals and to rip open the bellies of pregnant women in those wars he loved them to have. Are you really this bad at comprehending what you read? Have you even read your holy book, numbnuts?

Aside from all the other mountains of evidence one would have to attempt to falsify, plate tectonics alone demonstrates that continental shift took much more time.

Only a complete ignorant fool would try and assert that the continental shifts occurred as it did, in a period as short as 6000 yrs.

The thought alone is completely absurd.

The shift is still occurring. The earth, along with everything living on it, is continually evolving.

We see exactly what Darwin's theory predicted, and predicts.

His theory is correct.

I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is an important one.

People with schizophrenic tendencies can easily become completely disjointed from reality, and have the tendency to become violent and homicidal when you try and restore actual reality in their minds.

Hey thanks!

I was looking for an avatar...

1. It's interesting how you fear education. Why does Yahuwah like his followers stupid?

2. If you'd show a grown-up interest in the news you'd see that governments are changing their laws more toward your views than atheism.

Don't you get tired of this ritual you've created? You put up the wall of text and someone comes along and destroys it with a few sentences.

MoM,

Yahuwah said "don't kill". Then not too long after that he and his chosen people killed a LOT of people.

That makes sense to you?

Yes.

The species evolves.

Because of 'deviation'.

Just like 'ideas'.

If no deviation from one 'idea' ever occured, we'd only have the 'one' idea.

A mutation occurs. It deviates from the 'norm'.

The previous 'norm' dies off, leaving the 'evolved' one to reproduce and pass it's mutation on to the next generation.

Through more breeding, the 'novel' mutation now becomes more common, and becomes the new norm.

Then another mutation occurs, deviating once again from the previous norm.

There's both regressive mutation, and progressive mutation.

Cumulative error.

Ever heard of it?

We are not 'perfect' replicas of the previous generation.

We deviate.

It's a reality.

It's 'natural'.

Through 'natural' outcomes, some die off, regardless if the 'model' was 'better' than the previous generation.

Natural 'selection'.

Why is such a simple concept, so incredibly difficult to understand?

the retardis time machine for proving billions of years

HAHAHAHAHA

are you comparing yourself to the  allmighty CREATOR

There is no comparison between me and your imaginary sky dictator as I exist and there is evidence that I exist! The same can't be said for your little imaginary friend.<   - the only evidence on this post that you exist is the words you left behind for others to read. Anyone could write the stupid babble you call a rebuttal. 

that does not mean when he killed all life during the flood he didnt spare life to repopulatethe earth.

Sorry dude, but there is way too much genetic diversity in the living organisms of today for them to have all come from a few survivors a few thousand years ago. Your claims have no evidence and it shows.

And really, why should anyone accept your baseless claims as anything more then the ramblings of a raving loon if you can't even correctly structure a sentence? If your posts on the nature of the universe look like the writing of a mentally impaired child, then why should anyone treat it as if it has any serious merit? The only thing your posts actually proves is that religion preys upon the minds of weak, ignorant sheeple.<- You have no clue about what is observed  as varition within limits and dumbass .

Baseless claims are what you rely on because you have no facts to demonstrate your cunt religion of origins. So you and every drone monkey wannabe preaches the science /nature said so dogma. 

you missed a lot of my posts that already expose you as the fraud you are. you daisy chain chump wagon.

http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp

 

“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
– Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins

The wicked and insane will presumably have to fend for themselves, but for the rest of us, PBS has undertaken a massive new “educational” project to promote the “understanding of evolution.”
Apparently there’s a lot of misunderstanding out there, as tech billionaire Paul Allen has ponied up some $15 million for the project (PBS refuses to disclose exactly how much). The centerpiece is an eight-hour documentary series for the week of Sept. 24 through 27, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Much of Allen’s money is going into a national “outreach” program aimed at our public schools. Cadres of “special teachers” are being trained to prep school boards and biology teachers across the country on how to respond to skeptical students and parents. They will be aided by subsidized teaching materials, videos and a special interactive website devoted to clearing up any “misunderstandings” the public might have.
Having sat through all eight hours of the evo-epic, however, I suspect the biggest problem is going to be keeping the students from lapsing into unconsciousness out of the sheer boredom of it all.
Except for a brief lesbian lovemaking scene in the segment about sexual reproduction, which no doubt the kids will be checking out for extra credit, “Evolution” flows more turgidly than the backwaters of the Amazon basin, meandering listlessly through its subject matter (much of which, it would seem, having little to do with evolution) before finally getting stuck in some stagnant pool of political correctness. (AIDS, feminism, homosexuality, the rain forests, and man’s threat to species diversity, all get airtime.)
How on earth does one make evolution boring? Whatever one thinks of it as science, evolution has all the wonder and fascination of a modern day creation myth. And as anybody knows who’s watched the Discovery Channel, with its seemingly infinite supply of wildlife footage of lions taking down gazelles and whatnot, evolution makes great television.
So what went wrong? One can only make an educated guess, but it seems that the evolutionists were blindsided by their own propaganda. It has become such an article of faith with them that any critique of evolution can only come from “creationists”—and is thus by definition unworthy of their attention—that they were unaware of the growing body of evidence against Darwinism.
Last October, however, U.C. Berkeley Ph.D. biologist Jonathan Wells published his groundbreaking “Icons of Evolution.” By that time, one assumes that most of the pre-production of “Evolution” was complete, including detailed scripts. Probably a fair amount of film was already in the can. And here comes a closely argued, thoroughly documented scientific critique, that basically blows their story out of the primordial soup.
The Darwinian story, after all, has remained relatively unchanged for generations. It’s what most of us learned in biology class, and it’s still taught much as we learned it. There’s the Miller-Urey experiment that created the “building blocs” of life in a test-tube. There are Haeckel’s embryos showing that all vertebrates pass through almost identical stages in development (the source of the famous phrase, “ontology recapitulates phylogeny&rdquo. There are the bones of bird wings, horse legs and human hands that appear so similar as to prove common ancestry. There are the peppered moths, the finches’ beaks, and the clear line of ascent in the fossil record from ape to human.
As evidence of Darwinian evolution it was, taken altogether, extremely convincing. It has indeed, convinced generations of lay and science students that Darwin, with some minor modifications, had it right.
The problem is that none of it is true, or is so fraught with inconsistencies, misinterpretation and bad (sometimes fraudulent) data as to be worthless as science. “Icons of Evolution” dismantles these “proofs” one by one. Miller and Urey never came close to creating “life in a tube” and recent discoveries about the true nature of Earth’s early atmosphere make “abiogenesis”—the creation of living organisms from non-organic chemicals—more of a Chimera than ever. Haeckel’s embryos turn out to be an outright forgery, a fact that was known even in Darwin’s day, though they continue to appear in standard biology texts. Early vertebrate embryos, it turns out, are radically different in look, size and manner of development, and, despite what we’re told over and over again, human embryos never, ever have “gill slits,” like little fishes.
“Homology”—the similar structures of some animals—is as good a proof of design (more about that later) as it is of evolution and common descent, especially considering the frequent number of homologous structures that even evolutionists don’t believe developed from a common ancestor (think of the “duck-billed” platypus). The peppered moths had to be glued to tree trunks—where they rarely rest in nature—for that experiment to yield the right (pro-evolutionary) result, and the finches’ beaks, which did grow longer during droughts, reverted to their original size once the drought is over—evidence not of evolution but its opposite, the extraordinary stability of species.
One can’t blame the producers for not knowing this. Most evolutionary “experts” were equally in the dark.
While the problems with each specific “proof” of evolution might be known to people in that specialized discipline (moth experts, for instance), apparently none of them had bothered to share notes. Thus the college-level biology textbook edited by Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of sciences, to this day presents Haeckel’s forged embryos as factual, and leading biologist and evo-enthusiast Jerry Coyne was shocked to only recently discover the truth about peppered moths.
The response of the Darwinist camp was largely to ignore Wells’ scientific critique (there wasn’t much they could say, after all) or offer only ad hominem attacks. Wells, they claimed, was religiously motivated. Why else would he publish such a book? None seemed particularly concerned that generations of students had been fed misinformation under the guise of science. A few of the textbook writers themselves averred that one had to “simplify” examples to help students’ understanding, which is a bit like teaching them that the sun rotates around the earth because it’s so much simpler to grasp. And then, many of these books were intended for college and post-graduate biology students.
Their final line of defense was that even if all of these proofs of evolution were wrong, it didn’t matter, because there were so many other and better examples out there. The world was just full of them.
Well, judging by eight hours of “Evolution,” apparently not. Clearly the producers had to scramble for material to fill their eight hours, which is why we have long digressions into what appear to be AIDS awareness seminars, great swatches of pre-packaged “save our planet” environmentalism, long speculations about sex from sociobiologists, and enough humping bonobo apes to warm Peter Singer’s, well, cockles.
The rest is rife with error. The Discovery Institute, a non-profit founded by old Reagan-hand Bruce Chapman, and a center for Intelligent Design science (more about this in a moment), has published a 150-page critique of “Evolution” documenting its numerous factual errors, historical distortions, suppositions masquerading as scientific proof and wholly gratuitous condescension toward the religious beliefs of the vast majority of the American people. For those interested, the full “Evolution” errata can be accessed online. (For purposes of full disclosure, this author is also connected with Discovery Institute.)
There are too many errors in “Evolution” to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: the development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution” thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed.
Well, not quite.
All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding.
The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria?
With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.”
The producers of “Evolution” unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species.
The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type.” Once again, we have stasis, not evolution.
On other issues, “Evolution” mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time” which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion,” in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on.
But of course, the 5,000 pound primate in the middle of the room that the Darwinists won’t even mention is what has come to be known as the Intelligent Design movement, or ID for short. In eight hours, I caught only one glancing reference to Intelligent Design in the last episode, and even that was a mischaracterization. For this series, ID is the dog that didn’t bark. And from a purely strategic point of view, they are right to ignore it, because once the theory of Intelligent Design is allowed into the debate, Darwin is destined to follow Freud and Marx onto the ash heap of history.
At this point, perhaps, we need to take a time out for some personal information. It is practically axiomatic among Darwinists that the only people who would question Darwinism are religiously motivated, Bible-thumping fundamentalists from out there in those strange red areas of the map. This is a point, indeed, that is endlessly reiterated in various forms throughout the eight hours of “Evolution.” Everyone else knows—or in the words of Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, “every educated person” knows—that Darwinian evolution is a “simple fact.”
Well, for the record, evolution never offended my religious sensibilities. It seemed to me that if God wanted to create the natural world through a process of evolution, it wasn’t my place to tell him no. And, in as much as being a conservative often means emphatically not knowing what “everybody knows”—that missile defense will never work, for example, or that Reagan’s tax cuts produced “the worst economy ever”—I long took comfort that, when it came to evolution at least, I was right in line with elite opinion.
The trouble started, as it usually does, when I began to pay attention. In 1996, a molecular biologist at Lehigh University by the name of Michael Behe published a book entitled “Darwin’s Black Box” that raised new and interesting theoretical objections to Darwinism. While the biological details were tough sledding for your average layman (e.g., me), the basic theoretical argument was not. Behe pointed out that the knowledge base in the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology has exploded in size over the last 50 years, leaving Darwinism decades behind on the learning curve. We now know that the cell, for instance, which Darwin thought to be barely more than a lump of protoplasm, is in fact a miracle of nanotechnology, a tiny factory full of miniature machines far more complex than anything human beings could design today.
Behe’s striking insight, however, was not simply that these biological systems are complex, but that they are what he calls irreducibly complex. Like many mechanical devices of our own invention, these biological machines are made up of many interlocking parts, each one of which has to be fully developed and integrated into the whole for the machine to function. If one part is taken away, or is not fully developed, the whole mechanism breaks down. For a biological organism, that means it confers zero added survival value.
And there’s the rub, because Darwinian evolution assumes that these biological machines developed gradually over millions of years by means of random variation and natural selection. (Even Darwinists agree that the chance of such an assemblage happening all at once in one “lucky accident” is beyond the realm of possibility.) Imagine a car engine developing gradually, and one gets a sense of the difficulty here. You might have the engine block, but if you’ve got to wait around another million years for the spark plugs or pistons, you’re not going anywhere.
There have been many thoughtful critiques of Darwinism over the years, but what Behe had done here was raise a conceptual threshold that the Darwinists had to cross for their theory to retain even theoretical plausibility. Given the stakes, you might expect the Darwinists would be quick to come up with a counter-argument. You might, but five years later you’d still be waiting.
Richard Dawkins, of the above quotation, did give a revealing reply when asked about Behe’s book on Ben Wattenberg’s program “Think Tank”:

• “I’m not the best person equipped to think about it because I’m not a biochemist. … I don’t have that biochemical knowledge. Behe has. Behe should stop being lazy and should get up and think for himself about how the flagellum [one of Behe’s examples] *****ed. …”

In other words, the truth—Darwinian evolution—is preordained and it’s the scientists’ job to only find the “facts” that fit.
Since that time Dawkins—like the other famous popularizer of Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould—has refused to debate Behe, choosing instead the Darwinists’ preferred tactic: They accused him of religion. Both Gould and Dawkins have repeatedly called him a “creationist,” which is as good as writing him out of the legitimate scientific community, and has the further benefit of making it unnecessary to actually answer his critique of Darwinism.
Behe is indeed religious. He is a Roman Catholic—as are many scientists who call themselves Darwinists—but he was a Catholic through most of his scientific career when, like many of his colleagues, he unquestioningly accepted Darwinism. He’s still a Catholic now that his scientific investigations have led him to reject standard evolutionary theory. Behe doesn’t believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, accepts what modern geology tells us about the age of the earth, and even believes in some form of common descent. Hardly what most people mean by “creationist.”
What does carry uncomfortable religious connotations for avowed atheists like Gould and Dawkins, however, is the scientific outgrowth of Behe’s insights, namely the theory of Intelligent Design. This theory simply says that if these biological systems couldn’t have developed through purely natural processes, but had to be assembled all at one time (something, as noted above, that chance is simply incapable of doing) then there is a high probability that they were designed. And our experience of the world tells us, every designed artifact must have an intelligence behind it doing the designing.
Who or what that intelligence is obviously has far reaching philosophical implications, but has little to do with the science of Intelligent Design itself, which is silent of the identity of the designer. It might be the Judeo-Christian God, it might be Shiva, it might be some alien intelligence (not so silly as it sounds: Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA believes that life was seeded on this planet from outer space) or it might be what physicist Paul Davies speculates is some, as yet undiscovered, “emergent” property in matter itself. (Neither Crick nor Davies are followers of ID, but their problems with Darwinian explanations of life are emblematic of how shaky Darwinian theory actually is.) Intelligent Design scientists themselves cover the range of religious belief and unbelief.
What the theory does say is that design is an empirically testable hypothesis, and in the past several years, a growing body of scientists— in fields as diverse as biology, genetics, mathematics, physics, cosmology and even computer science—has adopted the theory as a fruitful line of investigation.
Interestingly, the mathematicians, physicists and cosmologists have always been more open to such ideas. As the great astronomer Fred Hoyle once said, “there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Nobel prize laureate Arno Penzias said these coincidences suggested a “supernatural plan.” Biology, and the study of how living organisms, including man, came into being, strikes closer to home, however, and this is where the real battleground is today.
Which brings us back to PBS’s epic “Evolution” series and the urgency they feel to—as stated in an internal PBS memorandum—“co-opt [the] existing local dialogue about teaching evolution in schools” with a massive marketing campaign (including “viral” and “guerilla” marketing) aimed at “niche audiences,” particularly “educators” and “public officials.”
In the past, the courts have been their best allies, ruling “creation science” unfit for public schools because of its religious taint. ID, however, is a different animal altogether, and no matter how often they conflate it with “creationism” they won’t be able to beat it back with the “separation of church and state” stick forever. Even the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have run front-page articles on Intelligent Design, acknowledging it as a real scientific endeavor.
But not PBS.
PBS claims there was no stonewall. The producers say that they contacted the Discovery Institute—a center of much of the ID movement— and invited its scientists to participate. Indeed the producers did, but only in the last segment, “What About God,” and only to give their personal testaments of faith. In as much as ID is a scientific movement, and not a religious one, the scientists declined. It was an especially wise decision, since the producer of the “What About God?” episode, Bill Jersey, was well known for a 1992 documentary on religious fundamentalism that more or less equated American evangelicals with Muslim terrorists in the Mideast. As it turns out, Mr. Jersey’s contribution to “Evolution” was very much in character, a condescending and offensive look at antievolution fundamentalists and their beliefs.
At a recent PBS press conference I asked the overall series producer, Richard Hutton, why Intelligent Design’s scientific critique of evolution was completely ignored. He answered that he’d looked into it and decided there was nothing there. That’s one way to decide important scientific disputes—let a TV producer decide.
As it happens, one of the leading ID theorists is University of Chicago-trained mathematician and probability theorist Bill Dembski. He’s got multiple Ph.D.s, has published work in the prestigious Cambridge University press and has done postdoctoral work at Cornell, M.I.T., Chicago and Princeton. He is highly regarded in his field for the contributions he’s made to the rather arcane field of probability theory. In November he will be publishing a book, “No Free Lunch,” which applies his theoretic insights to Darwinian evolution. Already, he’s got enough enthusiastic blurbs from top scientists to cover several book jackets, but one, from leading Darwinist Michael Ruse, is particularly applicable. Even “those of us who do not accept his conclusions,” Ruse writes, “should read this book. … He should not be ignored.” That, of course, is the voice of someone whose first passion is science —the search for true knowledge, wherever it may lead. But for PBS, science is clearly beside the point. It doesn’t matter with propaganda if your facts are wrong. With 15 or so million dollars of Paul Allen’s money, and a free-ride on America’s public airwaves, not to mention the publicly-funded infrastructure of PBS stations and affiliates, no doubt the producers of this series will, for a time at least, “co-opt” the dialogue on evolution. But only for a time. In science, where there is still some respect for facts after all, the truth does have a way of coming out in the end.

you believe evolution? prove it! asshole!