ikester7579 - YecHeadquarters

Abiogenesis, Evidence for Creation, Nasa

All scientists, no matter how smart or well educated, never create life that walks out of that jar. All they create is a reason to be in denial of God. The problems of actually create life remain the same. They have to remove oxygen to do this. The problem is, without oxygen you cannot make rain that rains on the rocks and creates the primordial soup. They would have to change the laws of physics and chemistry because H2O is how you make water. No O aka oxygen and you get nothing. Why remove the oxygen? Because when the supposed amino acid come together tho start the creation of life process, oxygen becomes that newly formed life’s enemy because oxygen break the DNA down.

Evolutionists claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. but if you break down what has to happen for life to form it’s proven otherwise. Non-living matter becoming alive is a biological change process that matter has to go through to become living. Which is one of the very definitions of evolution. Let’s not forget the *name* of Darwin’s book..,.

Origin of Species aka the Origin of all Life. So yes Darwin even agrees. But the main reason evolutionists deny abiogenesis being a part of evolution is because it exposes the truth about evolution and that is that it fails before it even gets started.

Evolution, since it’s conception, has always been about removing God from the equation. Why? Because atheists need a reason to deny God. This is the reason they used evolution to remove God from our public schools. Those who helped Darwin agree with this as their comments on the issue are recorded in history.

When all the amino acids are created in the lab, the one problem they never mention is that they only created a little over 80% of the amino acids needed to create life. Not all amino acids occur naturally in nature. So when the experiment is done to the near fashion of looking like what would happen in nature, in the results, they never show you a check off list of what needs to be created to create life aka hiding the truth. So they need to come up with 20% more amino acids but no matter how many times they repeat this, they never get closer. So nothing new here.

This is why the idea called Pamspermia has been thought up. It’s the idea that we were either seeded here by aliens, or our DNA and Amino Acids arrived here from another planet that had life. As if what cannot happen here naturally occurred somewhere else. Or that it took intelligent beings (aliens), just not God. The fact of the matter is, is that without God science always falls short of creating life from lifeless matter and always will. Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and *breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul* God on purpose, made this a *supernatural event* so that those who do not believe will have no excuse not to believe. Man cannot recreate this supernatural event. For if man could do it then God is not God. Understand? Do you have the breath of life? And that’s why you’ll never create life from non-living matter, ever.

There used to be a time when aliens and spaceships were tin foil hat time. Today it’s now science and you are considered scientific if you accept that. So crazy went to being smart without any evidence that can be tested using the scientific method all because atheists are desperate to have an excuse to always deny God. So if creation is true and evolution is a lie, why does God allow evolution to exist? Easy, in the Bible it called sifting the wheat from the chaff. Freewill means that you have a choice. So God gives that choice just like in the garden with Adam and Eve. The choice exists because during judgment you can never claim you were forced to do anything. Which makes you responsible for all that you do.

Some memes you can use to debate with.

Uncategorized

I was recently banned for 30 days for posting this picture, or so they say. Does it really look bad? Below is a page they allow that they say breaks no community rules.

This is what's not being shown from the other image.

Click on image to visit site if you do not believe it exists.

The site promote decapitation and that children should be involved.

By showing this image they promote suicide as well.

You might think FB does not allow this. You'd be wrong.

Here is a site that promoted that teens with Autism commit suicide. I got nearly 100 people to report this site before they took it down. And yes again FB said that this site does not go against the community standards.

More pics from the Autism site/

And the bit about the person you report not finding out who you are, a lie. The guy from the autism page started harassing me for having his page taken down. Which means he was probably an employee for FB or FB told him.

Then we have the page actually named: Eating babies. Click on image to visit site.

You might think well he’s just making fun. Well scroll down the page.

Atheist extreme bias

Deeming themselves wise, they became fools. Worshiping the creation more than the Creator.

If Hawking had proved what he claimed before he died, like every other atheist before and after him has, he would have won a Nobel Prize for solving one of the biggest mysteries and arguments mankind has ever known. But he did not get one, and neither did anyone else. So these 2 things will continue, and atheists will continue to claim what they cannot even prove.

Arguments against Bible, Evidence against Big Bang, Evidence for Creation, Nasa, Space

Youtube Videos

The reason it has been claimed for years that the speed of light is constant is because this idea supports the deep time required to make Big Bang and Evolution work. Without it it’s less proof that there is evidence for this. So science hid for the longest that they knew the speed of light was not constant and never was.

Reference: New Scientist

Click image to read more

Physicist stop light for one whole minute

Click image to read more

Speed of light slowed

This image shows the Sun compared to Jupiter.

Click image to read more

Speed of light may not be constant.

A image of earth from space with the sun rising over the top.

This makes light years wrong, the distant of stars and planets base on the speed of light wrong. Every theory and paper written using this idea that the speed of light is constant wrong.

Aquatic life, Evidence against evolution

Evolution is about change in order to survive. correct? Then what was the octopus evolving blue blood (copper base instead of iron base), 9 brains and 3 hearts for to require a type of survival that it needed?

There is a reason the octopus never comes up on evolution websites is because evolution cannot begin to even explain all this. If evolution did this then here are the questions that need to be answered.

1) Every other animal on this planet has iron based blood (red blood). So why would the octopus evolve a copper base blood (blue blood), and what are the advantages of this and why was it needed for the octopus to survive and can you prove this?

2) 9 brains? Really? So what would make this the only creature that requires 9 brains, and what advantage for survival would 9 brain give it?

3) 3 hearts? Really? Maybe you think that it’s because for some reason this is required to flow more blood? A whale would benefit from multiple hearts because it’s so big but it only has one. It may be as big as a golf cart and weight 400 pounds but that one heart gets the job done. So what in the survival process made this a requirement to survive?

Atheist extreme bias, Evolution vs creation debates

The main reason atheists get mad during a debate about evolution is because of their frustrations when we make a point they cannot refute, and it makes them face the reality that what they believe is really a lie. Proof? Out of all the claims made about evolution from a single cell to all that we see, less then 1% is actually observable. And the reason for this is time constraints. To observe the 99%, one would have to have a time machine.

The *claimed* Tree of Life is nothing more than an interpretation of the evidence. There is *zero* observation because of time constraints. That makes the drawing more of an opinion than fact. And because on evolutionists are allowed to:

1) Dig up the evidence.
2) Interpret the evidence.
3) Peer review the evidence.
4) Make any conclusion concerning the evidence.

It makes the evidence not only unobserved due to time constraints, but extremely bias considering that those who already believe that it’s a true proven fact are the only ones allowed to do any work concerning the theory

And the proof that this goes well beyond science, is that atheists use it to support their worldviews and agendas, which makes the theory personal, which ensures there will *always be bias* concerning it. The only way one can approach either idea (creation or evolution) from a non-biased stand point is to:

1) Remove the theist from creation.
2) Remove the atheist from evolution.

In this way the evidence for both ideas stand on it’s own, and can be tested on it’s merits alone which 100% supports what the scientific method is all about. The question is: Who would be willing to do this, and would both sides accept the conclusions?

As one atheist said, that I brought this up to: You ask the impossible. No one can become that neutral to the subject, no one… Was he saying this because it’s true, or because he’s unwilling to give up his biases because he knows the outcome would not be in his favor?

Now do I say that because I am bias towards what I believe? Nope. After 25 years of debating atheists on the subject of C vs. E, one thing I have found is that if you are truly searching for truth. You have to consider everything. And be willing to step back from you belief and say: Prove what you claim, and I’ll convert right here right now. And I have done this on several occasions much to the surprise of my debate opponents who then say: Even if I did prove it you’d still reject it.

To which I respond: Then prove it and let’s see. Go get as many people as you need to do this and return and let’s see who’s really bias. And they never do. They either leave, call me names etc…. But the challenge is never ever met. That is because the challenge is a put up or shut up type challenge. And because people are not really looking for truth from either side to any degree, because they have made their belief personal. They cannot accept being wrong.

The perfect example is this episode of friends where Ross and Pheobe have an argument over the subject of evolution. And Ross cannot accept that Pheobe has a different opinion and that he might be wrong.