Archive for December, 2008

The Coelacanth falsifies Evolution

Posted in fossil record with tags on December 9, 2008 by egoeimi3

I know many evolutionist will not believe this for several reasons.  One is they are taught to believe something without critical thinking and are heavily indoctrinated.

Here is why I believe they are illogical about this great find back in the early 70’s.

The Coelacanth that was found looked virtually identical to what you see in the fossil record.  Go here to see what I’m talking about.

The problem I have with evolutionist calling the modern day Coelacanth a different species is this.  First off they don’t have a DNA sample to compare the genetic information in the earliest Coelacanth to make that claim.  It’s a fact things can have difference of appearance in areas but be identical in genetics.  Humans are a perfect example.  There are white, black, yellow, etc but the genetic comparison between all of us is identical but with different appearance in skin color, noses, eyes, etc and we are still human.  We are not looked at as different species of humans lol we are all human beings with differences in appearance.

With Coelacanth how can you call something that looks identical without genetic material to see that?  Or are the evolutionist going to call humans different species based on skin color, or nose size, or whatever?  That doesn’t make sense because we are genetically human.  You won’t find a human with 35 chromosomes (at least I don’t believe you will).  You will find those with downs “the presence of an extra copy of genetic material on the 21st chromosome,” is what the problem is with them but they are still human beings and I wouldn’t consider someone with this as a different species that to me would be flat out insulting to someone who is still as a Christian would say “Created in God’s Image” so they have worth and value and shouldn’t be aborted as so many do which is another subject in itself.

So getting back to this Coelacanth.  It can’t be consider a different species based on slight differences on the outside when we as humans are not.  Who makes that determination without genetic evidence?

It’s all ad hoc explanation.  Take this comment on wiki about the gap in the fossil record.

“the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.[citation needed]The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record”

Notice they say “the most likey reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters”  How #1 do they know this without ever being there?  Comparing to what happens to day could be very different millions of years ago if you logically think about it.  Then they said “Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossilrecord”  Again logically I disagree because fossils clams are pushed to the top of mountains due to shifting of continents (different worldviews from evolutionist and creations by the way) who’s to say that Coelacanth fossils couldn’t have been pushed to the top like those?  And they are assuming without a foundation that when those fish died and there had to be millions like there are millions in oceans in fish today there should have been some fossils of those fish that could have been preserved as they love to say “could have”, yes it could have left in between fossils that they love to want people like me to not think it thru.

So in short I find it illogical to call something a different species when they are under the assumption that there was a different species in between deeper Coelacanth as opposed to those at the surface.  There simply could have been nothing in between we are not talking about mystery fish here that suddenly disappeared off the face of the earth, no they are still here

Radiometric Dating Games

Posted in geology with tags on December 8, 2008 by egoeimi3

On my front page today (youtube front page) I was debating with along time rival evolutionist for quite sometime now.  He brought up the issue of give a fact that would falsify evolution.  There are a few things that would falsify evolution but the lack of critical thinking hinders the evolutionary mind that they can’t see pass the indoctrination of what they are lead to believe. 

So I brought up the issue of radiometric dating and the dating problems.  My long time debator is so sure that the dating methods are solid.  However they are not.  There is indeed rock that has been dated into the millions of years range, but the problem is the rock is only several hundred years old.

The way that my colleague and other evolutionist get away around that is to let the accusations fly.  They say things like “creationist don’t use the right tools,” or “creationist don’t know what they are talking about because they are ignorant,” yada, yada is what I say.

Here is the problem with the accusations in my opinion.  If you say a sample for example is contaminated which I have heard is the problem well that means the other samples can be contaminated as well to give a false reading of a million years, there is no difference.  If recent rock can date into the millions who’s to say that the rock that has been tested in the millions isn’t contaminated and simply is recent rock no older than a few thousand years?

I presented him with links to what the creationist have documented and they do get their results in some cases right from evolutionary info with the contradictions there, but the evolutionist will still be in denial.  Kinda like living fossils. 

If you have living fossils with incorrect dating methods what do you actually have?  You actually have living fossils that are not millions of years old because that would be a stretch of the imagination to see something virtually unchanged for millions of years like the environmental pressures wouldn’t change something with all that time to do so.  And the rock that dates into the millions only being a few hundred years old is actually young.  So put the two together and you actually have young fossils that are living and I hate that word living fossils, no they are animals or plants that have been hear a short time just like the rocks have LOL.

For more information on the research done that shows the problems with radiometric dating see the link:

It’s a fact that they don’t tell you all the problems.  Just indoctrinate you.


Posted in fossil record with tags on December 7, 2008 by egoeimi3

People need to take notice about fossilization.  It’s a fact that this process doesn’t take a lot of time and it’s also a fact that you find animals today that look exactly like animals in the fossil record.  What are we to call this a coincidence?  I don’t think so because it’s a fact that this millions of years of evolution of bacteria to man theology never happened, but that all the animals existed at the same time is what I would argue opposed to the alternative view evolutionist want you to think. 

Living fossils is another one.  Notice that the term itself is very strange.  Why call something a living fossil when for years a person is taught things went extinct but when they find out that they were wrong (human error like the bible writers get) they simply explain it away.  Call it a different species but it still looks the same.  Yeah that really means something but not once do they have a DNA sample to actually prove it’s actually different?  Especially when there has been DNA found in fossils which DNA by the way can only last approx. 10,000 years and how is that for contradictory to the fossilization of fossils or the fossil record for that matter.  Take a look at what says on the issue of fossilization which people should check it out for alternative views and arguments presented against the only currently accepted view allowed in secular humanist science where the trump card is evolution and evolution only.  Thought that man can error like the bible writers get but the evolutionary scientist just can’t do no wrong LOL.

Creationwiki’s Take on the Issue:


Main Article: Fossilization

Today fossilization is an extremely rare event and is simply not expected to occur on a global scale. Decomposition is instead the rule following death, unless the matter is buried rapidly and to a depth that would prevent microbial digestion and oxidation. Hard shelled animals that burrow into sediment are somewhat expected to be found as fossils, along with large and heavy bones through random circumstances. However, every kind of animal alive today is found in the fossil record. Many of these are completely intact, and some specimens show literally no signs of decomposition. Other evidence such as polystrate fossils, or the fact that marine fossils are found throughout the geological column, points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil record. It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors, which argues strongly against their having been fossilized millions of years ago.

The Fossil Record Speaks

Posted in fossil record with tags on December 7, 2008 by egoeimi3

It’s funny how so many neo Darwinian faith believers overlook this plane fact that even Gould recognized the problems with the record itself.  Many people who debate these issues really like to over look the fact that the record is interpretation.  It either formed like evolutionary geologist believe which they will interpret it to fit their theory that it has to form slowly over millions of years otherwise the theory will be falsified.  But if it formed rapidly like the Creationist believe then it proves that it was formed in the Flood of Noah and will be interpreted that way.  I would argue it formed in the flood as evidence of it being sedimentary rock which forms in water and animals being caught in a very catastrophic event. 

If the average person was just driving along the road and saw a great number of fossils on the side of a mountain they wouldn’t have the idea that the layers they see in the side of the mountain that they formed one at a time but would think that they all appeared there at the same time.  Why would one think that layers form one at a time where they see a great number of fossils?  It’s because they were indoctrinated from as young as 4years of age thru 18 years of age at least in my country.  If you hear this stuff over and over you will adopt that line of thinking and heck even  Hilter the greatest Jewish hater recognize that if you tell a lie long enough over a period of time people will believe it.  Evolutionary science is built upon that. 

Take a look at what Gould said about the fossil record:

“What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists such as Gould now agree with what creationists from Louis Agassiz to Duane Gish have said all along, that the fossil record includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis. Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance. In any area, a species does not arise gradually. It appears all at once and fully formed (Gould, ibid., 13–14).

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
It’s a fact this man notices what we notice that the record there is sudden appearance even for the bacteria found at the lowest level in the neo faith, they just are there.  The average person wouldn’t think hey they were the first thing living on earth then the next level up you have some very complex animals over them, and as you continue to go upward that this shows a progression of life evolving over time.  That is flat out non-sense, the average person would look at all those animals and say all of them existed at the same time because the first thought isn’t a layer at a time, but animals found buried in the ground, it’s the indoctrination of evolutionary scientist who oppose other alternative views that hurts their precious faith and their protection of it.

Why Genesis is Literal and not symbolic

Posted in Bible with tags on December 5, 2008 by egoeimi3

This isn’t a subject that is hard to figure out.  Anyone with any knowledge of the Hebrew/Aramic language can figure it out that Genesis the first 2 chapters are real literal events.

You can find support if you are skeptical of Genesis being real by just doing some research.  Check Genesis against the historicity of the Bible.  That’s one way to boost your confidence on weather the Bible can be used as a historical reference.  It’s indeed a fact mentioned by archaeologist who were very skeptical.  For example I’ll give you a quote that is said about the bible being verified as a historical document.

Archaeologist William F. Albright says, “All radical schools in New Testament criticism which have existed in the past or which exist today are pre-archaeological, and are therefore, since they were built in der Luft [in the air], quite antiquated today” (Albright, 29).

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
Notice what is said about the NT of the Bible.  How about this,
Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Sherwin-White, 189)

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
Can there be any denial, and these are just a sample of comments made about what people love to call that the bible is just a myth, or full of stories, but when you show them things like this, then people have changed their position in my experience but then they try to point to talking donkeys or supernatural events to try to say the bible is fiction.
If it can be shown that the bible is a historical document why would Genesis not be historical.
And last I’ll address the actual language used in the Genesis text.  For example, the hebrew word “yom” is used in the Genesis text.  Here are a few examples of it’s use in the text that so many people have attempted to say it’s just symbolic without showing the breakdown of the text isn’t even written in symbolic language was is written in a historical fashion.  A few examples are:

 “The normal meaning of yom.
The usual meaning of the Hebrew word yom (“day”) is twenty-four hours unless the context indicates otherwise. But the context does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour day in Genesis 1 .”

“The numbers are in series. When numbers are used in a series (1, 2, 3 . . .) in connection with days it refers to twenty-four-hour days. There is no exception to this elsewhere in the Old Testament.”

“Evening and morning” is used. The phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” denotes each period. Since the literal twenty-four-hour day on the Jewish Calendar began at sunset and ended before sunset the next day, Genesis 1 must refer to literal days.”

Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”
So if anyone is serious and unbias they would find that the Genesis text isn’t allegorical language or symbolic like what Jesus says about forgiving someone as some have improperly tried to do without even showing what type of language is used in Genesis vs the Language used in Matthew on Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness.

TelcontarRulz’s loves Public Humiliation Tactics

Posted in Evolutionary Debate Tactics with tags on December 5, 2008 by egoeimi3

Check out this comment.  Here is a debate tactic that I’m sure she is using.  Public Humiliation.  What does my spelling errors or grammar have to do with the arguments?  Nothing because the arguments can make valid points, not the spelling errors.  But evolutionist typically that I have run into rather throw out there red herrings more than anything.  Public Humiliation debate tactics is yet another one.


“In a sense that anticreationists cannot always prove evolution to a point that it completely does away with creation. Public humiliation is used. The group of anticreationists who do this are very well organized as they will humiliate anyone who dares challenge their beloved theory. Any creationist that steps out of the norm of not accepting evolution to some degree, and speaks out against it. Will get this humiliation via the web.

Kent Hovind. The most hated creationist by every anticreationist. Here are the examples of websites participating in public humiliation of Kent Hovind. In fact, Kent Hovind has had so much public humiliation by anticreationists that Google has broken up sections of the search (at bottom of search page) if you type in his name. This is an example of how science works if you dare challenge the theory of evolution. Does tax evasion have anything to do with the theory of evolution? You would think it does the way the evolutionist go on and on about what Hovind did. “

TelcontarRulz’s Free Thinking Attack

Posted in Evolutionary Debate Tactics with tags on December 5, 2008 by egoeimi3

Here is another classic debate tactic that I have encountered by Tel.  Again, perhaps she is entertaining herself and her friends.  Again this comment was taken the same site I got information on the spelling error tactic.   Enjoy and pay attention, look for these attacks against yourself if you are a Christian who really is practicing the faith.

“Anticreationists like to think that all Christians are brain washed, that no one in their right mind would ever make such a decision to believe in God’s word. So they label themselves as being rational, and all Christians as irrational. They label themselves as free thinkers, and Christians are labelled as people who cannot think for themselves, and therefore need a myth to follow. Whenever an anticreationist says; “I’m just trying to make people think”, or implies in any way, shape or form that Christians cannot think for themselves, they are showing their true colors about their commitment to what they believe and their hostility to anyone who disagrees with them. ”

Example of things they like to say:

  1. Religion is hazardous to your health.
  2. Fundies are idiots.
  3. Christians know nothing about persecution.
  4. Only the stupid are sure of God.
  5. Fundamentalism stops a thinking mind.
  6. All Christians are narrow minded.
  7. How long till Evolution “eliminates” the Christian right.
  8. It’s mental slavery to be Christian.