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**&!@$ 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:

...8
FaceBook feeds

 

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

12 hours ago

Ark Encounter

Happy Birthday to Rudder our Blue Tongued Skink, who turns 14 years old today! Rudder is always great during interactions with guests on deck 2 of the ark and he feels just like corn on the cob! Instead of a traditional birthday cake, Rudder enjoyed some extra blueberries today. ... See MoreSee Less

Happy Birthday to Rudder our Blue Tongued Skink, who turns 14 years old today! Rudder is always great during interactions with guests on deck 2 of the ark and he feels just like corn on the cob! Instead of a traditional birthday cake, Rudder enjoyed some extra blueberries today.

Comment on Facebook

We have one named mojo... he is 13.

All the animals are now being kept enclosed like a zoo? So people can be entertained? Cruel!

Is that how he got the blue tongue? Blueberries?

Happy birthday

Rudder!!! One of my favorite reptiles at the Ark!! 😁

Cool

I love Rudder. He is the sweetest and I can't wait to visit him again. ❤

View more comments

13 hours ago

Ray Comfort

Lust is a monster. Feed it at your own peril. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I hate porn

Lucas Romero

Lust is a thought. Its meaningless unless acted upon. So control yourself and theres no problem.

It NEVER gets satisfied !!!

Love is fulfilling and satisfying! Abhor lust!

Lust is perfectly natural, so is sex and masturbation.

Don't all (or at least most) sexual organisms experience lust? Doesn't it drive us to reproduce? Isn't it at least partially responsible for us being here?

.

“For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, lusting & coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.—Jesus

Those that belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

Well said, brother!

You lust after sinners, you never seem full.

The last major fleshly thing I struggle to get free from.

Thats the truth!

Finally Free by Heath Lambert ❤️

View more comments

17 hours ago

Ark Encounter

Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 1 Peter 4:16 ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Casting Crowns I Will Praise You in This Storm has been my theme song for nearly 10 years.

Let me praise His name in suffering as I do in the blessing , that I would be made complete for that day.

1 day ago

YecHeadquarters

It is best not to waste your time on people who are not remotely interested in salvation. It's Satan's trick to waste your time with people who have become professionals at doing just that. Why? So you won't use your time with those who are interested.

When Jesus met the rich man, he tested him to see if he was truly interested. Jesus told him that in order to follow he must sell everything he has, give it to the poor, then come follow him. Why? Jesus knew that the man's money was his god and therefore would always be an issue with him staying on the straight and narrow.

Money may not be an atheist's issue, but sin is. Sin brings pleasures of the flesh and therefore their sin and flesh become their gods. So to change is to trade one god for another and they are not willing to do that. Instead they prefer a god that will allow the other god to exist. Like a soldier who is unwilling to commit to either side, he becomes a traitor to both sides.

Example: During the civil war there was a soldier who refuse to pick sides. So he wore the pants of one side, and the shirt of the other. And when they found his body, he had been shot in the front and back because neither side could trust him.

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Choose today whom you will serve. ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

It is best not to waste your time on people who are not remotely interested in salvation. Its Satans trick to waste your time with people who have become professionals at doing just that. Why? So you wont use your time with those who are interested.

When Jesus met the rich man, he tested him to see if he was truly interested. Jesus told him that in order to follow he must sell everything he has, give it to the poor, then come follow him. Why? Jesus knew that the mans money was his god and therefore would always be an issue with him staying on the straight and narrow.

Money may not be an atheists issue, but sin is. Sin brings pleasures of the flesh and therefore their sin and flesh become their gods. So to change is to trade one god for another and they are not willing to do that. Instead they prefer a god that will allow the other god to exist. Like a soldier who is unwilling to commit to either side, he becomes a traitor to both sides.

Example: During the civil war there was a soldier who refuse to pick sides. So he wore the pants of one side, and the shirt of the other. And when they found his body, he had been shot in the front and back because neither side could trust him.

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Choose today whom you will serve. ~ Issac

Juno spacecraft: Io is young

The age of the universe is an important topic in origins. If the universe is “young,” then the creation model is supported. There are many physical indicators that the universe is young, including the evidence of “hot moons.”

Nasa identifies Jupiter’s moon Io as “the most volcanically active world in the solar system.” Io has “hundreds of volcanoes, some erupting lava fountains dozens of miles (or kilometers) high.” “Io even has lakes of molten silicate lava on its surface.” “Io’s volcanoes are at times so powerful that they are seen with large telescopes on Earth.”

The following Speaking of Science article by David Coppedge appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 24, No.1, January/February 2019.

A different spacecraft that is at Jupiter, named Juno (see Coppedge, 2017 [5]), imaged a volcanic plume on the little moon Io that stands out prominently on the speck of image taken 186,000 miles away, reports Space.com.[6] This must have been a major eruption to be visible from that far. Meghan Bartels says, “The activity is spurred by Jupiter’s massive gravity tugging at the moon,” but she fails to mention whether that kind of dynamic activity could continue for 4.5 billion years. Secular reporters usually fail to connect the dots. This may be on purpose. They will make contradictory statements in isolation so that the public doesn’t see the trick. The quote above about Io is a prime example: on the one hand, Jupiter causes Io to erupt (but no mention of age). On the other hand, the Jupiter system is alleged to be 4.5 billion years old (but no mention of the activity). Critical thinkers have to connect those two statements to see the age problem, because the media that is committed to millions/billions-of-years thinking will never do it for you.

[5] Coppedge, D.F. (2017, June 29). Juno Finds a ‘Whole New Jupiter.’ CREV Headlines. Retrieved January 16, 2019 from crev.info/2017/06/junofinds-whole-new-jupiter/

[6]. Bartels, M. (2019, January 2). Volcanic Plume on Jupiter's Moon Io Spied by Juno Spacecraft. Space.com. Retrieved January 16, 2019 from www.space.com/42876-jupiter-moon-io-volcanic-plume-junophoto.html

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
... See MoreSee Less

Juno spacecraft: Io is young

The age of the universe is an important topic in origins. If the universe is “young,” then the creation model is supported. There are many physical indicators that the universe is young, including the evidence of “hot moons.” 

Nasa identifies Jupiter’s moon Io as “the most volcanically active world in the solar system.” Io has “hundreds of volcanoes, some erupting lava fountains dozens of miles (or kilometers) high.” “Io even has lakes of molten silicate lava on its surface.” “Io’s volcanoes are at times so powerful that they are seen with large telescopes on Earth.”

The following Speaking of Science article by David Coppedge appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 24, No.1, January/February 2019.

A different spacecraft that is at Jupiter, named Juno (see Coppedge, 2017 [5]), imaged a volcanic plume on the little moon Io that stands out prominently on the speck of image taken 186,000 miles away, reports Space.com.[6] This must have been a major eruption to be visible from that far. Meghan Bartels says, “The activity is spurred by Jupiter’s massive gravity tugging at the moon,” but she fails to mention whether that kind of dynamic activity could continue for 4.5 billion years. Secular reporters usually fail to connect the dots. This may be on purpose. They will make contradictory statements in isolation so that the public doesn’t see the trick. The quote above about Io is a prime example: on the one hand, Jupiter causes Io to erupt (but no mention of age). On the other hand, the Jupiter system is alleged to be 4.5 billion years old (but no mention of the activity). Critical thinkers have to connect those two statements to see the age problem, because the media that is committed to millions/billions-of-years thinking will never do it for you.

[5] Coppedge, D.F. (2017, June 29). Juno Finds a ‘Whole New Jupiter.’ CREV Headlines. Retrieved January 16, 2019 from https://crev.info/2017/06/junofinds-whole-new-jupiter/ 

[6]. Bartels, M. (2019, January 2). Volcanic Plume on Jupiters Moon Io Spied by Juno Spacecraft. Space.com. Retrieved January 16, 2019 from https://www.space.com/42876-jupiter-moon-io-volcanic-plume-junophoto.html

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org

1 day ago

Ray Comfort

180movie.com ... See MoreSee Less

180movie.com

Comment on Facebook

Awesome film!!!!!

Heart melting😥

Too bad "180" hadn't been made during Noah's time. Maybe Jehovah would have watched it & changed his mind about drowning millions of babies & pregnant women in the Global Flood.

PRAISE THE LORD!!!

He looks a little like my son 😭

Beautiful child!!

Praise God!

Such a sweet face💜

Praise the Lord!

Cute!!!

Thank You LORD JESUS CHRIST for everything. Amen 🙏👑♥️

Praise God!

Excellent movie.

He's beautiful

Wow! Such great impact., A life was spared

Cute little boy, glad she changed her mind

Made in God's image! What a sweet boy! God bless him!!

View more comments

1 day ago

Ray Comfort

It is a most wonderful truth that among the trillions of sounds, thoughts, and voices that the omniscient God hears, that He especially hears the penitent prayer. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

righteous.

specifically

Amen!

If only “he” could hear the pleas of the parents of the millions of children who starve to death around the world every year.😕

If he hears prayer then why do over 11 million children under the age of 5 die EVERY YEAR?.

Any evidence to back up that claim? Anyway we can falsifiably test this claim?

Another empty claim?

Which god? There’s literally thousands throughout mankind’s history.

So he does not especially hear sounds that are not penitent prayers? Is that because he chooses not to, or is unable to as easily?

We have aid organisations for a reason. As prayer doesn't work, aid organisations/human efforts work. If left to prayer of any penitent person it would still have no effect on the situation.

Sounds nice, but not scriptural. God hear all the prayers of the faithful. Penitent, thankful, intercession. There is no ranking. God hears them all equally

We are so grateful! ♥️

So He hears them and then decides to not help people who are suffering. Is that part of the wonderful truth?

Prayer is communicating with a listening God.

Praying is communicating with a listening God.

He also hears the cried of the broken. He is a God of love...not someone you fear and accept for the fire insurance. But you can't make big bucks preaching grace and not fear.

He is good

Majority of aid organizations are CHRISTian based, and dependent on prayer.

John 9:30-31

View more comments

A little louder for the people in the back!

Romans 3:4
“... Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar ..”

#truth #bible #Godsword #godswordistruth #Jesus #God #Godisgood #jesusisking #Jesuslovesyou #JesusSaves
... See MoreSee Less

A little louder for the people in the back! 

Romans 3:4
“... Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar ..”

#truth #bible #Godsword #godswordistruth #Jesus #God #Godisgood #jesusisking #Jesuslovesyou #JesusSaves

Comment on Facebook

Gods Word is very alive and very True, He showed it to me.

How many of the prophets in the Bible were killed because the people rejected God's word? I hope everyone is reading through the Bible this year. It's not to late to start a 1 year plan. It has the power to change your life.

The light of the gospel sheds light on the darkness of sin.

Amen and Amen!!

Amen 🙏

I just dropped a note to a sister in Christ. When witnessing to Jews I try to only use the Old Testament for as long as possible. But it seems like the more I use Jeremiah or Ezekiel or even the Torah then I am accused of being a Christian. Is this not ironic or self condemning or something like that? I am not even sure of which term to use but I am baffled. But I will stick to sharing the Tanakh with those Israelis in the hope of making them jealous to search out the word of God for themselves. I love what Jacob Prasch says about Jesus being the 'word of God' in print and Jesus being the 'word of God made flesh.' I hope I quoted him properly but it is an exciting time we live in.

Amen

View more comments

Actress Michelle Williams credits her abortion for enabling her to win a hunk of metal with her name on it (a Golden Globe Award). Can you be a Christian and Pro-Abortion? ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Disgusting. So sad and evil. We gotta pray for her to see,except and conviction to REPENT TO OUR ONE TRUE GOD.....

She will never say sadder or more disturbing words. Wonder how the child actually has now fells.

all of the hellywood actors have sold their souls to satan, even if they claim to be “christian” it’s a bold faced lie. probably a tactic they use to get the lukewarms to worship them and satan.

Great job, Chad! You did a most excellent job dismantling their Orwellian doublespeak!!! A woman’s choice?! That term is superfluous; very misleading. Aside from leftist, hedonistic celebrities, I understand that many women are coerced, wrongly persuaded, misled, etc.......so could the verbiage be changed to a woman’s delusion. I think you can coin Planned Murderhood; never heard such terminology. But, spot on! Release the truth and it marches on! Truth matters! Unborn babies matter!

Praise God for your Ministry! Agree Abortion is Murder! No, not after you are a Christian can you be Pro-Abortion knowingly!

She sacrificed her baby for an idol. 😡

When someone kills another they go to prison. The same should be for mothers who kill their babies. Sick monsters.

A lot of people have honk hunting animals is wrong. You bey call it murder. I wonder how many of these same people are pro choice?

Just plain evil

Well in a Satanic world I am not surprised that she was rewarded by Satan for give a child Sacrifice to Molech. 😢 society has turned their back on Yahweh and Celebrating pagan ritual holidays!

Hillary Kieft

View more comments

Original Proteins Found in Fossil Sea Turtle, Part 2

Original biomolecules are powerful evidence for a Biblical age of the Earth.

The following Speaking of Science article by David Coppedge appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 22, No. 6, November/December 2017.

The open-access paper, published October 17 in Nature Scientific Reports,[2] calls the specimen “arguably one of the best preserved juvenile fossil sea turtles on record.” Traces of soft tissue were preserved “with great fidelity,” the paper says. What was found was original, unmineralized material.

“Here we show that the extraordinary preservation of the type of T. Danica goes beyond gross morphology to include ultrastructural details and labile molecular components of the once-living animal. Haemoglobin-derived compounds, eumelanic pigments and proteinaceous materials retaining the immunological characteristics of sauropsid­specific β­keratin and tropomyosin were detected in tissues containing remnant melanosomes and decayed keratin plates. The preserved organics represent condensed remains of the cornified epidermis and, likely also, deeper anatomical features, and provide direct chemical evidence that adaptive melanism — a biological means used by extant sea turtle hatchlings to elevate metabolic and growth rates — had evolved 54 million years ago.

The evolutionary speculation and dates are not derived from the observations. It’s important to recall that until recently, no one expected original proteins to survive a hundred thousand years, let alone millions. So how do the researchers explain this “extraordinary preservation” of material in this fossil labeled MHM-K2, that should be long gone?

“We hypothesise that calcium ions (and other trace elements) adsorbed onto the surface of the carcass during the microbially mediated formation of the calcareous concretion in which MHM-K2 was found. Mild geothermal conditions might then have limited further breakdown of the stabilised organics. Haemoglobin also imparts tissue fixation by iron-catalysed free radical reactions and/or inhibition of bacterial growth …,possibly contributing to preservation of anatomical features deeper than the cornified epidermis. Blood breakdown products released from erythrocytes during hemolysis can seep into surrounding tissues, causing a reddish-brown discolouration. Impregnation by haemoglobin-derived compounds has been recorded not only in bones, but also in scales and teeth. Consequently, it is possible that the outer integument was infiltrated by blood residues diffusing from underlying (and now almost completely degraded) dermal or deeper tissues sometime during the early stages of decomposition of MHM-K2. Detection of haemoglobin- and tropomyosin-derived compounds supports this possibility.

The language is cautious, because they can only suggest “possibilities” that “might” explain the preservation. Proteins, however, are delicate molecules subject to thermal breakdown. Stabilizing processes, even if plausible, cannot last indefinitely. But for tens of millions of years? Mark Armitage, who has recovered and analyzed dinosaur soft tissue himself, strongly disputes the ability of blood-derived iron to stabilize soft tissues.

Much of the paper sidesteps this important question by speculating about when “adaptive melanism” evolved. But really, does the fossil look any “less evolved” than the living turtle? Why do they give it a different scientific name when it is virtually identical? Did the hatchling really fossilize that long ago?

Since dinosaur soft tissues and proteins have been found twice as old as those in this sea turtle, long-age evolutionists are panicking. They are scrambling to downplay the findings or pretending soft tissue is exciting because it can shed light on evolution. These are distractions from the danger their worldview is in.

The Darwin hot-air balloon can only hold a finite number of fossils with soft tissue before it comes crashing to the ground. Keep piling them up in the gondola. And turn on those video cams, everyone! Let the public see the collapse.

[2] Lindgren,J., T.Kuriyama, H.Madsen, P.Sjövall, et al. 2017. Biochemistry and adaptive colouration of an exceptionally preserved juvenile fossil sea turtle Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 1332. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13187-5

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
... See MoreSee Less

Original Proteins Found in Fossil Sea Turtle, Part 2

Original biomolecules are powerful evidence for a Biblical age of the Earth.

The following Speaking of Science article by David Coppedge appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 22, No. 6, November/December 2017.

The open-access paper, published October 17 in Nature Scientific Reports,[2] calls the specimen “arguably one of the best preserved juvenile fossil sea turtles on record.” Traces of soft tissue were preserved “with great fidelity,” the paper says. What was found was original, unmineralized material. 

“Here we show that the extraordinary preservation of the type of T. Danica goes beyond gross morphology to include ultrastructural details and labile molecular components of the once-living animal. Haemoglobin-derived compounds, eumelanic pigments and proteinaceous materials retaining the immunological characteristics of sauropsid­specific β­keratin and tropomyosin were detected in tissues containing remnant melanosomes and decayed keratin plates. The preserved organics represent condensed remains of the cornified epidermis and, likely also, deeper anatomical features, and provide direct chemical evidence that adaptive melanism — a biological means used by extant sea turtle hatchlings to elevate metabolic and growth rates — had evolved 54 million years ago. 

The evolutionary speculation and dates are not derived from the observations. It’s important to recall that until recently, no one expected original proteins to survive a hundred thousand years, let alone millions. So how do the researchers explain this “extraordinary preservation” of material in this fossil labeled MHM-K2, that should be long gone? 

“We hypothesise that calcium ions (and other trace elements) adsorbed onto the surface of the carcass during the microbially mediated formation of the calcareous concretion in which MHM-K2 was found. Mild geothermal conditions might then have limited further breakdown of the stabilised organics. Haemoglobin also imparts tissue fixation by iron-catalysed free radical reactions and/or inhibition of bacterial growth …,possibly contributing to preservation of anatomical features deeper than the cornified epidermis. Blood breakdown products released from erythrocytes during hemolysis can seep into surrounding tissues, causing a reddish-brown discolouration. Impregnation by haemoglobin-derived compounds has been recorded not only in bones, but also in scales and teeth. Consequently, it is possible that the outer integument was infiltrated by blood residues diffusing from underlying (and now almost completely degraded) dermal or deeper tissues sometime during the early stages of decomposition of MHM-K2. Detection of haemoglobin- and tropomyosin-derived compounds supports this possibility. 

The language is cautious, because they can only suggest “possibilities” that “might” explain the preservation. Proteins, however, are delicate molecules subject to thermal breakdown. Stabilizing processes, even if plausible, cannot last indefinitely. But for tens of millions of years? Mark Armitage, who has recovered and analyzed dinosaur soft tissue himself, strongly disputes the ability of blood-derived iron to stabilize soft tissues. 

Much of the paper sidesteps this important question by speculating about when “adaptive melanism” evolved. But really, does the fossil look any “less evolved” than the living turtle? Why do they give it a different scientific name when it is virtually identical? Did the hatchling really fossilize that long ago? 

Since dinosaur soft tissues and proteins have been found twice as old as those in this sea turtle, long-age evolutionists are panicking. They are scrambling to downplay the findings or pretending soft tissue is exciting because it can shed light on evolution. These are distractions from the danger their worldview is in. 

The Darwin hot-air balloon can only hold a finite number of fossils with soft tissue before it comes crashing to the ground. Keep piling them up in the gondola. And turn on those video cams, everyone! Let the public see the collapse. 

[2]  Lindgren,J., T.Kuriyama, H.Madsen, P.Sjövall, et al. 2017. Biochemistry and adaptive colouration of an exceptionally preserved juvenile fossil sea turtle Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 1332. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-13187-5

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org

Revealing the Secrets of the Mormon Temple!

You don’t want to miss this one!
... See MoreSee Less

Video image

Comment on Facebook