Author: ikester7579

Uncategorized

I have a few questions:

1) Did they see a star form here? Oh, that’s right it takes millions of years. So how could they know?
2) Matter has to compress in order to make a star (it takes a lot of compression to start the fusion process, “make the star light up”). How do you get matter to compress in the “vacuum” of space? Example: Compression requires pressure just like our atmosphere is under pressure. If you take a jar here, and seal it. Then take it into space and open it, what happens? What was compressed is pulled apart by vacuum. The air particles are pulled apart and out of the jar and into space. Just like anything else in space that tries to get together under pressure that vacuum would pull it apart.
3) It would take a point of gravity to form and pull matter together to do this. Which poses another problem. Science does not know what gravity is, or it’s source (where it comes from). So to even begin to try and explain gravity forming would be worse then a hypothesis. Because it would would be a guess that would be uneducated (not knowing anything about gravity).

To prove this I will use our planet as an example. Why do the gases in our atmosphere not just go into space because of the vacuum of space? It’s because gravity holds the gases of our atmosphere in place. And at the sea level creates 14.7 PSI which allows life to exist on this planet. So a gravity point needs to form in space and draw gases to it. Then be strong enough to start the fusion process. There is “no known” natural event that will do this.

So the only thing (gravity) that would allow matter to come together to compress to make a star is not even remotely explainable. But let’s also do some comparisons on what makes this find different from any other find like it.

Etc… Stars forming is not observable. So what they claim is only an assumption. And if they want to prove this wrong then answer the questions above and don’t ignore the laws of physics while doing it.

Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists claim that fish evolved to walk on land. And that also some animals on land went back into the water to become whales. Here is a video showing what evolutionists like to use as evidence for this, which is the lung fish.

Video

Lungfish.

The next video is an animation of how evolutionists believe whales evolved.

Video

Animation on how evolution is supposed to work.

And the next video shows the problems involved with this kind of idea that evolutionists refuse to address.

Video

Debate between Kent hovind and the atheist Shermer

Claiming that their theory is now a true proven fact with mountains of empirical evidence makes them feel smug enough so that they do not think they need to answer such questions. Basically implying the evolution has become an absolute.

Evidence for Creation

Before fire, seeds are protected

This is a green colored pine cone that has spines on it and one of the pine cones has a white milky substance coming out of it. These pine cones unless they catch on fire. The white milky stuff controls how quickly the pine cone Burns so to protect the seeds inside from burning up. When the fire is gone the pine cone opens and releases it seeds to replenish the Earth where the fire happened.

After fire, cone opens seeds are released

This is an image of a pine cone that has fallen from a tree and how it has opened up so the seeds can be released.

Some pine trees, including Monterey Pine and Pond Pine, have cones that stay tightly closed, making it impossible for the seeds to get out, until they are exposed to high temperatures such as are found in a forest fire. These are called fire climax pines. Seeds cannot germinate to form new trees until the parent trees have been destroyed in a forest fire, assuring that the new trees will not have to struggle in darkness among adult trees, but will only be among trees of the same age. When there is a fire, the number of seeds released is great enough to assure survival of enough new trees to reforest the area. Fire climax pines are able to maintain their presence against the incursion of other species of trees because fire destroys all of the adult trees, but only the pines are naturally replanted.
Reference: Fire climax pines (link)

So how does evolution explain how a tree evolves the ability to only reproduce after a fire? And to also know to put a chemical around it’s seedlings so that they are not destroyed by the fire the parent trees are destroyed by? Maybe it has something to do with trees having a consciousness (link). And how some pine trees also know when to put up crosses for Easter (link).

atheism a religion, Atheist extreme bias, Evolution vs creation debates
If you cannot question it it's not science it's propaganda.

According to the rules of how a theory works, it must “always” remain falsifiable. The minute it becomes unfalsifiable is also the same minute it’s no longer a theory. And when it’s no longer a theory, it has to become one of 2 things. Proven wrong, or what is considered an unchangeable law. In the video below you will see the attempt to make evolution an historical fact. Historical facts are not falsifiable.

Video

Notice in the video that she says that to have students “question” evolution is to mislead them. Then of course the Christian problem of challenging evolution is brought up. What I find ironic is that a real scientific theory would never compete with religion. Example: Does the theory of how electricity works compete with religion? The word weakness is being removed because it puts evolution into question. Then it’s brought up again, to question evolution is to mislead students. So basically historians can now enter the ranks of people who can prove evolution even though they generally don’t have any degrees in biology.

Next video is where a discussion is being held over evolution. Notice how the advocate, Eugene Scott, makes every attempt to say: If you question evolution you are basically stupid. And then what really is an eye opener is what she says about our kids in schools: I would question whether high school students are capable of evaluating high level science. Because according to Eugene Scott, you only being taught the basics. Why send them to school at all if they cannot learn how to evaluate? So basically instead of a high school student being able to make up his or her own mind, and test whatever they are taught. Instead they have to believe it. That’s not education, that’s indoctrination. In other words, you have to believe in evolution, with no questions asked. Let’s look at the definition of indoctrination.

Indoctrination: teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.

Video

Basically to teach someone a way to think and not be able to question it. So are our schools teaching mindless clones the doctrine of evolution? But what I find ironic is that evolutionists will use education and ignorance to say that people who don’t believe are uneducated and ignorant. But lets look at what happens to a person who is very educated and questioned evolution.

Video

Ben Stein graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics and as valedictorian of the 1970 Yale Law School class. Now did his opinions matter when he is well educated? Nope.

Video

As this video illustrates, you are a fool, regardless of education, just because you disagree with evolution. And what funny is that this guy claims there is no such thing as Darwinism. I suggest you Google it: Darwinism (link) The reason the word Darwinism was made up in the first place was that there were different beliefs about evolution as it was being researched. Basically how evolution progression happened. So a separation was needed thus the word Darwinism was born. Then he brings up the Nobel Prize deal. Sorry, but ever since Gore and Obama got Noble Prizes, I have totally no respect for it. Scientist Dr. Raymond Damadian who invented the technology for the MRI. He was not been given a Nobel prize for his work, but as a slap in the face it was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries related to MRI instead. All because Dr. Raymond Damadian was a creationist. Reference: Wikipedia

So is the invention of the MRI worthy of a Nobel Prize or not? To further inflict insult, I can guarantee it will not be awarded until after he is dead. And If I were in Damadian’s family, I would reject it if they hold it until he dies. This goes along with the page I did on evolution being about conformism. Which by the way, the video above is a perfect example of.

So is evolution falsifiable? Not if:
1) It can no longer be questioned.
2) Naturalism remains the only thing science will investigate.
3) Indoctrination is the only way it will ever be taught.
4) And fear of character assassination, or loss of job because one does not conform to evolutionary beliefs. Basically using fear to spread their beliefs.

Every time I see a video, website, forum, or blog making fun of creationists, I laugh. You know why? It’s because it shows that when the evidence fails for evolution, character assassination is all that they have left. So ham it up, it only shows how lame evolution is that it would require a person to resort to such things. In fact, while I’m on this subject of how evolutionist “have to” act badly to prove their theory. Let’s see where their ideas to do this really came from… Saul Alinsky’s book on communism called: Rules for Radicals. Gives a point by point action in defeating your non-communist foe and be able to take over. See if any of these tactics look familiar.

7. Tactics

“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)

I find it ironic that almost every evolutionist resorts to these tactics during debates. Militant atheists are the worst and will train the wannabes by example. So is it really science they are promoting while using evolution as their tool, or is there another agenda? And all of these tactics make evolution unfalsifiable. Fear of having their beloved theory proven wrong requires such actions. if not. maybe one can post here and explain why?

Evidence for Creation
This is an image of the sun earth and moon, showing how the Moon has to be just right using geometry in order to create a full eclipse of the Sun.
This is a black and white image of a full eclipse of the Sun.

And the picture to the left shows how correct sizes and placement of 3 objects to create the angles required to cause a total eclipse of the sun. And to allow life to exist on this planet. Change any of these and things would be very different. And life would not exist. Now you might think this is all I can come up with, but you would be wrong. There is some extraordinary math involved in all this direct placement and size thing.

1) The distance between the moon and the sun is 400 times greater than the distance from the earth and the moon.
2) The Sun happens to be 400 times the Moon’s diameter, and 400 times as far away. This means the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size when viewed from Earth. A total solar eclipse, in which the Moon is between the Earth and Sun, blocks the bright light from the Sun’s photosphere, allowing us to see the faint glow from the corona, the Sun’s outer atmosphere.

So not only do you have all the other factors that go into what is needed to support life, but you have mathematics as well. This shows that it took intelligence to do this. And if you think all of this is amazing, I have not even gone into all the laws of physics that allow this to work the way that it does. And how these laws won’t let it work any other way. And so you can enjoy the Creator’s handy work, here is a video showing a total eclipse of the sun in less then 9 minutes.

Video

The moon’s orbit decays about 1.5 inches a year. if we go back in time:
1 million years ago = 23.57 miles closer.
300 million years ago = 9281.00 miles closer.
4 Billion years ago = 94,682 miles closer (that’s almost half the distance closer).

According to the Inverse Square Law, when two objects have gravity and get closer. That gravity quadruples between both objects. So we are talking about earthquakes so bad it destroys even the land masses and actually shakes the whole planet every time the moon orbits the earth. So the time-line that fits the supposed “perfect” age dating does not work.

This is an image of how gravity works between two objects that have gravity.

The part where it says in the picture: “The energy twice as far from the source is spread over four times the area, hence 1/4 the intensity”. If you reverse that and bring in the object 1/2 the distance the intensity increases by 4 times. And 1/4 closer means intensity increases by 2 times. Yet everything today works just as listed above just as we are able to understand it. Yet 4.8 billion years have past?

Now why does not science acknowledge this? Science is not about finding truth “wherever” it may be. It’s only about finding a certain kind of self made truth that supports the naturalistic view, a view basically where there is no God. So “anything” that does not support naturalism is automatically rejected. Why do you think all the top positions in science are filled by atheistic-naturalists? God not allowed. My questions is: What are they afraid of if they found out that God does exist?

More amazing facts about the earth:

The circumference of the earth at the equator is 24,901.55 miles. The earth’s rotation speed is 1037.5646 mph. If you divide 24,901.55 by 1037.5646 you get 24. Which is the number of hours in a complete day. Just enough rotation speed compared to it’s size to equal a perfect exposure to both sun light and darkness so that life could exist here. Example of why that is important: If you take and double the hours in a day, the days would get so hot, and the nights so cold, that if life could exist here it would have a hard time doing it. In these conditions you could have 110 plus degrees f in the daytime, and below freezing at night in the same place everyday So rotation speed of the earth is important to support life.

The earth orbits our sun at 66,660 mph, and makes a complete orbit every 365.2425 days. This speed along with the tilt of the earth’s axis allows seasonal changes every 3 months. If the earth were going half that speed, which would double the time in each season. The extremes for each season (polar winters around zero degrees f, and above 100 degree f summers) would be so different that life could not exist here. So like the situation above, we are at the right orbital speed for life to exist.

Solar wind is particles that leave the sun’s surface. They can reach very high speeds and are made up of mainly protons and electrons. Solar wind also has the capability of striping away a planet’s atmosphere. The only defense a planet has against this is the strength of it magnetic field, which if strong enough will deflect these particles and protect the current atmosphere. Because earth has a molten core that is comprised mainly of nickel and iron. It can produce a magnetic field strong enough to deflect the solar wind particles. And example of this not happening is the planet mars. Mar’s magnetic field is weak compared to earth. So the solar wind slowly strips it’s upper atmosphere away into space. A thin atmosphere, such as exist on mars, would make life almost impossible.

Ozone layer is also protected by the magnetic field. If the magnetic field of the earth were as weak as the planet mars, the solar wind would strip away the ozone layer which is our natural filter from the sun. Allowing the full rays of the sun in, means all life would die. The UV rays of the sun are deflected by the ozone layer. Full amount of UV rays would kill everything, basically sterilizing all life. UV rays are the most damaging to life because they alter DNA to the point life cannot exist. Example: The reason welders have to wear eye protection is because the welding light produces intense UV rays similar to the sun. Staring at a welding light for just 5 minutes can damage you eyes to the point you can become blind. Now imagine that same type of light coming at you from the sun several 1000 times more intense. And because UV light alters DNA, it’s one of the main causes of skin cancer. So having a planet filter like the ozone layer, is a must have. A must have that mars does not have.

Gravity not only holds things in orbit and on the surface of our planet. But is the main reason our atmosphere does not float off into space. Gravity also controls the barometric pressures on the surface of this planet. The barometric pressures control the boiling point of water. And it allows warm blooded animals to live here without their blood boiling. How? On mar the barometric pressure is 1/4 to 1/8 that of earth. That makes water boil at about 50 degrees f. Our body is mainly made up with water. Our body normal body temperature is 98.6 f. Which means our blood would boil on that planet unless we were in a pressurized suit the simulated earth’s barometric pressure. Water in a complete vacuum will boil at any temperature.

The exact strength of our gravity holds the barometric pressures of our planet at about 14.7 psi at sea level. This barometric pressure allows water to exist in 3 forms (solid, liquid, and gas). In fact our planet is the only known planet that this happens everyday. This cycle is known as the hydrologic cycle. It allows water to evaporate, make clouds, and rain and freeze when temps get low enough. Water existing in 3 forms is also essential for life to exist here. So correct barometric pressures and temperatures are vital.

DNA, Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates

Evolutionist try to use the fused chromosome #2 argument for proving evolution. I will use their own video to explain from a man who “claims” to be a theist and at the end of the video will try to use guilt as to the reason you should believe as he does.

How close are the primate to one another,
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Read More
www.youtube.com

1) Now notice that the whole argument is based on the assumption that evolution has already been proven. In other words, an implied absolute. This chromosome #2 has to support evolution and nothing else. That is what he is basically saying. But remember, “all” theories have to remain falsifiable.
2) He also bases the evidence on the assumption that the chromosome was apart at one time. How can he prove the chromosome was ever apart to begin with so that it could be fused? Only under the assumption that evolution is a true proven fact (implied absolute).
3) He then reads from a paper that agrees with him and his conclusion. Does words from a paper prove this?
4) And as usual, He cannot show us “any observable process” showing this happening, which by the way would make his claims empirical.
5) And at the end he sums it up as either God did it this way, or He’s lying. And if you believe God did not do it this way, then you are calling God a liar.
6) Also we have the placement difference of chromosomes between humans and primates. The chromosome #2 in humans they claimed fused is chromosome #13 in primates. This is details they leave out on purpose because their evidence is based more on selling the idea of evolution then proving it.The reason they left this out is because people who have a little knowledge about things would figure out that it’s more than a simple fusion taking place. It’s moving of information 20% (11 steps) away from where it originally was. So that’s a lot more change than what;s implied. This is why Ken Miller pushes so hard to close the deal in convincing the viewer by saying what he did in #5 example. Actual truth does not have to be sold, it prove itself on it’s on merits.

But let’s look at an example of what changing the number of chromosome can do. Down Syndrome (link) is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. You see the evolutionists are betting that you won’t go do the research to find if what they claim about evolution is true. And what we find about doing anything with the chromosomes that is different from the norm causes all kinds of problems including death.

When the chromosome’s structure is altered. This can take several forms:

1) Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders in humans include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder.
2) Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known human disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17.
3) Translocations: When a portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations. In a reciprocal translocation, segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged. In a Robertsonian translocation, an entire chromosome has attached to another at the Centromere – in humans these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21 and 22.
4) Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.
5) Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.
6) Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere.

Here are some examples: Rings (link)Prostate cancer (link). etc…

Chromosome instability syndromes are a group of disorders characterized by chromosomal instability and breakage. They often lead to an increased tendency to develop certain types of malignancies.

Reference: Wikipedia (link).

So basically there is not even one good example of changing Chromosome numbers. So the claim about Chromosome #2 is just a bunch of evolutionists desperate to prove a theory.

Atheist extreme bias, Evolution vs creation debates
This is an image that shows that Darwin was not the first person to think up that man supposedly came from animals. That this belief was a pagan belief that can be traced back to Egyptian times. They believed what animal you came from determined your race and status in life. So no Darwin was not the first person to think of evolution. He just told the idea and repackaged it as science.

If creation is true, why does God allow evolution to even exist?

Evolution is a tool God uses to separate the wheat from the chaff aka those who will commit, from those who will always find an excuse not to. Choice to choose things besides God, have been these since Adam and Eve.

This is a meme that compares the education of Moses to Darwin and it shows that the only degree that Darwin had was a degree in theology.

If people look hard enough, there is explanations for all things in God’s Word. Problem is, not one is really willing to take the time. This is why s many believers either fence sit on the faith, or allow their faith to be destroyed.

atheism a religion, Atheist history, Evidence against evolution, Evolution vs creation debates
This is a meme that talks about how evolution originated in Egypt because Pagan religion back then believe that man came from animals. So Darwin was not the first person to thank this up. Then it shows an image of Egyptians on a wall wearing animal headdresses which was the Egyptians form of evolution. And the image underneath that is the human evolution chart. Showing how similar it is. The Egyptians believe that the animal you come from determines your race and status in life.

The reason I ask this question is because quite often during debates there will be a atheist-evolutionist that will claim: I was a Christian and believed in creation until I heard about evolution. So the question applied is: If evolution is purely science, why did you have to quit believing in a God?

The logic behind the question is simple. Only religion can compete with religion. Only a religion requires conversion (non-belief to belief, or belief to non-belief). And only religion requires evangelism. Atheists go all over the web trying to convince people that evolution is true (evangelism). They put up websites, forums, and blogs with that same goal. They meet and discuss evangelism ideas. They even put up webpages to show how an atheist can ask questions to weaken ones faith so that conversion from one belief to another can take place (evangelism).

This is an image of a shark with his head sticking up out of the water and his mouth wide open showing his big teeth. And there's text on the image as if the shark could speak and it says, excuse me, did you know that Charles Darwin has a wonderful plan for your life? Of course this is a humor meme.

And the evolutionist goal is to convert every Christian to evolution. Don’t believe me? Look at the shirt pen you can buy on one of their sites:

Atheism conversion will lead to a belief in evolution. So even attempted conversions to atheism prove evolution is a religion. And here are some examples:

Wiki How to convert a Christian to atheism (link).Yahoo answers on converting Christian to atheist (link).Was Darwin the first to think up the idea about man evolving from animals?

This belief dates way back even before Darwin. Back to Egyptian time and Egyptian gods (link).Evolution in Egyptian religion

Other creation myths depicted creation as proceeding from out or primordial chaos, or from a primordial slime, which had eight elements, namely matter and space, darkness and obscurity, the illimitable and the boundless and the hidden and concealed). The annual flooding by the Nile, leading to new life, may lie behind this mythology.

1) Primordial chaos = Big bang.
2) Primordial slime = Abiogeneisis.

So basically, the idea of evolution is really a Pagan creation belief. This is why evolution competes with religion so well, because it is a religion itself. Now how did this idea, that has Pagan roots, get into Darwin’s head? Darwin had a degree in theology. Which means he had to learn about Pagan beliefs as well as the Christian ones. So he had that Pagan idea in his mind when he boarded the ship named the Beagle. He read Charles Lyell’s book on the geologic column. He then saw the animals on Galapagos Island and his new founded idea started to look like that it makes sense. Problem was, it still has it’s roots in Paganism. And pure science would in no way conflict with religion, but evolution does and the reason why is clear.

So here is what we have so far:

1) Evolution idea from animals to man can be traced back to Egyptian pagan religions.
2) Darwin had a degree in theology which means he knew about Egyptian Pagan religions.
3) A believer has to totally give up his belief in God to 100% believe in evolution. True science needs no conversion from religion.
4) Evolutionists and atheists, often surf the web trying to see who they can convert (evangelism) from the Christian belief.
5) Evolutionists often get together on blogs, forums, etc… To discuss ways to convert more Christians to evolution. Basically discussing evangelism among like minds in what can be considered a ministry for evolution.
etc…

The Theory of Evolution has all the earmarks of being a religion. No other non-evolution theory in science has this. Which tells us a lot.

Does the Bible mention evolution (indirectly) and the people who believe it?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Here is a list of some theories, and if they require a person to totally convert from God in order to believe them:

1. Atomic theory does not require conversion.
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy does not require conversion.
3. The Cell Theory does not require conversion.
4. The Germ Theory does not require conversion.
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics does not require conversion.
6. The Theory of Evolution does require conversion to totally believe it.
etc…

Are any of those theories, besides evolution, currently being used to convert people?
Example: Does an atheist go to a blog or forum trying to use the Atomic theory to convert someone to atheism?

Atheist history, Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates
This is a picture of Darwin with his finger over his mouth like he's telling people to be quiet, and there's no text in this picture.

While in debates, I often notice that evolutionists will:
1) Contradict themselves.
2) Get confused on what they believe.
3) Outright equivocate so they can always look right.
4) Move the goalposts for the same reason as above.
5) Change the definitions of words so that their theory will work (micro and macro are the samething).

Here is a video that is the perfect example. 2 teachers of evolution doing this.

So if you ever wondered why you (a creationist) can never seem to win a debate, this is why. You cannot come close to winning a debate when your debate opponent “changes their belief” every 5 minutes. And every person you debate that believes the same thing (evolution) contradict one another from debate to debate. The only way a creationists can counter this is to get all the references he can that explain each part of evolution to an exact. And when the evolutionists start moving goalposts, changing definitions, etc… You can whip out that reference and correct them.

Also evolutionists love to equivocate (lie on purpose). Either as a game to make you mad, or on purpose so they can always look correct. You can show them they are wrong, and because they can never accept correction from a creationist, they will continue in that lie as if you never said anything. A person who debates like this is not worth your time. Just point out their equivocation and back out of the debate. You cannot win anything with a person who will continually lie. Besides, when is the last time you found a liar that was interested in truth? As the Bible says: Do not cast your pearls (truth) before swine. Swine is used in that verse to relay that they would not know what to actually do with actual pearls. I won;t debate a person like this and will ban them from this blog for wasting my time and everyone Else’s.

My motto: If you want to debate evolution, debate it. If you have evidence, present it. If you have observable processes show us. The rest is a waste. And the sooner you the creationist realize this, the easier your debates will be. And you will know when to back out, and when to stay in. You will look much worse debating someone who has clearly shown they are not interested in truth.

Uncategorized

The more I debate evolutionists on the web, the more I see that evolution is about conformism more than anything else. The video below pretty much sums this up:

Video

Image is a picture of Darwin with his finger over his mouth like he's saying can you keep a secret? The test says: Thousands of claims are made about the fossils in the Fossil Record, and the Evolution Tree of Life. Question is: Did anyone observe any of those claims? Can anyone even name just one person who observed just one claims? No? If observation of the claims cannot be provided, this means that the fossil record. and the tree of life are 100% interpreted to conform to the evolution theory. Conformity is not science. Prove me wrong Author of Image: Issac Bourne.