Yearly Archives: "2012"

Creation Today Eric Hovind and doctrinal issues

While on FaceBook the other day another creationist contacted me and told me that Eric Hovind of Creation Today (link) has decided to add a person to his ministry that believes in Calvinism (link). Normally I would not care except this person cannot keep his Calvinist belief to himself. In other words he uses his affiliation with Creation Today as a platform. And Eric Hovind backs him up. In fact in our conversation I was challenged to a live debate and since Eric does do videos I figured it was tv. Sye TenBruggencate (link), the person who believes in Calvinism, never did make that clear. He was hoping the fear of being on TV, when I have never appeared on before, would make me back out. And I told him I was not interested in debating him on live tv.

It was not until Eric got involved that Sye finally said it was a live debate on Skype that he wanted then tried to make me look like a fool for thinking it was live tv when all he had to do was correct that the first time I brought that up. Like saying: It’s not live tv it’s a debate on Skype. But not doing so means he knowingly lead me astray which is what Calvinists are well-known in doing. After Sye made me out to be the bad guy Eric then proceeded to tell me and the other creationist in that debate that if we ever mentioned Calvinism again he would block us from posting on any of his subjects or FaceBook page. At this point I really do not care.

Side note: Why does this matter to me? Because Eric claims to be YEC (young earth creationist) and my ministry is also YEC. So what he does effects my ministry as well as every other YEC ministry. So Eric Hovind compromising his ministry like this means I will have to explain this to everyone whom asks and I have to say things I don’t like to say but I’m not going to compromise my belief to go along to get along. And that also means that not only do I have to take sides but so does everyone else. How do I know that I will have to explain to people what Eric has done? Because whenever one YEC steps out from the normal YEC stance I always get e-mails, phone calls, and instant messaging on why they did this. And I have to choose whether to defend them and compromise if it’s wrong, or tell everyone it’s wrong and why.

Eric’s excuse for having a Calvinist as part of the Creation Today ministry is laid out on this page called Secondary Doctrinal Issues: http://www.creationtoday.org/about/secondary-doctrinal-issues/

The idea Eric Hovind is trying to convey here is that theology is a secondary issue with his ministry and creation, the flood etc… is first.

YEC (Young Earth Creation) has a foundation that is set in the literal word of God. In other words the Bible is believed and taught as literal truth. Saying that any part of it is secondary is an absolute compromise and a cop-out on all issues concerning the Word of God. Because you cannot teach God’s Alpha without His Omega and everything that’s in between. We are the representation of Christ and through Christ we are ambassadors to a lost and dying world.

Saying that theology is secondary and denominational beliefs are secondary is nothing short of compromising the Word of God. And accepting any belief as part of a ministry because the ministry does not think it’s important, is teaching compromise because through false beliefs people get led astray. Accepting any and all beliefs is the way of the New World Religion. Where everyone is right regardless of what they believe. Even Satanists.

Eric says it’s all secondary because this is not a church. There is very little difference between a church and a ministry. Eric may not have pews and a pulpit, but he does go to churches where such things exist, correct? The last time I was at Dinosaur Adventure land they had a room where chairs were and a pulpit to stand behind so they could preach creation to the visitors that came. Not much difference. Does Eric actually think that a church requires a church building, pews, and alter, and a pulpit? A church is anywhere you preach the Word of God.

What is wrong with Calvinism? Calvinism has 5 main points in which the whole belief stands on. These point are also known as the Calvinist Tulip. They are:

  • Total Depravity (original sin).
  • Unconditional Election (God’s election).
  • Limited Atonement (Particular redemption).
  • Irresistible Grace (Effectual calling).
  • Perseverance of the Saints. Also known as: once saved always saved (osas), eternal security, unconditional salvation, etc….
  • You can read more about this here:

I left the link because I will not be addressing all of these. Only the ones that are more than clearly wrong.

  • Unconditional Election aka Predestination. What his means is that each person has a predetermined life and no freewill. That even before you were born it was determined whether you would go to Heaven or Hell and there is nothing you can do about it. That God runs a matrix of sorts.

If what we do is predetermined then our sin is not our own. To be judged correctly and in all fairness all that we do has to be our own freewill to do it or we are not responsible for our actions. Example: If a thief holds a person at gun point and straps bombs to his body. Then tells him if he does not rob that bank he will make those bombs go off killing him and everyone in the bank as well. Then shows him a picture of his family held hostage and tells him he will kill them also. What choice does he really have? Today’s court system would not even find him guilty. And that’s only fair because it was not by his “will” the bank got robbed but by the will of another.

Also is the free gift of salvation a predetermined gift? Predetermination of salvation would also mean that people are born saved or born damned, right? But the Bible says we are “all” born into sin. When Jesus approached the disciples He did not ever say: You are predetermined to follow me. He instead gave them the choice to follow.

  • Limited Atonement means only the elect (predetermined sheep) are forgiven. The rest, pray as they may are never forgiven. Neither can they be saved.

The Bible never says that Christ came to save or forgive the elect only. In fact here are some verses that clearly contradict that.

jn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
1cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.1tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

The Bible never says things like: God so loved the world that He sent His Son to save the elect. Nope what it says is that all you have to do is believe, and unsaved sinners that believe are saved. A cult that is based more on man always has it to where they can exalt themselves above others which is a form of humanism (I am God, or I am better than the rest of the human creation because I can have something others cannot). In God’s eyes there are only 2 groups of people. The Jews and the Gentiles. Not the elect and the damned. And the gospel shall be preached to both so that they shall know Jesus. If the shed blood of Christ is not strong enough to save everyone whom wants it, then the shed blood is not all-powerful which gives Satan the power to always be able to block salvation. Is Satan more powerful than the shed blood of Christ? It is if all sins cannot be forgiven to give salvation to the unsaved sinner. For Jesus cannot save the world if some of the unsaved are not savable. So this belief goes against what is said in God’s Word.

How does one tell who is not savable? Do we preach to congregations where a certain percentage is not savable? Do we as Christians waste our time on many who are not savable? If such men in the creation existed then God would have had a way to tell us whom they are. So even though Calvinists claim these people exist they cannot tell you who they are so by example they cannot even prove their claims. For I would like to see a Calvinist stand in front of a crowd of people and let everyone know who is predetermined for salvation and who is predetermined for damnation. For we know who the Jews and Gentiles are so not being able to show this other claim shows it was made up and is not Biblical.

Side note: The problem with Calvinism and beliefs like it is that they love to use certain verses from certain parts of the Bible while ignoring the rest to make their beliefs “sound” true. They treat the Bible vs their belief as an elimination verse game. I like this verse so this verse eliminates all other verses that do not agree. So when you point out their mistake by showing the verses that do not agree they will ignore them as if they do not exist. Basically taking a mental black magic marker and running through them. Real truth in the Word of God is found when you make the Bible as a whole work, not cherry pick.

  • Perseverance of the Saints. Also known as: once saved always saved (osas), eternal security, unconditional salvation, etc….

This is the belief that once you are predetermined to be saved, you can never undo it. This effectively makes salvation not only something you don’t have the freewill to choose, but once in, it becomes a covenant of bondage. Christ came to set the captives free, not to move them from one bondage unto another. And since you can never lose salvation, salvation also becomes a temptation to use it as a ticket to sin. True salvation from our Lord Jesus Christ can never be a temptation unto the flesh.

Unconditional salvation is one of the names that they love to preach under. This is where they make any work, even kingdom works to bring souls into the kingdom, sound like sin (you cannot work your way to Heaven so nothing is required). What they call works are actually conditions. In order to be saved you have to believe. Belief = a condition. This unconditional salvation is one of the main reasons the church congregation of today does not get involved. and they also preach something that is totally UN-Biblical. And that is: If you give money to a certain cause like missions, it’s like you did it yourself. It’s like you were there yourself. Now when crowns are handed out is God going to say: Here Bill, here is your crown for paying Mike to do the work for my kingdom you were supposed to do. Not going to happen.

What this doctrine is basically does is to make sure that the person whom does this, thinking it’s the same as doing it themselves, that they will have no rewards in Heaven. What the unconditional salvation people won’t tell you is that the condition for being purified by the blood and enter Heaven is that you do the kingdom works. Because if your works (ones you paid for and thought you would get credit) burn up then the purification process transfer from blood to fire. This is why this verse says what it does: 1cor 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire….. Saved by fire means you get burned. And since no one gets burned in Heaven where do they go? Where the fire is where else?

What are the conditions of kingdom works for salvation that goes beyond just getting saved? This is all coming from Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

What we forget a lot of times is that when Christ speaks we have to convert it into spiritual things not physical things. Here are the conditions:

  1. I was thirsty ye gave me no drink = the milk of the word for the new in Christ.
  2. I was hungry and ye gave me no meat = the meat of the word for those who are able to discern it.
  3. I was a stranger and ye did not take me in = a stranger is a unsaved sinner. Taking them in is showing them the good news of the gospel.
  4. Naked and ye clothed me not = A saved person without the Word of God is naked. Clothing them is giving them the Word of God so they can put on the full armor of God.
  5. Sick and in prison and ye visit me not = Afflicted and in bondage to sin. Visiting is to give hope through the power of prayer to show there is a way out and to shine a light unto a dark world.

The first point to be made about Matthew 25 judgment is that this is what’s called the saved throne. No one here is pulled from Hell to be judged. To prove this even more so. The once saved always saved teachers like to claim that the “goats” in this judgment are unsaved sinners. So I have a few questions that will some it up that they are wrong about this.

  1. Where in the Bible does it ever refer to unsaved sinners as goats? I have yet to find even one verse. This is an example of how they make the Bible conform to their belief. Even make stuff up.
  2. Having the saved and unsaved judged by the same kingdom works shows that if the goats did these things they could have been saved too (works for salvation). The reason they were judged by the same criteria is because they were both saved. That is why salvation is never mentioned here nor part of the judgment. Salvation is not an issue if all that stand before Christ are already saved.
  3. Why did Christ have to divide them? It’s because the goats blend in with the sheep and they were sheep but had no kingdom works. Sheep minus kingdom works = goats that get thrown into the fire. If not then someone who believes goats are unsaved sinners needs to show that verse where it says goats are unsaved sinners. Anyone? If a believer in this cannot prove this with God’s Word then it’s not true which makes the whole belief fall on it’s face.

In fact the challenge is: If Sye TenBruggencate can find the verse that says unsaved sinners are goats I will post it here and recant the rest and apologize. I can say this because I have no problem being corrected by the Word of God so there is no pride issue to deal with here. So Sye if you have the Biblical evidence that the goats are unsaved sinners I’m all ears. And if you cannot prove this with the Word of God, then what does that tell you about what you believe?

You see Sye, this one thing on the goats can disprove your whole Calvinism belief. You see how I approach something to prove it right or wrong is that I don’t say to myself: I already have it right. So what I’m looking at has to be wrong. I actually try to prove it right first. And if I cannot then by default of not being able to prove it right it becomes wrong. In this way I am not taking sides and don’t have a bias view when researching it. I am allowing the Bible to make my decision for me. This is how you test things by the Word of God. This is how I know the goats idea is wrong. I already tried to prove it right and could not. Of course you may find something I could not so I am open-minded to it if you do. But also remember I don’t go by words of man but the Word of God. So what you find has to be in the Bible. Now why did I try to prove the goat thing right? Not only to test it but because I was taught this as well in the Baptist belief where they also believe in once saved always saved (osas), I just had to know. It’s a salvation issue so I knew I had to have it right before I could continue.

What verse clearly states you can lose your salvation? James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Brethren if any of “you”… It does not say unsaved sinners, the damned, etc…. It says: Brethren. So it’s speaking to all believers (sheep). If you err from the truth you can err so far that you need to be converted again. And this conversion shall save your soul from death (second death which is the Lake of Fire), and hide a multitude of sins. This is why we are responsible for what we believe as an individual. For once we are able to discern the truth on our own the teachings of others no longer applies 100% of the time. We are to correct what we were taught to get closer to the truth. Not making an effort in this area means you trust the teachings of man and therefore refuse to use what the Holy Spirit is there to do, which is to guide you to more truth.

Why are we allowed to come back after we lose our salvation? Because God knows we are imperfect and that we can be led astray without knowing. There is a difference between being deceived, and choosing to go down the wrong path when you know better. One is not the will of your own, while the other is. choosing or allowing yourself to be deceived is choosing evil over good. Being deceived unwillingly is not having a choice. So God allows a way back from both.

How easy is it to lose salvation? Once saved always saved teachers and preachers like to say that those who believe in being able to lose salvation also believe that every time you sin you lose it (a scare tactic). Salvation is a condition of the heart. Your heart has to harden towards God and that does not happen at the snap of a finger. So it’s a process just like erring from the truth is a process of deception, or the decision to choose evil over good. In other words you have to be fully committed to losing salvation before it will happen. God always leaves a way back if it does happen.

What makes losing salvation more Biblically logical as how it would apply to God’s Word? Not being able to lose salvation takes away the fear of God. Why fear God if your salvation cannot be taken away? So live how you want sin all you want. And that is why so many Christians do just that and set a bad example for all those looking at them as a representation of God. It basically allows the Christian to use salvation to mock God and what Christ did on the cross. Christ died to forgive sin not condone sin. Once saved always saved says Christ died to condone sin for what sin can make you lose it under that teaching? Making salvation a temptation to sin is wrong. Being able to lose salvation makes the Christian fear God and want to do right because of that. So the Christian cannot use salvation to mock God or as a ticket to sin. Being able to lose salvation for such actions eliminates all that. Not being able to lose salvation makes God into a Genie. This is because God has to accept how you want to live instead of telling you how you should live.

How do the unforgiven sins work with both teachings?

  • Once saved always saved: To make once saved always saved work the unforgiven sins always has to apply to the unsaved only. This gives Satan a tool to block salvation before it is even given. The shed blood of Christ through this belief makes it to were it can no longer forgive all sins for the unsaved sinner and therefore will dam many to Hell. Giving Satan a way to block salvation also makes Satan stronger than Christ. For anything stronger than the shed blood is stronger than Christ. Just to show how this teaching can be used by Satan to make people think they can never be saved, there is a group of atheists that are using this teaching to commit the unforgiven sins so you can make sure you are damned for hell. Giving even them power over the shed blood of Christ: http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/ The unsaved are already damned for hell, under this teaching they would become double damned. That does not even make sense.
  • Being able to lose salvation:Makes it to where only the saved can commit the unforgiven sins. This gives the forgiving power back to the blood of Christ to forgive all sins of the unsaved sinner. Takes away the tool Satan has to block salvation under the other teaching and gives everyone, not just the elect, a chance to be saved.
  • What about if you commit a
    unforgiven sin unknowingly?
    As stated before, God leaves leeway for our imperfections: James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin….Knoweth or knowing is whole key in that verse to if a sin counts against you. So if you commit a sin and did not know it was a sin then that sin does not count against you. Otherwise that verse saying if you knew better but did it anyway would not apply because sin would be sin regardless. So adding that leeway clause makes judgment fair for everyone. Examples: If when you are saved you were responsible for every sin known then salvation would condemn us instead of save us. Example: Lets say a person saved for 6 months and a person saved for 40 years is standing before God to be judged. Would it be fair to judge the 6 month Christian by the same standard the 40 year Christian is going to be judged by? Of course not. God is only going to judge you on what you know, was able to discern and overcome. Because if one standard fits all then we would all have to be as perfect as God. That’s impossible. So each judgment standard will be set up for each individual not everyone as a whole. In this way the judgment is totally fair, Holy, and Righteous.
  • What do you exactly mean by a sin not being a sin until you know about it?Ever said or heard someone say: I did not know that was a sin? What that means is that once they know and understand it as sin it then becomes something they can be responsible in making a decision over. In other words good has to be discerned and understood before evil can be defined and the line drawn where a person needs to stop. And until that knowledge is obtained and understood that saved person is not responsible. This allows the new in Christ to grow and make mistakes and keep learning while still being in the will of God.

So basically what Eric Hovind has done by allowing a Calvinist to work with his ministry and preach his Calvinism from the Creation Today platform is make it harder for the rest of the YEC ministries by not towing the line. By compromising which is not what YEC belief is about. If a Mormon or a Jehovah Witness came to Eric and wanted to join his ministry, because he has already compromised with a Calvinist he cannot just say: Because you are a Mormon Or Jehovah Witness I cannot hire you or allow you to do this. Because they could say: You already have a Calvinist working with you so tell us why we are not allowed? And what could Eric say? And if Eric allowed them he would also have to allow them to use Creation Today as their platform to preach their theology because that is what he allows the Calvinist to do.

I know the Eric will eventually read this, so what should I tell other YECs when they ask me why you allow this Eric? Should I take your side and compromise my ministry also, or should I do what I know supports the Word of God and speak out against your decision? When you have to answer that question you see the dilemma you put me and other YEC ministries to even have to answer this question? I know you may not like to live in your fathers shadow. But what you father Ken Hovind did was set an example on how a YEC should be. What a YEC ministry is and how it should stand up to everything else. And regardless of where he is now he was basically my mentor in the ministry I now run. So I take this compromise personal for 2 reasons, not one. I think you can figure out the rest.

But if this is the way you are going to run your ministry, put it at the front door and not the back door. In this way you are up front about this so everyone knows. Because if you cannot do this, then indirectly you are actually showing that you know it’s wrong. Because I think you know exactly what would happen if you were up front with this. In fact I have a challenge for you and your ministry if this is so right. Put what you have done on the front page. Tell your supporters that you openly work with a Calvinist and will defend his teachings. If you cannot do this then you are only deceiving yourself into thinking it’s okay. Because any hesitation to do this should tell you it’s the Holy spirit trying to stop you. A truthful ministry is always up front with all that it does as an example to everyone else. A ministry that has to hide things in the back and only explain things when found out is not setting that example for everyone else.

Is NASA telling bald faced lies to get a trillion dollars?

Why do I say a trillion dollars? That is what it will take to send a person to mars. Now if any sites found in Google searches has false information about mars please list which ones they are and what the correct information is in your posts below. The reason I say this is because I know this page is going to generate a bunch of hate posts. Hate posts show that scientifically what is said here cannot be disproven. So the more hate that is posted shows how right the information on this page is and how frustrated some people get when they cannot debunk grade school science.

Now why did I post this with such an attitude? Because I can prove they are lying as I have done here, and they just keep doing it. It would not bother me as much except these are supposed to be the smartest minds on this planet working at NASA so they know better. So if they know better then they are doing it on purpose. On purpose is a bald face lie. But then again, with due respect, they also did send the Hubble Telescope up without testing it. Had to make a special trip to fix it. The things that make you go Hmmmm.

Here are some of the examples of how they are trying to convince themselves and the population that water is on Mars:

Video

Notice how they use the wear of “rock” to claim water was once on Mars. Why no use the atmospheric conditions also? Because they know that the atmosphere will not support their claim. Next video is where NASA gets involved in claiming “oceans of water” used to exist on Mars.

Video

Here again no mention of the atmospheric conditions. Because the atmosphere proves water “never existed” on mars Is animation evidence? Like if a Scientist can animate oceans of water on any planet does that makes it true? It seems to be so because if you ever notice any evolution video on how evolution happens has about 80-90% animation and most scientists accept that as proof. What does it really prove? On both counts (water on mars and evolution is true) is that both are only provable in a virtual world. A virtual world where all you have to do is imagine it, animate it and it’s true.

So now we need to redefine what empirical evidence means. It means something you can observe, something that can be repeated in a lab, or something you can imagine and animate in a virtual world. This is how science works when they cannot get actual physical evidence to support what they “claim is true”. And because most of the population likes good animation they will accept it as being true, Claiming there is life and water on mars is about as lame as claiming they found the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy on mars. Because both of those you have to animate as well so it puts that claim on the same level.

Lucy display at the Smithsonian a deception?

How much of Lucy is real and how much is implied fabrication? The pic below shows just how much evolutionists had to fabricate Lucy to make her support their beloved theory.

Lucy is the perfect find for evolution. Why? Because there are no real exacts in the evidence in what the bones tell us, it allows the evolutionists to speculate. Example:

  1. Lucy has no feet. This allows the evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human feet on her.
  2. Lucy has no hands. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human hands on her.
  3. Lucy has no facial bones. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting a near fully formed human face on her.
  4. Lucy pelvic bone and hips are not complete and broken. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by claiming she stood upright.

How far would evolutionists go in their speculation in the attempt to make Lucy look like a missing link to support evolution? Let’s take a look at a wax figure that is in a museum and show what they already had in mind even though no real evidence without speculation supports the picture below.

But this is not the worst of the desperation to form Lucy to support the evolution theory. On a NOVA program Dr. Lovejoy, a well known evolutionist. Took a cast of the pelvic bones and hip and reformed them with a power saw so that they would work for Lucy to stand upright. Here is the video which starts out with Dr. David Menton speaking then goes to the NOVA video.

Video

So what real evidence was there to add all these things to Lucy to make her nearly human to support evolution? Just imagination. To those of us who do not know the background of Lucy and how much real evidence there really was, would be fooled by this representation (deception). So actually in a comparison I can compare this method to selling used cars. A used car salesman is only going to tell and show you what he wants you to see (because the rest would ruin his attempt to sell you the car). He will never tell you the real history of the car he wants to sell you if he wants you to buy. So using his imagination and deception he’s going to plant positive thoughts into your imagination to make you buy what he is selling. He will even use the tactic of appealing to your ego by saying:

  • You would be stupid not to buy this deal today.
  • There are a couple of other prospects that want to buy this item I’m selling.
  • You’d really look cool and be in the in crowd if you buy this item.

It’s all a con game. Because if they were totally honest as they will always claim to be. Beside the display at the Smithsonian and beside the wax figure would have been what was actually found. Giving the onlooker a chance to make up his or her mind as to whether the actual evidence was what they implied it to be or not. But because they know that the actual evidence does not support their speculation this was not done on either display. Proving that it is more important to sell the idea of evolution then it is to prove it.

Atheists run scared of creationist Ken Ham?

1) You make sure that only atheists are allowed to determine anything in science.
2) You put atheists in all-controlling positions.
3) You put guards at the door to make sure no one but atheists ever get in.
4) And you form organizations that make sure any opposing views from any opposing group get removed so they no longer have a voice.
5) And then you attack anyone whom would dare challenge evolution to try to shut them up.

Can any atheists name one person that did not suffer character assassination trying to challenge evolution? Just one person. You guys cannot because you attack relentlessly until the person is destroyed. The one thing they fear most in this world is not death, but that they might actually be wrong and have to admit they were wrong. Most would rather die then have to do that, and that is why in their arrogance print such an article in the paper.

You see atheists believe there are to many gullible people in the world that might not agree with them and become ignorant and agree with the opposing side. Atheists….I think that’s called freedom of choice. But they do not think so. what they do think is that anyone, even with any education whom dares to disagree is retarded, brain-damaged, etc…

My rule of thumb is: The more desperate they get the more of a fools they will make of themselves as they expose their real agenda through evolution. I’m going to show with examples what this agenda is.

Added: The story now even goes further to prove a point. Bill Nye AKA The science guy on PBS. Has decided to speak out against creation and all Christians. He made comments that any parent that teaches creation to their kids is making them illiterate and to do so should be considered child abuse (a crime that a parent can be arrested for and their kids removed from the home). His one mistake like so many atheists is that he makes statements that he is unwilling to back up. Some creation scientists from Answers in Genesis challenged him to a debate because of his comments. Bill Nye, like so many atheists do as of lately, cowardly declined. So Ken Ham (owner and CEO of AIG) made some videos along with the scientists who challenged Bill Nye.

Video

You see from the very beginning the goal was to remove anything to do with Christians from ever being considered as science. That is why one of the very first court battles that involved evolution was removing creation from schools. A theory cannot be falsifiable if what opposes it is silenced. What are atheists afraid of?

Video

And then we have the response from Ken Ham on the hatred, name calling and outright cussing from the people who support what Bill Nye said and did:

Their idea of changing the world is corrupting it. The example here is to exchange the Bible for Porn.

This is a button that is for sale on one of their websites. And this is just the mild stuff. Some is very X-rated. Atheists hate not only God but all Christians. And they use the tool of evolution to spread that hatred. Now you might get an atheists who says: But I have some really good Christian friends so I don’t hate them. Really? Name one atheist that speaks out against this stuff that goes on…It cannot be done. And when men do nothing there are just as guilty as doing it themselves.

And after seeing what this site promotes listing in the pic above, here is what the site says on the issue of hatred: the intent of this site is not to spread hatred for those who believe in Jesus as God; end of quote. They lie so much they no longer know what an oxymoron is.

I have archived on my old site some of the worst stuff that they have. And yes some is X-rated. So you have been warned before you click on this link. https://yecheadquarters.org/evo_hate.html Also make sure to click next at the bottom of each page. That will take you to the next page in that section. The stuff gets worse as it goes.

Why do atheists want so much control? This is how communism, socialism, fascism etc… work. They have to have total control and take away the freedom of the people. Yet while all along claiming that what they offer is more freedom when in actuality it’s not. Don;t believe me? Name one government that was ever a communist state that was Christian? History shows that they were “always atheists”. Even unto this day. So for atheists to gain control to push their communist agenda they have to do what first?

1) Remove the freedoms of the opposing side to take away their voice while along claiming to do so will bring more freedom.
2) Putting their people in all key positions of control in every facet of propaganda that can be controlled so that their side always gets their message across in a positive light while either telling lies about the other side, and not reporting anything bad about their own side. They have control over the TV media but don’t have control over the radio media. But because the radio media is a huge thorn in their side they would like to pass legislation (the fairness act) to get that control. Notice how their control always sounds harmless. Taking control over radio media is an example of fairness? etc…

They also like to blow stuff out of proportion on the other side so that there side looks like some type of saint hood. They often like to bring up the Christian crusades as to what kind of control would dominate. The fact of History is that Constantine controlled the armies that were supposed to be Christian. Constantine objective was to bring out of hiding the Christians so the government would know who they were and their number. He never went against Caesars rule. In fact he secretly worshiped the sun-god Sol. The soldiers he commanded were not saved but were made to believe that they were and that sprinkling holy water on them gave them protection and the authority to do what they did in God’s name. Yet no part of God was ever in it. The goal was to make sure the Christians got blamed for what happened so to ensure that everyone would deem this to be true they made shields with crosses on them as their symbol of in whose name they did their killings, rape etc… So basically we have an atheist who duped other atheists into believing they were doing God’s will and were saved. Only the top men in the military with Constantine had any idea of what he was doing.

Truth be told, Constantine took the Christians that he thought were the most dangerous to Caesar. Who had them dipped in oil, tied to a pole and burned alive at night so to light up Caesar’s rose garden. Caesar would often play the violin why they burned to death. So this was all a deception to bring out the Christians while in the mean time making sure the Christians got blamed for all the bad stuff they did. Under the history of their it has been recorded that over 100,million people have been murdered for the sole reason they would not concede to total dominance and rule by the current government in power. Here are the murders we do know about.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japans Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkeys Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Polands Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Titos Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

The objective to rule effectively once control is taken is to always rule with fear. The fear that offers the most control over a multitude of people is the fear of death and imprisonment. To basically have prisons similar to the holocaust conditions where no one ever leaves alive. The numbers above you won’t find on any of their own websites. In fact these numbers are so well hidden that almost all on their side have never even seen this much less even know this exists. The propaganda they are constantly fed is that one side is totally evil while their side is not. To do this they have to run a massive deception machine which not only includes out right lying, but suppressing of the truth.

Want another example of how atheists in the past have told lies to make an opposing side look worse than they were? Atheists often like to use the term Flat Earth believers when it comes to addressing Christians. This idea extends from the supposed historical fact that the main reason it took so long for Columbus to get approval from the Queen to sail around the world was that the Christians had instilled this fear of flat earth and that if they sailed to far they would fall the end of the edge of the earth and never been found or seen again. And many of you reading this were actually taught this as historical fact in school and believed it. What if I told you that this supposed historical fact was actually more propaganda thought up by a writer named Washington Irving?

Who by the way was an atheist who did not like Christians. He even admitted to adding this fiction to his book for the cause of making all Christians look stupid. And because of this he has lost his historian status and his fiction about Columbus is slowly being removed from all modern books and any updated books. Just Google “Washington Irving flat earth” and read all about it for yourselves. Major encyclopedias like Britannica have removed all mentions of the fiction that was in Washington Irving book as historical fact. The historical fact was that the Queen did not want to invest in such a voyage because of the money involved. Columbus goal was to convince the queen that the money would be a good investment that would show a shorter trade route that would allow their ships to trade more often giving them an advantage in the trade market. This would equal more income for the government and would pay for itself. After many attempts by Columbus to convince the queen she was finally convinced and gave Columbus the okay and the money needed to do it. There is no mention of Flat Earth being a problem.

YouTube Creation vs Evolution debate example

In the past I have debated quite a bit. Being kinda burned out on it I don’t debate that often anymore. And there are several reasons for that.

  1. It’s 99% of the time a waste of time unless there is another creationist you can help out.
  2. There is really no winning a debate from either side.
  3. The object of the YouTube Christian haters is to run everyone off along with showing how much they hate you just for what you believe. This I will actually show in the examples I will use.
  4. The only thing that you can hope for while debating on YouTube against the Christian haters is that you plant seeds in those whose hearts are not full of hatred and are glad they are bound for hell.

Once the debate started, one Christian hater went and got his friends because he could not hold up to the one creationist (me) he was facing. Surfing their forum I have often seen them come in while a debate is going on asking their friends to help them. What I find ironic is that if they can prove creation so easily wrong using science it should only take one person. I have debated up to 10 at one time as they tag team me because one could not handle me. Now I’m not bragging here is just a fact that once a creationist learns how to handle the evolutionist-Christian hating atheists they have to send out the smoke signals for help.

Here is where the debate started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6GvolyF0vwThis is what I posted that started it all: Sorry to burst your evolution bubble here. But the Bible does admit that fish and birds came from the same place: Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven…So it would only be logical that some fish could fly as there are birds that can swim underwater. And some fish that can breathe air. Both were created from the water.

Now did I insult anyone in anyway here? Nope. But watch what happens while the Christian haters get wind of this. First there are a couple of polite posts but it soon gets nasty as I post things the evolutionist-atheist Christian haters get mad at one creationist. In fact I can count on one hand how many comments were not hateful. The cussing starts almost immediately. Along with lying about the Bible.

Atheist: that’s the best shoehorning I’ve ever come across.

Me: And you cannot deny that it fits can you?

Atheist: See, this is the funny thing about some christians claiming atheists (and basically only atheists for some reason) don’t see the beauty in the world because we.. Came from.. Nothing? I don’t fucking know. But then again I flipped my lid when I found out about Mimosa pudica. Nature is awesome! And evil. But mostly awesome! Sure, ostriches evolved from haddock according to the bible, makes perfect sense.

Now more atheists join in:Atheist: Living things aren’t “built”, they “grow”. That’s the fundamental difference that creationists can’t seem to grasp. That’s why all the car and plane examples fall on their faces. No-one built a tree, it grew from something simple without any interference. Evolution of species was similar, biology at its basic is the study of how complexity arises from simple beginnings, and if you mention thermodynamics here you’re more of a moron than I already thought…

Me: Ever heard of building blocks? If things just grow that way then we should be able to grow what we want. So do we? No because DNA and RNA have limitations. And more than a ,01% in change at any given time can be deadly. Don;t believe me? Go get an organ transplant where the organ has a greater difference then what can work and see what happens. Also I like that you called me a moron because it means that name calling is the only way you can win a debate. So keep it up you just prove my point.

Atheist:The standard sturgeon general-type warning to creos: if your position requires you to be ignorant or dishonest about alternative positions, your position is sh*t. *yes, of course the T was on purpose

Side note: How you can tell your argument is doing any good is when they resort to calling you names, insults, stereotyping, cussing etc… This is done when there is not counter. And to cover up for their inability to debate you they have to do this. It’s either that or accept defeat which by the way would never happen. So from this point forward it only gets worse as they show their hate for someone they have never met, yet only hate for what i believe.

Me: What’s funny and ironic is that some claim that believing in God is stupid yet when it’s all boiled down it only their opinion. Because if science makes you so smart why did you not use it in your post? Like when man builds a plane to fly does he just do it with no intelligence, or does it take several steps of intelligence to build one to actually fly? Now explain to all of us how evolution just does it without any intelligence.

Atheist:That would be a waste of time. You are unwilling if not able to learn. Much better idea: you tell me what *you* think the evolutionary explanation is. At least one of us will get some belly-laughs out of that.

Me: That’s what you will always get, is that all evolutionists will ignore not being able to explain the specifics yet call us stupid. I guess when they cannot do any better than that calling someone else stupid to cover for it is all they have left. Which is ironic because I see more of that in debates than science. says a lot.

Atheist: They were the primary food source of the now extinct crocoduck.

Atheist: If I don’t get to hear your comically moronic version of what the ToE says in about 5 more minutes, I’m gonna track down your sister, accost her, and tell her she smells like cheese. Don’t make me do it, man. Make with the funny!

Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

Atheist: we’re not debating, trust me. And before spouting off bollocks statistics it would help if you knew something about genetics and how DNA/RNA actually works. Replication, translation, transcription, learn how proteins fold and function, learn how the cell cycle acts, learn the fundamentals of biology. If every mutation resulted in instant death then individuals of any species would be identical, there would be no variation whatsoever, and then kiss my hairy MC1R mutated arse

Me: And that’s the best you can do for a cop-out when you cannot address what was said? How lame. But please do it again and prove my point. Maybe some people did not get it the first time.

Atheist: I need not address what was said. Eve
ry single thing we know about biology looks exactly like it should if all extant life evolved from a common ancestor. If that’s not how it all got here, then why was your god so very, obsessively careful to cover up the real story and create the impenetrable illusion of evolution? And why should I buy the explanation of a creation followed by a magical cover-up when I can just accept that what it looks like happened, happened?

Me: Exactly what is that suppose to prove? Cheetahs are clones? Clones can do the same thing because they are exact replicas.

Atheist: Cheetahs are NOT clones, Cheetah’s are inbred, really inbred. You are a moron 😛

Me: Never said they were clones. And calling me a moron just shows you cannot really address this. So keep it up and prove my point. But you can think of much worse names to call me, right? So show how much an expert you are in name calling when you cannot address the subject at hand. Come on you know you want to.

Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

Me: What’s ironic is that it was not Christians who thought up the flat earth idea. It was an atheist named Washington Irving. He later admitted to his book on the voyages of Columbus being partly fiction due to this fact. So the idea of flat earth is not even connected to Christians. Irving wanted to discredit Christians back then so he lied to do it. Google flat earth Washington Irving and see for yourself.

Me: Education is just another lame cop-out. Ben Stein has several degrees did anyone listen to him? Nope. And these degrees were obtained from schools like Harvard. So it has nothing to do with education you are just trying every which way to wiggle out of answering any questions that make you ponder evolution might be wrong. So keep up the good work of making my points that you are an expert at avoidance. Make sure to bring up some more off topic things to show you cannot address anything said.

Atheist: Ben Stein is an economist. Would you go to Ben Stein to get your colon checked? No?? Why not? He has “several degrees,” right? Oh, that’s right. He is an economist, not a super genius with answers on every subject known to man. Seriously, at least come at us with someone like Behe or the like. That has more credibility than Stein. Worlds more credibility, not that Behe has a lot, but that is another matter.

Me: The other problem is sorting of the layers. You guys have no mechanism that involves time that sorts layers. Water will sort layers again and again which means it’s observable and repeatable which makes it empirical, And what do you have to compete with this? nothing.

Me: The second problem is that if you take the aquatic section of the fossil record and set it next to the ocean living habitats of where fish live in the ocean. The fossil record matches each habitat area. 1) bottom dwellers first, 2) mid dwellers second. 3) Top dwellers last. You see this is consistent with a how it would happen if life where buried quickly were it lived because of a flood. there is not reason for evolution to work in this exact order.

Side note: Here is the picture illustration of what I was talking about that I cannot post on YouTube.

Me: I see no body tried to address the problem with the fossil record I pointed out yet avoided the issue by trying to change the subject. If you cannot address those points there is no point in me continuing debating here because I’m wasting my time with people who have no answers. If you want to convince me show me. Avoidance only reaffirms my position in believing creation.

Atheist: you link me to the sources about those living fossils where you got your info, and I’ll answer. In turn you can answer how you think there’s variation within species to begin with if mutations aren’t possible or hereditary.

Me: Credibility is a matter of opinion. We were speaking of education. The opinions of atheists concerning creationists will always be negative. Anything beyond that would be the same as it snowing in Hell. So your point is lame.

Atheist: Oh, so when some quack comes on the TV and tells you the Earth is flat, you think that person’s credibility is a matter of opinion?

Atheist: I never claimed to be an expert. I just asserted that you are a moron because you suggested Cheetahs are clones. Cheetahs reproduce sexually. Regardless you asserted organ transplants, and Cheetahs disprove that man is only 6000-10,000 years from a population of 2. Sorry Charley.

Me: Explain just how long it takes and provide empirical evidence to prove this. If you cannot them what you claim is only an assumption that is not based in any empirical fact. So you prove nothing. Sorry Charley. I’m not a push over and green behind the ears in debating. If you are going to present evidence to debunk creation mere words are not going to do it. But then again mere words make it easy for me.

Atheist:“The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching.” James Hannam. I’m sure most of us are aware that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (40,000 km) in ~250 BCE, so what’s your point?

Me: What ironic is that after I proves Washington Irving who is an atheist lied about this, you want me to believe another atheist is telling the truth about this? I’m not about to buy ocean front
property in Arizona so your sell is a no sell.

Atheist: You “proves” it to me? Ahh, that doesn’t sound like good philosophy to me. Who’s the other atheist you’re referring to? And am I expected to accept your “Google it” source when you’re so dismissive of my source? I don’t see why I should accept yours either; and I don’t really care if you accept mine. Also, if you think atheists are liars, & Irving was a lying atheist, at what point did you decide he was telling the truth? Maybe his admission was a lie too.

Me: If you are so truthful and everyone else are liars as you try to imply. Why was it that no atheist ever wrote a moral code that sets the standard for what atheists should follow? It’s because if a standard did it exist then you could be held accountable and therefore look bad. But omitting this allows you to look good regardless as to the reason you would rather defend and justify lying then using it as an example of what not to do.

Atheist: If there were a world-wide flood then the carcasses of all species would be totally mixed up together. The mud (which would not have had a chance to dry for a year) would have been churned up by the mega tides that would result from the lack of continents to bump into. BTW, when the flood was drying out the Ark would have been smashed repeatedly on the bottom leaving no survivors.

Atheist: Species’ groups that remain in an unchanging environment are under no evolutionary pressure to change. They replicate as things normally do. Just because you’ve seen fossils of them doesn’t mean it didn’t take evolution for them to get to the stage when they first hit the scene. Find something OUT OF PLACE like a Cambrian whale

Atheist: The first problem with the second problem is that you utterly made it up out of thin air.

Atheist: UNLESS… you just want to say, “God did it.” At which point, I then am forced to ask, “Why would the God who claims to not be the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33 KJV) create things in such a way as to look like they evolved over millions of years in direct contradiction to His holy text?” Seriously, at some point, when the evidence does not comport with your story, you are going to punt with “God did it” or something of the like, and run into this question. Might as well jump here now.

Atheist:The layers of the earth are not just stratification of a single liquified layer. That would produce one course to fine layer, but this is not what is there. It is course>fine>course>fine>course>fine>course>fine>…consisting of water born sediment, ash from volcanoes, sand, silt, clay, etc. alternating repeatedly which could not happen in one flood. I expect you will just ignore this and say it make no difference.Me: do living fossils exist or not? Are they found in more than one layer showing they survived or not? And the reason everything looks related is because everything that is alive uses the same template for life (RNA DNA). So what would one expect to find in creation that is being claimed as evidence for evolution? Google list living fossils. Show one that is found in other layers that proves it survived until present time.

Atheist: I prefer you stay a dumbass creatard. Its way more fun. Notice how you play the persecution card. No please stay a creatard, your not smart enough or brave enough to be an atheist. Your life is based on something for which there is no evidence of. I actually care that what I believe is true you don’t. Its that simple.

Atheist: No, he/she claims its an argument from ignorance, because it is. Know the term, the correct definition of the term, and understand why the term applies here.

Atheist: Common template doesn’t work, buddy. If it did, why are there so many different types of eyes? What about ERVs, which are viruses inserted in our DNA that we have in the same places, in the same way? Why is it that whenever one looks at inheritable traits or genes and traces them back, one gets the same nested hierarchy called the tree of life? Why do we not see a mammal with blue blood, like octopuses have? Why would the “designer” use a four legged mammal template for dolphins and whales?

Atheist: i dont imply a damned thing about it being absolute, its a method that has always been found accurate for the stuff we do know, and no one has come up with a reason it wouldnt be accurate for the stuff we dont. dont believe it all you want, it is the more trustworthy option and it does discredit YEC, no absolutes needed. I asked for a citation, and some EVIDENCE for your assertion. You seem to assert because Egypt had a religion, and Darwin studied religion, that Darin pulled his ideas from Egyption religion. You would need some evidence of that, like a history of his education in seminary. And I didn’t offer a rebuttal, I asked for a citation. You don’t have fine, then your assertions are dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Me: Darwin also plagiarized just about everything he claimed as his own. Most of his ideas came from his grandfather’s book named: Zoonomia, the laws of organic life. Natural selection was thought up by Edward Blythe. He made racist comments and hung around racist people (Huxley and Haeckel). His theory was used to put Indians and Africans on displays in zoos and not one evolutionist spoke out against this why it went on.

Atheist:”Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?” What EVIDENCE do you have Darwin even studied Egyptian Mythology, or the study of other religions was required at Cambridge in the 19th century. That seems just a little far fetched. Near as I’m aware he majored in ANGLICAN THEOLOGY and naturalism, but if you have evidence he deviated beyond the required Greek and Latin required for theology, PROVIDE A F**&[email protected]$ CITATION. PS blocking you until morning.

Atheist: You’d have to ask a biologist on this, but if you want a phylogenetic tree of the trilobite you can hit the library, or google it. Like everyone else, I have NO fucking idea what the hell you’re talking about.Oh, if I block you, don’t mind it, I was a dumb ass and got a smart phone and your comments are waking me up damn it.

Me: The evolution idea actually came from Egyptian religions. They believed all humans came from animals. And what animal you came from determined you race and status in life. they also had a form of abiogenesis belief. Where they believed all life came from the slime ar
ound the Nile River. Being that Darwin had no scientific degrees but had a degree in theology. Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?

Atheist: That isn’t hate dude, that’s really was the alternative to evolution, alligators forming from logs. That IS what we believed well into the middle of the 19th century. And you’re just projecting on this fear business. You assert evolution precludes god(s), which is actually untrue, so evolution is false. In reality, you need to formulate a theory with empirical evidence, publish, and accept criticism. “And now everyone knows why evolution is not falsifiable” It is falsifiable 😛

Atheist:”Naturalism requires” Let’s review 1. Everything has a cause 2. Nothing can cause itself 3. Causes can’t be infinite 4. So there has to be a first cause. 5. God = first cause, god exists This is your assertion in a nutshell, and I personally don’t propose god’s exist or don’t exist. I dunno, and I don’t care. But 5 is a non sequitur. But this is so far outside the scope of this video which is evolution, not gods, creation, or naturalism.

Me: Now let me guess what you are going to say next. Let’s see…. something about actually proving something exists, right? I find this argument pops up when atheists have nothing left in the science to present so they go for the broad spectrum cop out response. Lame.

Atheist: Well, I mentioned “pre” Cambrian strata, which ought to clue you in to the fact that the Cambrian is not the oldest/lowest stratum. Trilobites are dated from the Cambrian to around 526 mya, but simpler, eyeless forms exist, like Spriggina floundersi from the Ediacaran period, which precedes the Cambrian, dated 550 mya. The earliest, single-celled organisms are dated to 3.5 bya. So, is three billion years long enough for you?

Special side note: What every evolutionist ignores or does not realize is that dating markers from the layers will cross contaminate the fossils in the layers. So if the flood sorted them and put them in that order, they will date the exact age of the layer not the exact age in which they lived. Why? Because there is more dating markers in the layer than the fossil. So the dating markers in the later overwhelm the ones on the fossil and change the date of the fossil so that the layer and the fossil match in every instance.

Example: If you bury a bone that came from a dead animal 20 years old in a layer that dates 3 million years old. Over time the bone, regardless of it’s age, will soon become cross contaminated by the layer and will now date the same age as the layer. This is why a fossil found will always date the same as the layer. All fossils have been in the ground long enough to become cross contaminated. This is also why they find blood and soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that date millions of year old. The date is wrong because the layers cross contaminated the fossil. And anyone with any sense knows that blood and soft tissue is not going to last that long regardless of how it’s protected. Because unknown to most evolutionists the same people who made the find which was deemed as a fluke, have reconfirmed the find on several other fossils as well.

So the find is not observable and repeatable which means evolutionists have a lot to explain here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1135

Etc…

As the debate progresses forward more join the debate and the insults and name calling and stereotyping and cussing increase. At some point in the middle of all this where it now seems every response has some type of insult or name calling I decided I have made my point. Because I keep pointing out that this (cussing etc…) is the only thing they seem to be good at so keep it up and prove my point. And they did page after page. This debate was about 15 pages long. And once I left of course they all had to take their last little back stabs with more insults and name calling. The only thing I can gather is this is how you prove evolution. Don’t use science use bullying tactics.

So to counter such tactics one has to just point them out and how lame they really are. then encourage them to continue and show everybody how unscientific evolution is that all evolutionist must resort to this. So why do they hate someone they have never met? Their bias and need for absolute control and power over everyone’s thoughts and beliefs makes to where they have to hate anyone who disagrees. After all do you call a friend all the names and insults they made to me? Nope.

And people wonder why I don’t get involved in many debates anymore and this is why. The debates are no longer about any science. It’s about who can insult or call names better. And what does that scientifically prove? nothing. Only that evolution is moving towards teaching all whom believe it to hate all who don’t. Because if you ask them why they hate they suddenly don;t have an answer but will respond: I don’t hate you. But their actions never match their words.

Also the reason everything looks related is because of this:

Evolution debate will soon be history?

Evolutionists will try to say that Darwin was not racist. Yet Darwin never made a comment in any of his writings or book in defense of any human of a different race. He made racist comments himself and had friends that were outspoken racists. The fact is, if you are not racist you don’t make racist comments and hang around racist people. Darwin was not naive, he was living in a time when racism and slavery was everywhere. So he knew what his idea would do in fueling of current feelings towards other races. And to this day you can see what Darwin’s idea has done and that racism is still very much a part of it. White man is always the end of every human evolution chart. It would be unthinkable for a black man to be the final human evolution result because evolution makes the white man superior.

Don’t believe that evolution is about racism? Point these facts out to any evolutionist and see how they respond. Instead of saying they made a mistake and that this should not be repeated. They will “defend” the past actions of these people and try to make it sound justified. This is also why you won’t ever see this racist history printed in any evolution text along with why this should not be done or repeated. Or an apology to any race that was hurt due to these actions. So if evolutionists are not racist then what is their problem of making sure their idea is never used for that purpose and to expose the ones who did in past history as an example of what not to do? It’s because they would have to admit that even Darwin was involved and have to face the fact that their theory may not recover in the people’s eyes if they knew all this. So this history is omitted from every textbook that teaches evolution. I find it ironic that evolutionist are quick to point out everyone Else’s bad past history yet hide their own. I believe that’s called being a hypocrite.

Also the way they try to debunk evidence that does not support evolution. Instead of acknowledging this, they go into attack mode. First attacking the creditability of the person who discovered it, then making false accusations along with numerous deceptions and lies. Where is the science in doing all that? No where. So anyone whom has any credibility they have built up over many years risks getting it destroyed if they dare challenge evolution. So through fear and intimidation evolution gets to stay top dog. Real truth and reality does not need all these tactics to protect it. that’s because real truth can stand on its own.

Does anyone know why evolutionists always look right? It’s because there philosophy of how science is supposed to work allows them to be right and wrong at the same time. Example: Let’s say today a evolutionist uses evidence on a major tv debate between me and him and more or less says I’m lying because this evidence is a true proven fact. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really lying? But yet what will be the excuse instead of “we wrong”? It will be: “That’s how science works”. And even though they called me a liar with that now proven wrong evidence, this accusation never has to be retracted and no public apologies made. But instead the creationist will always look like the one whom was wrong regardless. So even their lies and deceptions are true. Now if they can tweak this ability to look right all the time to the point to where everyone is too stupid to realize it, then yes the debate could be over in 15-30 years.

Evolutionists like to claim evolution is so observable. Yet when a film illustrating how evolution works how much of it has to be animated in order to show people how it works? Over 90% of it has to be animated. Is animation now empirical evidence because the animation can be repeated in a lab? Want an illustration on how much animation is needed to show evolution is any evolution video? Go to YouTube and just type in evolution into their search engine and see for yourself. Or here is an example:

Video

Yep, evolution is now proven because we can see it through animation. And I can make a very long list of all this stuff that has nothing to do with science that is called science and proof of evolution. There is a reason that only evolutionists are allowed to interpret evolution evidence. It’s because evolutionists want to make sure that they always 100% get evidence to support evolution. And doing it this way while barring any whom would disagree ensures this 100% of the time. Their interpretation is the only one that counts or will ever be accepted. Being that atheist-evolutionist control science and control all interpretations and what is accepted as evidence and what is rejected means they have absolute control. Control to this level can only breed corruption. Besides what would be wrong with having outside sources look into things to make sure everything was being done right? It’s because they would be exposed so that would never happen. And to make sure that never happens they have an unwritten rule that states regardless of your education, if you don’t agree with evolution  you will never be accepted in scientific circles. As one professor said:

So proven by scientific discovery, or bias through absolute control and corruption?

Challenge to YECs? Part 8

Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES

  • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
  • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

  • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
  • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
  • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
  • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

  • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
  • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
  • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
  • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
  • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands. The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
  • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
  • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
  • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.
Challenge to YECs? Part 7

7. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF BIOGEOGRAPHY

  • According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally only in the areas in which they first appeared – even though there are no compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration (after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental animals are virtually absent from Australia.
  • Response: The expansion and contraction of the earth’s crust because of the water from under the earth’s crust coming up and then going back means that the motion of the tectonic plates had not completely stopped yet. How does one stop a moving continent? And because there were only certain number of animals that came off the Ark, if they happen to migrate to an area of land that was still in motion because the tectonic plates were still settling. Then they could one day find themselves separated from the rest of the animals that were on the original land mass the Ark had landed on. So being so few in number at that time this separation made the continents often species specific. Because how does the animal swim back, or those left behind swim to them?

Example: Let’s say the polar bear does not swim. Let’s say there are 5 species divided up by male and female of those who are compatible to reproduce. They live separate because they can tell who’s different and are not interesting in mingling. While on the ice one day the ice decides to separate. One species ends up living in one area of the ice while another drifts to a whole totally new area. But they are now totally separate and the two areas are now species specific.Also remember the continents were together at one time (super continent). Which means all land mass were together as well. So when the Ark landed these animals migrate and end up in different areas that later separate after the flood. So does the Bible support Pangaea theory? Yep. In the creation it is stated that the earth was covered totally with water.Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The whole earth being covered with water during creation is confirmed when the water has to go underground before dry land can appear.Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If water has to be removed somewhat so that land could “appear” means that the whole earth was covered during creation. Because you cannot make something appear if it’s already there. And because this was the first expansion of the earth’s crust, this is what left the evidence of the Pangaea super continent. The flood which was the “first contraction” of the tectonic plates pushed up the mountains that we now observe. This is because when the water came up from under the earth’s crust there was nothing there supporting the plates anymore so they come back together forming one solid earth while pushing up mountains. But the cracks from the first expansion were still there. And when the water seep back into what was now very hot, steamed formed making pressure which pushed the tectonics plates back apart allowing water to come back in to be underground again. Once the water pressure equalized between above ground and below ground the extreme pressure made the boiling point of the water go high enough that the boiling and steam stopped and so did the expansion of the tectonic plates. But while the water was flowing into the underground areas the pressures were not high enough so the steam continued to push the plates apart. What made the pressures less during this time was that the expansion acted like a syringe. The plunger being pulled back to suck the liquid inward has to create somewhat of a vacuum to do this. Just like the expanding plates opening faster than the water could flow into it would do the same thing. This is because water has a viscosity to it which means it also has a “flow rate”. This can be demonstrated by pouring water through a funnel. According to how big the smallest end is determines the flow rate because of the water viscosity (how thick it is as a liquid).
But because this brought up more molten rock to the surface to cover the area that has now expanded. There was not enough solid-cooled down molten rock in the earth’s crust yet to stop the tectonic plates from moving like they were floating. What this allowed for was continental drift. So when the animals from the flood got onto certain land masses while migrating that were still drifting, they became separated from the original group making that particular continent only have the species that happened to migrate to that land mass before it drifted away. Once that molten rock hardened enough, and in the amount needed. The continents drift slowed up to what we observe today and the continents basically drifted to their current positions. So the hardening molten rock acted as a type of braking system slowing up the continental drift over the years. What would also help in the slowing of the tectonic plates movements is the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits and the pull of the sun.This video, which has nothing to do with creation, pretty much sums up how the earth expands and contracts when water exists and then is removed.

Video

Neal Adams, who made this video animation, did not realize his idea fits perfectly with the creation model. Because to make the earth smaller water has to be removed from under the crust and between the land masses. And as you watch the earth shrink in the animation notice how the water disappears. In the creation and flood model this is what the land masses would look like under the water. And this is something that most evolutionists forget is the earth will shrink when the water from underneath the crust is removed. But then you might say: There is not enough water under the crust to make the earth shrink that much. And if you assume that you would be wrong.Research done on the upper mantle of the earth has found that a mineral called “wadsleyite” holds about 3% of water by weight. This may not seem like much until you do the math on how much wadsleyite there is. The amount of water works out to be 30 oceans worth. More than enough to flood well beyond the highest mountain, and make the earth expand and contract as much as shown in the animation.
Reference: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=294

  • The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the Indian Ocean. The slow-moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest, although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area. Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no amphibians on remote islands.
  • Response: The last response answered this question. But I will take this a step further to prove my point. Because of the flood there should be a dispersion of all seeds all around the planet. This would not be like the last response where areas became species specific due to continent separation. The plant dispersion and survival would be based more on its ability to survive in the area its seeds ended up in. So we would expect to see plants growing according to its ability to survive in that climate so the mixture of species would not be as much continent specific as animal life. And that is what we see.

Also the flood would explain such huge movement in the tectonic plates that would allow plants to be found in areas today that they could have never survived in. Such as palm trees found buried in ice. Plants and animals found buried near the poles that only lived in warm climate and could have never survived the cold climate. Only movement of the plates due to a flood could displace things like that.

  • The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls. Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast.
  • Response: Birds are actually a bad example for the specific reason that these birds can migrate thousands of miles over water and land. Their migration places them where they are, unlike land animals who would be restricted from moving across thousands of mile of water. So it does not mean one species of bird bread off another because they happen to live next to each other. Their migration drive is also fed by the need to breed. For if their migration habits were different and they did not live together then this conclusion could not be made. Or the interpretation would be different just to make the conclusion conform to how evolution works. Conformism is not science.
Challenge to YECs? Part 5

Dogs will always breed dogs just like cats will always breed cats. Neither can breed each other nor anything else. But yet all are related because of the common template for all life used by the Creator.