If God Made Everything, Who Made Him ?

[Quarter bull 240]

 

 

Chris the bibles that are coming out, are not done by scribes, there are made by all sorts, heck i could bring out one if i wanted, men adding subtracting, or completley changing Gods word,

This is exactly my point! Can you at least see why athiests, and agnostics, have had all kinds of reckoning with this material over the last couple of thousands of years?!

 

I've added the emphasis where I find massive problems with this scripture!

 

They're all claiming they're right!

 

They're all claiming they're printing the word of god!

 

On that website alone they have 52 different interpretations of the same scripture!

 

We've had 2000 years of man writing, re-writing, redacting, adding, subtracting, traslating, re-translating, and yet all of them claim to be messengers of the lord!

 

We can't even establish who wrote these books! As none of us were alive when they were written how can we possibly verify their accuracy when they fly in the face of practically everything written since?

 

I'm still agnostic, QB. I simply don't know whether god exists or not. How do we know that athiesm/agnosticism, combined with the exercise of free will, isn't in fact god's plan afterall?

 

What if he deliberately sent ambiguous information down to man, knowing full well (with this perfect knowledge) that man would deliberately distort it for personal gain?

 

What if the divine plan was actually figuring it out for ourselves, denying his existance, while simultaneously being kind to each other?

 

What if the divine plan is loving our fellow man without any fear, or reward, in an afterlife? Acting justly and truthfully for the benefit of all?

 

Couldn't we successfully argue that those who protect and nurture, without fear of consequence, or personal gain, could in fact be god's chosen ones? They are acting selflessly despite all these threats of damnation? They are acting selflessly despite all these promised rewards?

 

They're simply acting because it's the right thing to do?!

 

If he truly rewards the kind and caring then why would he care if we act without feeling as though we're being judged by him?

 

Science doesn't disprove a creator. It merely explains how things work. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Yeah chris i see where there coming from, but thats beside the point, i was showing that evoloution is a religion, simple thats all, an there masking it as science, an i dont like the lies in the textbooks, i think theirs an agenda there..an it will lead the young uns, not all, down a path with a dead end imo...

 

You could be right chris, what i will say is i dont do anything like giving or being kind, cause if i dont il be dammed, no mate,,,,,i do it caused its my natural reaction inside me simple, an im not a christian cause theres a reward,,,,,no, there was something inside me to search out the truth, meaning of life,,,,most couldnt care less but i do,,, an i found out,,,God the creator owns an is the boss of this universe, im simply following orders, causes if it wasnt for him id have nothing, i wouldnt even exist, so im very thankfull for whats hes given me, an the least i can do is obey his orders, lol

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Yeah chris i see where there coming from, but thats beside the point, i was showing that evoloution is a religion, simple thats all, an there masking it as science, an i dont like the lies in the textbooks, i think theirs an agenda there..an it will lead the young uns, not all, down a path with a dead end imo...

 

I disagree. Evolution isn't a religion. It deals with what can be known. It deals with empirical facts and consistent, logical theories about the world derived from those facts. It's not a belief system, it's not a philosophy. But we're here again, you disagree. I don't...

 

Regardless, if it gets the younger generation to question any kind of dogma then I'm all for it. We have too many people that blindly follow, without any scrap of critical thinking. I mean why read hard stuff when you can dial a premium phone number to vote some bellend off a show?

 

You could be right chris, what i will say is i dont do anything like giving or being kind, cause if i dont il be dammed, no mate,,,,,i do it caused its my natural reaction inside me simple, an im not a christian cause theres a reward,,,,,no, there was something inside me to search out the truth, meaning of life,,,,most couldnt care less but i do,,, an i found out,,,God the creator owns an is the boss of this universe, im simply following orders, causes if it wasnt for him id have nothing, i wouldnt even exist, so im very thankfull for whats hes given me, an the least i can do is obey his orders, lol

 

Am I detecting an emerging humanist there, QB?

 

A lot of people do take it literally! A common argument is that if the bible is the only moral path and it's denial will lead to chaos!

 

I believe that we're here doing what we do through millions of years of random chaos. I try to be nice to people but I also have a low tolerance of authority. What you see as divine I see as biology!

 

I seek only the truth.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ChrisJones

[Truther 1,579]

"i seek only the truth"

 

Same here Chris, whatever the truth is, but i just don't accept the religious explanations, man made, end of story.

[Quarter bull 240]

Well well have to agree to disagree chris, humanist, no, i dont see myself as a god, well you stick to your faith an beleif, ill stick to mine, by the way thought you were agnostic, you just admitted above your an evoloition man, lol peace out brother

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I am agnostic.

 

Your definition is shaky!

[Quarter bull 240]

Your words chris......

 

 

I believe that we're here doing what we do through millions of years of random chaos.

 

Note the first word BELEIVE, nice to know youve faith an beleif in evoloution, RELIGION, i think so, goodnight mate, atvb

[ChrisJones 7,975]

So you're going to pull it all down on a single word?

I apologise for my slip in syntax!

I don't have faith in evolution. I have empirical data. Consistent facts and logical theories. I can demonstrate it over, and over, and over, and over, and over... ad nauseam


It's not a religion! It has no scriptures. It has no prophets. It has no churches, no temples, no clergy.

It doesn't tell me how to behave! It doesn't reward, nor punish me.

It doesn't talk about life before, or after death.

It doesn't wax lyrical about the existence of a soul.

It claims nothing of a divine creator, even though it slots easily into any belief besides the strictest religious fundamentalism.

If god exists it explains his mechanism for life.

If god doesn't exist it explains the mechanism for life, in his absence.

It's naturalistic. It confines itself to what is there! What can be tested. What can be measured over, and over, and over, again!

It doesn't deal with god's, or devils. Myths, or miracles. These fall beyond it's scope as they can't be tested, measured, or researched.

It's science.

It exists. It's there. It's continually being added to. The data grows all the time. The unknown replaced by the known. Repeating it's a religion doesn't not make it so. No matter how many times you say it.

 

Try this with the bible...

 

It works with evolution, mate! Over, and over, and over, and over, again!

 

Night mate!

[Quarter bull 240]

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

 

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

 

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.

 

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

 

The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.

 

 

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

 

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

 

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

 

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

 

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.

[leethedog 3,071]

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.

not wanting an argument but genuinely interested in other peoples views what do you propose hapend

[Quarter bull 240]

Lee mate its a bit of banter on a friday night for the craic, somebody always takes the bait like, i do, lol

 

Scientific evidence for me points to a creator, logical really :-)

[paulus 26]

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.

 

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

 

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.

 

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

 

The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.

 

 

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

 

Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

 

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

 

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

 

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.

explain penguins then, there wings evolved to allow them to be more efficient at hunting in water or the albatross whose wingspan allows them to travel the world?????????

[Quarter bull 240]

Thats were i think your going wrong from the start, You assuming they evolved, what did they evolve from, any evidence paulas, or you just assuming, if thats your example, why didnt penguins evolve into fish? :-)

Edited April 24, 2015 by Quarter bull

[Quarter bull 240]

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong.

 

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. The pictures are placed in all of the textbooks that evolutionists use to teach kids this nonsense. The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

 

Close to the Missing Link -- Oldest Human Ancestor Discovered.

 

Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the mission link." The answer is simple. Look at the picture. It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lot of species have become extinct. Thousands of species have become extinct. It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people. A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found. Don't let them brainwash you with this nonsense.

 

Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

 

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

 

Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl."

 

The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago. By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments. This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal). It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape. Duh!

 

The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

 

Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees." It looks like an ape. It has a head like an ape. It has arms like an ape. It has shoulder blades like an ape. It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. Evolutionists simply will not accept the obvious. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.

 

Scientists call these ape-like features "evolutionary baggage." In other words, these scientists are discrediting their own evolutionary theory of "natural selection." They are calling the ape-like features unnecessary "baggage." The theory of natural selection is not supposed to have unnecessary baggage, remember?

 

The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a modern-day pig.

 

'Lucy's baby' found in Ethiopia - BBC News - September 21, 2006.

 

"The 3.3-million-year-old fossilised remains of a human-like child have been unearthed in Ethiopia's Dikika region. The find consists of the whole skull, the entire torso, and important parts of the upper and lower limbs. CT scans reveal unerupted teeth still in the jaw, a detail that makes scientists think the individual may have been about three years old when she died."

 

"Remarkably, some quite delicate bones not normally preserved in the fossilisation process are also present, such as the hyoid, or tongue, bone. The hyoid bone reflects how the voice box is built and perhaps what sounds a species can produce. Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "In my opinion, afarensis is a very good transitional species for what was before four million years ago and what came after three million years," Dr Alemseged told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh. "[The species had] a mixture of ape-like and human-like features. This puts afarensis in a special position to play a pivotal role in the story of what we are and where we come from.""

 

Climbing ability

 

"This early ancestor possessed primitive teeth and a small brain but it stood upright and walked on two feet. There is considerable argument about whether the Dikika girl could also climb trees like an ape. This climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and the "Lucy" species had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees. But the question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or are just "evolutionary baggage"."

 

Evolution is in trouble. The growth of biological knowledge is producing scientific facts that contradict the evolutionary theory, not confirm it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." The fossil record simply does not support the evolutionary theory, which claims there once existed a series of successive forms leading to the present-day organism. The theory states that infinitesimal changes within each generation evolve into a new species, but the scientific fact remains. They don't. Fossils prove the sudden emergence of a new species out of nowhere, complete with characteristics unknown in any other species. The fossil record has no intermediate or transitional forms. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it exists in all species. The missing link problem is getting worse, not better, with the discovery of more fossils. The missing links are not being discovered, which proves they never existed. Darwin assumed transitional forms would be discovered in the fossil record over time, but that has not been the case. The fossil record, or lack thereof, is a major embarrassment to evolutionists. The fossil record is a serious rebuke of the Theory of Evolution. New species literally explode onto the scene out of nowhere. New fossil discoveries continue to prove evolution to be wrong.

[Quarter bull 240]

Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton.

 

Michael Denton says,

 

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

 

A reader of the Michael Denton's book says,

 

"Denton a Molecular Biologist removes all of the supports (if there ever were any) from Darwin's theory of macro-evolution (continuity of life). Denton blasts all of the previous arguments made by the pro-evolutionists showing that there is essentially no support of macro-evolution in the fossil record. He also, clearly demonstrates that there is no support coming from his specialty molecular biology. In the end the only sound explanation he can make is that life is profoundly discontinuous."

 

Harvard Professor Gould claims that evolution occurs in spurts, not gradually. This theory attempts to explain the lack of continuity in the fossil record. However, this theory is more troublesome than the gradual change theory. Large jumps or spurts in the fossil record don't prove evolution at all. In fact, they disprove evolution. The theory that evolution can occur in spurts, because the fossil record shows it did not occur gradually, is a wild stretch of the imagination. Species have some characteristics similar to other species, but similarity doesn't prove any evolutionary link whatsoever. There are more than missing links in biology. There are entire missing chains in 100% of the branches of the false evolutionary tree.

 

Many species are dependant upon another species for their coexistence. Hummingbirds and flowers are a good example. The flower would not be pollinated and would become extinct without the bird. They are said to have coevolved together. That is a stretch of the imagination without any basis in science. There are hundreds of these examples that cannot be explained by evolutionists.

 

Charles Darwin had concern about his theory of natural selection. He knew that a failure to find the missing transitional links would seriously cripple his theory of evolution, but he was hopeful the missing links would be found some day. Well, guess what. He died not finding them. Evolutionists have never found the missing links. Each time they announce finding one it is later proven to be false. The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Click the picture to see an enlargement. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. That was a lie. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all. The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

Fisherman catches 'living fossil' - BBC News - August 1, 2007.

 

"The 1.3m-long (4.3ft), 50kg (110lb) coelacanth is only the second ever to have been captured in Asia and has been described as a "significant find". An autopsy and genetic tests are now being carried out to determine more about the specimen. Coelacanths provide researchers with a window into the past; their fossil record dates back 350 million years."

 

The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

 

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

 

The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" according to Dr. Walt Brown's book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148.

 

This is simply another forgery by evolutionists in a desperate attempt to prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolutionists can lie and commit fraud without blinking an eye. This example would not have proven evolution even if the feathers had not been forgeries. Finding a few species with characteristics similar to two other species does not prove a link. There should be millions or billions of transitional links if evolution were true, not simply a few.

 

Evolutionists keep getting hit in the face with scientific truth. Therefore, they spend most of their time developing complex lies and molding them into complex theories. They modify fossil evidence in an attempt to support their false theories. Cheat, cheat, cheat. Lie, lie, lie.

 

The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, is a unique Australian animal. It and the two species of echidna are the only monotremes or egg-laying mammals to be found on earth. The marsupials (mammals with pouches, e.g. kangaroos) and eutherians (placental mammals that give birth to well-developed young, e.g. humans) both give birth to live young. The monotremes have lower body temperatures than other mammals and have legs which extend out, then vertically below them. These features, together with their egg-laying ability, are more like that of a lizard than a mammal. Platypus are readily identified by their streamlined body, webbed feet, broad tail, and characteristic muzzle or bill which is soft and pliable. The Platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom like a snake. A Platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

 

The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them. The Platypus has made a joke and a mockery of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.

 

April 6. 2006 - Tiktaalik is the latest fossil gap evolutionary fraud.

 

Scientists fraudulently claim a newly-discovered fish is the second bridge fossil gap between sea and land creatures. The scientists have apparently forgotten that the first fossil gap, Archaeopteryx, shown above was also a fraud. Tiktaalik therefore becomes fossil gap fraud number 2. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

 

"Called "Tiktaalik" by scientists, the fish lived in shallow, swampy waters. Most remarkably, the creature, which was less than 3 feet long, had the body of a fish but the jaws, ribs, and limb-like fins seen in the earliest land mammals." The claim that the stubby little fossil fins are "limb-like" is a real hoot. The fish doesn't even have fins as large as expected for its size. The scientists are claiming the fish walked around on the ground out of water and breathed air. This is pure make-believe speculation. No evidence exists that the fish is anything more than just another species.

 

The excitement about the Tiktaalik fossil is puzzling. Modern-day seals have fins and waddle around on the ground. Modern-day catfish have fins and walk around on the ground. Catfish can live out of water for a long time. Tiktaalik does not provide any support for evolution.

 

Test: If you believe the nonsense that Tiktaalik is a fossil gap species, you are brainwashed.

 

Evolutionists are now claiming that a dolphin captured with two little extra fins near the tail is proof that dolphins evolved from four-footed animals related to the dog. Click the picture to see an enlargement.

 

Dolphin with four-wheel drive stuns the scientists - November 5, 2006.

 

"Experts believe that the dolphin's ancestor was a dog-like creature which roamed the earth many millions of years ago. And now the extraordinary discovery of a bottlenosed dolphin with an extra set of flippers has provided living proof of the theory. At first glance it looks like any other of its kind. But closer inspection reveals a rogue set of rear fins. Each the size of a human hand, the fins are thought to be the remains of a pair of hind legs, adding to evidence that dolphins once walked on all fours."

 

This is nonsense, folks. First, evolutionists tell us that land animals evolved from sea creatures. Now they are trying a new approach, claiming sea creatures evolved from land animals. Dog are still dogs, but they claim that some of the dogs long ago evolved into dolphins. These "scientists" claim the dolphin evolved from the dog while the rest of the dogs didn't evolved into anything. They simply remained dogs.

 

These "scientists" are not scientists. No scientific evidence exists for these evolutionary theories. This article is an attempt to brainwash the naive. Don't be fooled by these claims. Evolutionists typically use words like "may have evolved" or ""probably evolved" because they lack scientific proof. The truth is obvious here.

 

God created many species of dolphins. This is simply one species that is very rare.

[Quarter bull 240]

Is that you in the pic a.t lol

 

At least your taking responsibility for your actions, an at the end of the day you can be tempted either way, but the choice falls to you, so dont think you could hide behind, God or devil, its your choi e not theirs, :-)