Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236

    Science vs Evolution

    This is a very interesting but long read with broad discussions. It shows how History and Science itself refute the theory of Evolution. Mind you, it is a very long read and I have yet to finish it. I started with Chapter 1c. It brings to mind, is the theory of evolution a hoax and a conspiracy?:

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...ci_vs_ev_2.htm

    Happy Reading!

    This is a better version in full:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...0ttmlA&ct=clnk

    The following are the contents of this interesting book:

    Introduction:

    Preface:

    A Treasure House of Information The origin of this book and how to use it

    A Theory Already Collapsed From the author to the reader

    1: History of Evolutionary Theory How modern science got into this problem (3 parts)

    2: The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas (4 parts)

    3: The Origin of the Earth Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state

    4: The Age of the Earth Why the Earth is not millions of years old (2 parts)

    5: The Problem of Time Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change

    6: Inaccurate Dating Methods Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable (3 parts)

    7: The Primitive Environment Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life (2 parts)

    8: DNA and Protein Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance (3 parts)

    9: Natural Selection Why natural selection only makes changes within species (2 parts)

    10: Mutations Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change (2 parts)

    11: Animal and Plant Species Why the species barrier cannot be broken (2 parts)

    12: Fossils and Strata Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax (4 parts)

    13: Ancient Man Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything (3 parts)

    14: Effects of the Flood What actually happened after the Flood (2 parts)

    15: Similarities and Divergence Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution

    16: Vestiges and Recapitulation You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms

    17: Evolutionary Showcase The best examples of evolution have proven worthless

    18: The Laws of Nature The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory

    19: Evolution, Morality, and Violence Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization

    20: Tectonics and Paleomagnetism The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism

    21: Archaeological Dating Correlating Egyptian and other archaeological dates with the Bible

    22: Evolutionary Science Fiction Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe

    23: Scientists Speak Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless (2 parts)

    24: Utterly Impossible Things evolution could never invent

    25: The Latest Evolution Crisis The most recent news (to 2006) in the Evolution Battle

    26: The Case for Intelligent Design The evidence keeps getting stronger

    27: Summary of the Anthropic Principle Discovering a flood of coincidences

    28: Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution Evolution flunks the science test

    29: Say It Simple What is this all about?

    30: Problems with Big Bang Creationism When opposites are combined

    31: Will You Defend God in this Time of Crisis? Schools, Employment, and Churches

    Research Guide: Tips on locating additional information for your research paper

    Appendix 1: The Law of Creatorship

    Appendix 2: Stem Cell Research


    God Bless Creation.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-09-2012 at 07:19 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236

    Gene Splicing

    I would like to add that is not included in the above book that Gene Splicing is another evidence of creation that stunned evolutionists:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.sg/2012/...-splicing.html

    Saturday, June 23, 2012

    You Won’t Believe This One: Gene Splicing Stuns and Bewilders Evolutionists


    Proteins perform a wide variety of tasks in the cell and when a particular job needs to be done the right protein is quickly synthesized by unwinding the right DNA gene, making a copy, editing the transcript, and translating the transcript, according to the DNA code, into a sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists had no explanation for this incredible and profound molecular manufacturing system (which still out performs anything scientists can come up with), but they remained steadfast. Indeed they argued all of this provided yet more proofs for evolution. Why? Because the DNA code was essentially universal. As one evolutionist explained, while the genetic code is preserved across species, it would not be if the species had been created independently. [1] If that’s true then the genetic code must have somehow evolved. Is that true? It’s difficult to say because that is, as usual, a non scientific claim. But aside from the metaphysics and the unexplained molecular manufacturing system, there is another problem with this story. It has now turned out to demolish evolutionary theory and has left evolutionists staring into the headlights.

    Years after the universal DNA code was discovered, several other codes were also discovered which were not only astonishingly complex, but they were not universal. One such code is the so-called splicing code.

    In higher organisms many of the genes are broken up into expressed regions, or exons, which are separated by intervening regions, or introns. After the gene is copied the transcript is edited, splicing out the introns and glueing together the exons. Not only is it a fantastically complex process, it also adds tremendous versatility to how genes are used. A given gene may be spliced into alternate sets of exons, resulting in different protein machines. There are three genes, for example, that generate over 3,000 different spliced products to help control the neuron designs of the brain.

    And how does the splicing machinery know where to cut and paste? There is an elaborate code that the splicing machinery uses to decide how to do its splicing. This splicing code is extremely complicated, using not only sequence patterns in the DNA transcript, but also the shape of transcript, as well as other factors.

    What is also complex about the new code is that it is context-dependent. In fact it even varies in different tissue types within a species. And studies of RNA binding proteins show even more complexity. These proteins are part of the molecular splicing machinery and they often regulate each other leading to an “unprecedented degree of complexity and compensatory relationships.” As one researcher explained:

    We identified thousands of binding sites and altered splicing events for these hnRNP proteins and discovered that, surprisingly these proteins bind and regulate each other and a whole network of other RNA binding proteins.

    Regulate each other and a whole network of other RNA binding proteins? Needless to say there is no scientific explanation for how this marvel could have evolved. And since this code is not universal but, quite the opposite, highly varying even between tissues, we can safely conclude the “universal code” prediction of evolution is falsified.

    If evolution is true then we expect codes to be universal. Here we have an obvious example of a code that most definitely is not universal, so the prediction is false. And if a prediction is false, then either the theory is false, or it must be modified. But with so many falsifications, and so many modifications that make no sense on evolution, it is obvious that something is very wrong with the theory. In this case we would have to say that random mutations just happened to create many different splicing codes, over and over, of unimaginable complexity.


    God Bless us all.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-09-2012 at 08:17 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    This is a very interesting but long read with broad discussions. It shows how History and Science itself refute the theory of Evolution. Mind you, it is a very long read and I have yet to finish it. I started with Chapter 1c. It brings to mind, is the theory of evolution a hoax and a conspiracy?:

    http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...ci_vs_ev_2.htm

    Happy Reading!

    This is a better version in full:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...0ttmlA&ct=clnk

    The following are the contents of this interesting book:

    Introduction:

    Preface:

    A Treasure House of Information The origin of this book and how to use it

    A Theory Already Collapsed From the author to the reader

    1: History of Evolutionary Theory How modern science got into this problem (3 parts)

    2: The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas (4 parts)

    3: The Origin of the Earth Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state

    4: The Age of the Earth Why the Earth is not millions of years old (2 parts)

    5: The Problem of Time Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change

    6: Inaccurate Dating Methods Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable (3 parts)

    7: The Primitive Environment Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life (2 parts)

    8: DNA and Protein Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance (3 parts)

    9: Natural Selection Why natural selection only makes changes within species (2 parts)

    10: Mutations Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change (2 parts)

    11: Animal and Plant Species Why the species barrier cannot be broken (2 parts)

    12: Fossils and Strata Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax (4 parts)

    13: Ancient Man Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything (3 parts)

    14: Effects of the Flood What actually happened after the Flood (2 parts)

    15: Similarities and Divergence Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution

    16: Vestiges and Recapitulation You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms

    17: Evolutionary Showcase The best examples of evolution have proven worthless

    18: The Laws of Nature The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory

    19: Evolution, Morality, and Violence Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization

    20: Tectonics and Paleomagnetism The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism

    21: Archaeological Dating Correlating Egyptian and other archaeological dates with the Bible

    22: Evolutionary Science Fiction Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe

    23: Scientists Speak Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless (2 parts)

    24: Utterly Impossible Things evolution could never invent

    25: The Latest Evolution Crisis The most recent news (to 2006) in the Evolution Battle

    26: The Case for Intelligent Design The evidence keeps getting stronger

    27: Summary of the Anthropic Principle Discovering a flood of coincidences

    28: Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution Evolution flunks the science test

    29: Say It Simple What is this all about?

    30: Problems with Big Bang Creationism When opposites are combined

    31: Will You Defend God in this Time of Crisis? Schools, Employment, and Churches

    Research Guide: Tips on locating additional information for your research paper

    Appendix 1: The Law of Creatorship

    Appendix 2: Stem Cell Research


    God Bless Creation.
    Hi CWH,

    They have shown that molecules are a wave unless measured(Capturing of information and this even involves mathematical formulas which is why quantum information theory explains so much) - If you have a formula for it then it is a measurement and it will cause a probability to be a reality.

    Read this:

    http://www.livescience.com/19268-qua...molecules.html

    Extract:

    If electrons were waves, they would travel through both slits at once, whereas particles must travel through one or the other slit, it was thought. And even electrons slowed down to the point where only one passes through the experiment at a time still manage to interfere with each other. How can this be?

    It took the modern theory of quantum mechanics to explain the results by suggesting that particles exist in a state of uncertainty, rather than at a specific time and place, until we observe them, forcing them to choose. Thus, the particles traveling through the plate don't have to select slit A or slit B; in effect, they travel through both.

    This is one of the ways particles in the tiny quantum world behave oddly, diverging from the understandable macroscopic, classical world of people and buildings and trees. But scientists have wondered where the boundary between the two is, and if one even exists.

    "Some physicists argue there must be an objective threshold between quantum and classical physics," Arndt told LiveScience. "That's puzzling also."

    If there is a boundary, the researchers' 58- and 114-atom molecules, made of links of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, are pushing it.

    "We're still in the strange situation that if you believe that quantum physics is everything, then all of us are somehow quantum-connected, which is hard to believe. But it's also hard to believe that quantum physics ends at some point. That's why groups like us are trying to increase the complexity [of our molecules] to see if there is a threshold at some point."

    The results of the research, led by Thomas Juffmann, also of the University of Vienna, were published online March 25 in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

    End Extract:

    Ok so if we take what all this implies you will see a big bang requires a concious observer or at least someone to be aware of the information. They have done experiments which prove future choices can change the past so retrocausality is a fact of quantum physics. I propose that when scientists have a theory and enough information to support it they start measuring states of superposition which actually causes that theory to become a reality. Just like they found the Higgs Boson exactly where they thought they would. This same situation has happened in astronomy.

    Without getting too technical what much of this implies is we are living in a very high quality simulation that is changeable.

    In the double slit experiment if they send an electron, atom or molecule through the double slit experiment and measure which path of the two slits it takes they get what they predicted. If they do not measure they get a probability wave where the particle is meant to make impact. Where it gets interesting is if they "measure" but then delete the information without looking at it and make it impossible to recover. Instead of getting what they predicted because they "measured" it they get an interference pattern as nobody has any "knowledge" which slit the particle took(Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure). So really it's not the concious observation but the knowledge which causes the wave to collapse into a particle so somebody who was concious had to have knowledge prior to the big bang(God).

    In fact science by supporting the big bang actually supports creation. They do not like to talk about before the big bang because time did not exist(God is outside time) and all the particles of the standard model of physics like the higgs boson they called the "God particle" only exist due to knowledge that it should exist.

    So in light of all this it also destroys evolution because when they admit everything is quantum there is no need for microscopic or macroscopic evolution or even lesser life forms becoming more complex as according to retrocausality it can be done in one go. That is why Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega(The first and the last) because he actually is. He holds 3 dimensional space and time in his hand.

    All this is one reason why you need to hold strong to believing in him as he will guide you through the narrow door out of this world which will eventually collapse in on itself as most concious "minds" are trying to make everything as material as possible when we are actually spirit. The flesh is a curse and that is why I have been promoting this 666 to 777 transformation on this forum. People need to realise they are more then flesh and blood.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I would like to add that is not included in the above book that Gene Splicing is another evidence of creation that stunned evolutionists:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.sg/2012/...-splicing.html

    Saturday, June 23, 2012

    You Won’t Believe This One: Gene Splicing Stuns and Bewilders Evolutionists


    Proteins perform a wide variety of tasks in the cell and when a particular job needs to be done the right protein is quickly synthesized by unwinding the right DNA gene, making a copy, editing the transcript, and translating the transcript, according to the DNA code, into a sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists had no explanation for this incredible and profound molecular manufacturing system (which still out performs anything scientists can come up with), but they remained steadfast. Indeed they argued all of this provided yet more proofs for evolution. Why? Because the DNA code was essentially universal. As one evolutionist explained, while the genetic code is preserved across species, it would not be if the species had been created independently. [1] If that’s true then the genetic code must have somehow evolved. Is that true? It’s difficult to say because that is, as usual, a non scientific claim. But aside from the metaphysics and the unexplained molecular manufacturing system, there is another problem with this story. It has now turned out to demolish evolutionary theory and has left evolutionists staring into the headlights.

    Years after the universal DNA code was discovered, several other codes were also discovered which were not only astonishingly complex, but they were not universal. One such code is the so-called splicing code.

    In higher organisms many of the genes are broken up into expressed regions, or exons, which are separated by intervening regions, or introns. After the gene is copied the transcript is edited, splicing out the introns and glueing together the exons. Not only is it a fantastically complex process, it also adds tremendous versatility to how genes are used. A given gene may be spliced into alternate sets of exons, resulting in different protein machines. There are three genes, for example, that generate over 3,000 different spliced products to help control the neuron designs of the brain.

    And how does the splicing machinery know where to cut and paste? There is an elaborate code that the splicing machinery uses to decide how to do its splicing. This splicing code is extremely complicated, using not only sequence patterns in the DNA transcript, but also the shape of transcript, as well as other factors.

    What is also complex about the new code is that it is context-dependent. In fact it even varies in different tissue types within a species. And studies of RNA binding proteins show even more complexity. These proteins are part of the molecular splicing machinery and they often regulate each other leading to an “unprecedented degree of complexity and compensatory relationships.” As one researcher explained:

    We identified thousands of binding sites and altered splicing events for these hnRNP proteins and discovered that, surprisingly these proteins bind and regulate each other and a whole network of other RNA binding proteins.

    Regulate each other and a whole network of other RNA binding proteins? Needless to say there is no scientific explanation for how this marvel could have evolved. And since this code is not universal but, quite the opposite, highly varying even between tissues, we can safely conclude the “universal code” prediction of evolution is falsified.

    If evolution is true then we expect codes to be universal. Here we have an obvious example of a code that most definitely is not universal, so the prediction is false. And if a prediction is false, then either the theory is false, or it must be modified. But with so many falsifications, and so many modifications that make no sense on evolution, it is obvious that something is very wrong with the theory. In this case we would have to say that random mutations just happened to create many different splicing codes, over and over, of unimaginable complexity.


    God Bless us all.
    This goes against evolution as well:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0524092932.htm

    Extract:

    "The behavior we were able to see at these very fast time scales implies a much more sophisticated mixing of electronic states," Tiede said. "It shows us that high-level biological systems could be tapped into very fundamental physics in a way that didn't seem likely or even possible."

    The quantum effects observed in the course of the experiment hint that the natural light-harvesting processes involved in photosynthesis may be more efficient than previously indicated by classical biophysics, said chemist Gary Wiederrecht of Argonne's Center for Nanoscale Materials. "It leaves us wondering: how did Mother Nature create this incredibly elegant solution?" he said.

    The result of the study could significantly influence efforts by chemists and nanoscientists to create artificial materials and devices that can imitate natural photosynthetic systems. Researchers still have a long way to go before they will be able to create devices that match the light harvesting efficiency of a plant.

    One reason for this shortcoming, Tiede explained, is that artificial photosynthesis experiments have not been able to replicate the molecular matrix that contains the chromophores. "The level that we are at with artificial photosynthesis is that we can make the pigments and stick them together, but we cannot duplicate any of the external environment," he said. "The next step is to build in this framework, and then these kinds of quantum effects may become more apparent."

    Because the moment when the quantum effect occurs is so short-lived -- less than a trillionth of a second -- scientists will have a hard time ascertaining biological and physical rationales for their existence in the first place. "It makes us wonder if they are really just there by accident, or if they are telling us something subtle and unique about these materials," Tiede said. "Whatever the case, we're getting at the fundamentals of the first step of energy conversion in photosynthesis."

    An article based on the study appeared online in the March 12 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by the DOE Office of Science.

    End Extract:

    Old science is getting overtaken by God!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by luke1978 View Post
    Hi CWH,

    They have shown that molecules are a wave unless measured(Capturing of information and this even involves mathematical formulas which is why quantum information theory explains so much) - If you have a formula for it then it is a measurement and it will cause a probability to be a reality.

    Read this:

    http://www.livescience.com/19268-qua...molecules.html

    Extract:

    If electrons were waves, they would travel through both slits at once, whereas particles must travel through one or the other slit, it was thought. And even electrons slowed down to the point where only one passes through the experiment at a time still manage to interfere with each other. How can this be?

    It took the modern theory of quantum mechanics to explain the results by suggesting that particles exist in a state of uncertainty, rather than at a specific time and place, until we observe them, forcing them to choose. Thus, the particles traveling through the plate don't have to select slit A or slit B; in effect, they travel through both.

    This is one of the ways particles in the tiny quantum world behave oddly, diverging from the understandable macroscopic, classical world of people and buildings and trees. But scientists have wondered where the boundary between the two is, and if one even exists.

    "Some physicists argue there must be an objective threshold between quantum and classical physics," Arndt told LiveScience. "That's puzzling also."

    If there is a boundary, the researchers' 58- and 114-atom molecules, made of links of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, are pushing it.

    "We're still in the strange situation that if you believe that quantum physics is everything, then all of us are somehow quantum-connected, which is hard to believe. But it's also hard to believe that quantum physics ends at some point. That's why groups like us are trying to increase the complexity [of our molecules] to see if there is a threshold at some point."

    The results of the research, led by Thomas Juffmann, also of the University of Vienna, were published online March 25 in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

    End Extract:

    Ok so if we take what all this implies you will see a big bang requires a concious observer or at least someone to be aware of the information. They have done experiments which prove future choices can change the past so retrocausality is a fact of quantum physics. I propose that when scientists have a theory and enough information to support it they start measuring states of superposition which actually causes that theory to become a reality. Just like they found the Higgs Boson exactly where they thought they would. This same situation has happened in astronomy.

    Without getting too technical what much of this implies is we are living in a very high quality simulation that is changeable.

    In the double slit experiment if they send an electron, atom or molecule through the double slit experiment and measure which path of the two slits it takes they get what they predicted. If they do not measure they get a probability wave where the particle is meant to make impact. Where it gets interesting is if they "measure" but then delete the information without looking at it and make it impossible to recover. Instead of getting what they predicted because they "measured" it they get an interference pattern as nobody has any "knowledge" which slit the particle took(Delayed Choice Quantum Erasure). So really it's not the concious observation but the knowledge which causes the wave to collapse into a particle so somebody who was concious had to have knowledge prior to the big bang(God).

    In fact science by supporting the big bang actually supports creation. They do not like to talk about before the big bang because time did not exist(God is outside time) and all the particles of the standard model of physics like the higgs boson they called the "God particle" only exist due to knowledge that it should exist.

    So in light of all this it also destroys evolution because when they admit everything is quantum there is no need for microscopic or macroscopic evolution or even lesser life forms becoming more complex as according to retrocausality it can be done in one go. That is why Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega(The first and the last) because he actually is. He holds 3 dimensional space and time in his hand.

    All this is one reason why you need to hold strong to believing in him as he will guide you through the narrow door out of this world which will eventually collapse in on itself as most concious "minds" are trying to make everything as material as possible when we are actually spirit. The flesh is a curse and that is why I have been promoting this 666 to 777 transformation on this forum. People need to realise they are more then flesh and blood.
    I agree with you luke1978, (I guess 1978 must be the year of your birth). I am skeptical of the atomic theory since young but I do believe in molecules as they can be observed on an electronic microscope and I do believe that atoms made up the molecules. But what cause me mystified is what made up atoms? and what is the force or energy that cause electrons to move around the atoms at the speed of light? Where does this energy come from? If the electrons move round the atom at the speed of light, it would have moved out of its orbit at that speed and what powerful force holds it in rotation? These questions made me think that something is wrong with the Atomic theory. I do somewhat believe in the frequency theory in which I believe that every atom have a wave frequency, a good example is light which is a wave energy. I don't quite believe in things like electrons, protons and neutrons etc. which to me is just different types of wave energy that splits from the frequency energy of the atom. The frequency of the atoms comes from cosmic energy which pervades everything in space.

    I find your concept of 666 meaning Carbon, 777 meaning Nitrogen to be interesting. 666 reminds me of the mark which most likely will be made from a carbon ink. And 777 which represents Christ in which nitrogen plays a very important part in ensuring life on earth as it is essential in making nitrates which is required by plants in making proteins and indirectly for building proteins in animals and every living things. I would like to add that Oxygen(8) is 888 which is a life giving gas and Hydrogen (1) is 111. Ever wonder why Water H2O is 1+1+8 = 10 which is the number for perfection or 111+111+888 = 1000 i.e. 10 X 10 X 10? Water is the life giving liquid.

    God never cease to amaze me.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-09-2012 at 09:34 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I agree with you luke1978, (I guess 1978 must be the year of your birth). I am skeptical of the atomic theory since young but I do believe in molecules as they can be observed on an electronic microscope and I do believe that atoms made up the molecules. But what cause me mystified is what made up atoms? and what is the force or energy that cause electrons to move around the atoms at the speed of light? Where does this energy come from? If the electrons move round the atom at the speed of light, it would have moved out of its orbit at that speed and what powerful force holds it in rotation? These questions made me think that something is wrong with the Atomic theory. I do somewhat believe in the frequency theory in which I believe that every atom have a wave frequency, a good example is light which is a wave energy.

    I find your concept of 666 meaning Carbon, 777 meaning Nitrogen to be interesting. 666 reminds me of the mark which most likely will be made from a carbon ink. And 777 which represents Christ in which nitrogen plays a very important part in ensuring life on earth as it is essential in making nitrates which is required by plants in making proteins and indirectly for building proteins in animals. I would like to add that Oxygen(8) is 888 which is a life giving gas and Hydrogen (1) is 111. Ever wonder why Water H2O is 1+1+8 = 10 which is the number for perfection or 111+111+888 = 1000 i.e. 10 X 10 X 10?

    God never cease to amaze me.
    My theory is the absence of the mark of God is the mark of the beast:

    3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it. ”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I would like to add that is not included in the above book that Gene Splicing is another evidence of creation that stunned evolutionists:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.sg/2012/...-splicing.html

    Saturday, June 23, 2012

    You Won’t Believe This One: Gene Splicing Stuns and Bewilders Evolutionists
    Why do you keep posting things you don't understand Cheow? It makes you look like a mindless robot.

    I've done everything in my power to engage you in serious discourse about the science of evolution, but you have refused to be rational. When I asked why scientists thought a particular experiment was good evidence for evolution, you said "because they are brainwashed." Don't you realize that this makes YOU look like the one who has been brainwashed?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why do you keep posting things you don't understand Cheow? It makes you look like a mindless robot.

    I've done everything in my power to engage you in serious discourse about the science of evolution, but you have refused to be rational. When I asked why scientists thought a particular experiment was good evidence for evolution, you said "because they are brainwashed." Don't you realize that this makes YOU look like the one who has been brainwashed?
    It is not for you to say I am a mindless robots, it is for the readers to decide. You know me, I am not bothered by such comments. You say so because you are biased and is against Creationism and Intelligent Design and believe there is no God. The article on Gene Splicing was done by scientists who are not out to disprove evolution but the discovery put doubt on the theory of evolution.

    Do you know why there so many people are against the theory of evolution? And do you know why there are few critics against the theory of gravity and almost no critic against the theory of combustion? The main reason is because people find that there are many flaws in the theory of evolution. There are very little flaws in the theory of gravity and combustion which is why there are very few critics against these theories. The theory of evolution certainly requires a review and thank God the schools in South Korea are now revising the teaching of the theory of evolution and supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design.

    In order to find the truth, we must respect people who have different opinions than our own, you don't seem to have such a respect in your such for the truth.


    May God Bless those who support His Creations.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Why do you keep posting things you don't understand Cheow? It makes you look like a mindless robot.

    I've done everything in my power to engage you in serious discourse about the science of evolution, but you have refused to be rational. When I asked why scientists thought a particular experiment was good evidence for evolution, you said "because they are brainwashed." Don't you realize that this makes YOU look like the one who has been brainwashed?
    It is not for you to say I am a mindless robots, it is for the readers to decide. You know me, I am not bothered by such comments. You say so because you are biased and is against Creationism and Intelligent Design and believe there is no God. The article on Gene Splicing was done by scientists who are not out to disprove evolution but the discovery put doubt on the theory of evolution.
    I didn't say you are a "mindless robot." I said you were making yourself look like a mindless robot. There is a big difference. How you choose to present yourself to others on this forum is totally under your own control. You have chosen to repeat mindless creationist propaganda while refusing to discuss the evidence that supports evolution. This makes you look totally ignorant and foolish, and I can assure that this is what any informed reader would conclude from your posts. The only people that would agree with you are those who are equally ignorant of the science.

    And I know you are not "bothered" by such comments. That's why you look like a mindless robot. You do not respond to the facts presented. When I present evidence that reveals the errors in your posts you just ignore the facts and repeat your errors.

    Case in point: Your assertion that I am presenting the evidence "because I am biased" is false, ridiculous, and contrary to the facts that everyone can see. I am not biased in the least. I base my posts on logic and facts, simple as that. You can't refute either the logic or the facts, so you make false accusations about my motives. The really sad thing is that you apparently don't even know that such accusations are logically fallacious ad hominem and totally irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the evidence I present.

    And your accusation that I am posting evidence for evolution because I "believe there is no God" is a blatant lie. I have never said there is no God. On the contrary, I have repeatedly told everyone that there could be a God. There is no excuse for your blatant lies. Will you repent of your error?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Do you know why there so many people are against the theory of evolution? And do you know why there are few critics against the theory of gravity and almost no critic against the theory of combustion? The main reason is because people find that there are many flaws in the theory of evolution. There are very little flaws in the theory of gravity and combustion which is why there are very few critics against these theories. The theory of evolution certainly requires a review and thank God the schools in South Korea are now revising the teaching of the theory of evolution and supporting Creationism and Intelligent Design.
    That is not true. You have never shown any understanding of evolution at all, let alone any "errors." You, like essentially all creationists, are totally ignorant. You cannot even state what evidence the scientists have found that supports their theories. You are like a blind man declaring there is no such thing as a rainbow. You are totally deluded about this issue. It is pathetic beyond all description.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    In order to find the truth, we must respect people who have different opinions than our own, you don't seem to have such a respect in your such for the truth.
    You would do well to follow your own advice and quit saying that the most brilliant scientists on the planet are brainwashed idiots who invented evolution because they hate God. Such assertions are not only wrong, they are flat out lies. Only corrupt moral monsters would invent and spread such slander against good people. Scientists are convinced by the evidence, not mindless religious ideology like you. For you to call them "brainwashed" is perhaps the most ironic thing since you are the one who has brainwashed himself into believing the Bible without any evidence whatsoever.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I didn't say you are a "mindless robot." I said you were making yourself look like a mindless robot. There is a big difference. How you choose to present yourself to others on this forum is totally under your own control. You have chosen to repeat mindless creationist propaganda while refusing to discuss the evidence that supports evolution. This makes you look totally ignorant and foolish, and I can assure that this is what any informed reader would conclude from your posts. The only people that would agree with you are those who are equally ignorant of the science.
    I have presented lots of evidence against the theory of macro-evolution so that people are aware that there is lots of flaws in that theory. I am not against micro -evolution which I already said is plausible but I am against MACRO-EVOLUTION. I will let the readers decide the verdict. You can call me whatever you want. You have been brainwashed by the stupid theory of macro-evolution.

    And I know you are not "bothered" by such comments. That's why you look like a mindless robot. You do not respond to the facts presented. When I present evidence that reveals the errors in your posts you just ignore the facts and repeat your errors.
    What facts have you presented? None. Why not try to refute all the evidences which I have presented in my thread, "Science vs Evolution"? The facts that I and every skeptic wanted is very simple: demonstrate to us how life started from non-living things and demonstrate to us one species of animal or plant turning into another species naturally. And if you can demonstrate these, I will keep my big mouth shut. So far no one have ever demonstrate these, if someone did, he will get the Nobel Prize.

    Case in point: Your assertion that I am presenting the evidence "because I am biased" is false, ridiculous, and contrary to the facts that everyone can see. I am not biased in the least. I base my posts on logic and facts, simple as that. You can't refute either the logic or the facts, so you make false accusations about my motives. The really sad thing is that you apparently don't even know that such accusations are logically fallacious ad hominem and totally irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the evidence I present.
    There is no evidence in macro-evolution just assumptions....e.g. few evolutionists believe in natural selection nowadays because it doesn't work! What logic? I can easily come out with a family tree of computer viruses and say they are related to one another from a common descent which is man-made computer codes.

    And your accusation that I am posting evidence for evolution because I "believe there is no God" is a blatant lie. I have never said there is no God. On the contrary, I have repeatedly told everyone that there could be a God. There is no excuse for your blatant lies. Will you repent of your error?
    Then STOP bashing God! Hope you repent before it is too late. You even said in one of your post that you want everyone to be like you free from their religion, I wonder what is your real motive?....lead us away from the love of God? That is the most horrible thing to do. If you do not want to go to heaven, that's fine but do not prevent others from going to heaven. If you have never said there is no God then why is there a thread, "There are no gods". Please amend the title to "There may be a god".

    That is not true. You have never shown any understanding of evolution at all, let alone any "errors." You, like essentially all creationists, are totally ignorant. You cannot even state what evidence the scientists have found that supports their theories. You are like a blind man declaring there is no such thing as a rainbow. You are totally deluded about this issue. It is pathetic beyond all description.
    Are scientist always right? Ya, the theory of Phlogiston, the Piltdown Man etc. I can assure you mega-evolution will be the biggest deceit in human history. There are Creationists and Intelligent Designers (of which many are non-Christians) because the theory of evolution have too many flaws. It has nothing to do with religious dogma. Ever why there are very few critics on the theory of combustion or gravity?

    You would do well to follow your own advice and quit saying that the most brilliant scientists on the planet are brainwashed idiots who invented evolution because they hate God. Such assertions are not only wrong, they are flat out lies. Only corrupt moral monsters would invent and spread such slander against good people. Scientists are convinced by the evidence, not mindless religious ideology like you. For you to call them "brainwashed" is perhaps the most ironic thing since you are the one who has brainwashed himself into believing the Bible without any evidence whatsoever.
    You mean brilliant scientists cannot be deceived or brainwashed? They were deceived before... Piltdown Man, Archeoraptor, Pekin man, Phlogiston. I wonder what else they were deceived without even knowing it. There were also brilliant scientists who turn from evolutionists to creationists ..why? This is the list of evolutionist scientists turn creationists which I have presented which you assert that I have not presented, you must be myopic or having selective viewing.

    http://www.creationists.org/former-e...cientists.html

    May God forgive them for they know not what they are doing.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-10-2012 at 11:39 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •