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.

TelcontarRulz’s Debate Tactics (spelling attacks)

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

The below comment taken from one of my favorite cites shows one of the tactics this person loves to do.  Rather than talk about the issues 100% throw in there this tactic for entertainment purposes perhaps.  Perhaps because she has failed in trying to force me to believe in magical bacteria to man faith she likes to do this.

“Bad spelling/grammar
This is another often used anticreationist tactic. If the evolution vs creation debate is not going very well, they will start looking for other ways to publically humiliate the creationist they are debating on what ever forum or blog the debate is taking place on. The anticreationist will quote the creationist and use “sic” next to anything that is misspelled, or where they believe the grammar is bad. It is their attempt to gain control of a debate they are losing by distracting their debate opponent. “

Genesis contradicts Theistic Evolution

Posted in theistic evolution with tags on December 4, 2008 by egoeimi3

If you ever debate and theistic evolutionist there needs to be one thing set straight.  It’s impossible, very impossible.  You can’t mix the two.  Here are some facts about Genesis which contradicts the Bible.


See this Link and see the contradiction between Biblcal Order in Creation vs the Order of events in Theistic Evolution which is actually the same view as the order of events in Evolution:

If you look at the order of events, evolution says one thing and the bible says another.  The theistic evolutionist has to reword the bible or say it’s not a real even because 7 literal days is impossible.  Well how is it impossible if Supernatural ism exist?  If something greater than us can violate the very laws that were Created who says it can’t happen?  The unbeliever who denies supernatural ism of course.  So the two just can’t be reconciled. 


Responding to TelcontarRultz’s Terror Excuse

Posted in Debating TelcontarRulz with tags on December 4, 2008 by egoeimi3

TelcontarRulz Said:

All right, at airports, Muslims are being selected for random security checks. Their TVs are dismantled and quarantined because people think there are bombs in them. People call them names like ‘towelheads’ and draw insulting cartoons of their prophet. Westerners take their land and don’t give a damn if they live in poverty in refugee camps. Abu Ghraib. The ‘terrorists’ in Palestine who are fighting for their brethren. The ‘terrorists’ who are fighting U.S. convoys in Iraq. In his own twisted way, Osama bin Laden and his ilk are martyrs. Misguided, yes, but they believe they are working/dying for a just cause. You know, if he hadn’t decided to take this path, Osama would have been very rich and living in luxury. Now, he’s hiding somewhere in a cave, probably falling ill, and with very little except a position as a figurehead for the Mujahideen and inspiring them to be martyrs for Islam.

My reply:

Random Secuirty checks is ok if it prevents lose of life.  An interview done by Bob Dudtko on www.wmuz.comwith a Muslim woman who converted to Christianity had no problem with it as a Arab American.  And other Arab American’s shouldn’t have a problem with it if it’s their racial group doing it.  If my race was doing it, what’s a few mins to protect lives.

The insulting cartoon, not it was offensive is the proper term.  They were offended based on their views of Mohammad, and the cartoon wasn’t offensive at all, but they don’t take kindly to cartoon drawings of their prophet.  But I bet you don’t have a clue or you ignored that I mentioned the mocking Christians go thru.  Email Bob Dudtko on he did a piece on that where there is museums dedicated to mocking Christians on a greater level then what you are talking about.  And email isn’t expensive so no excuses to get better facts.

Palestians don’t care about taking land from the Jews and the President of Iran wants to wipe the Jews of the face of the earth due to their hatered of the Jews, ok so ignore that and Westerners are not doing that so be specific. 

The palestinians are not fighting for Abu Ghraib war prisoniers specifically but fighting the Infidel as the Quran calls Jews and Christians.  It’s way bigger than that so don’t kid yourself.

Osama isn’t a martyrs nor are the terroist because they are dying for a ideology that say killing the Infidels gains more woman in Heaven when they die, that isn’t like Steven in Acts being stoned for his faith in Jesus, or the other Apostles.

Osama wouldn’t be living rich in my opinion he would have been planning more attacks against Jews and the West.

And your comment that  the Romans had not invented electrocution what is electrocution, who said they invented that?  No the Apostles were dying thru Cruxicfixion get it straight and that’s a fact supported by science that the Romans had that sytle of murdering someone.