‘Net Case: GodSaidManSaid.com.

Posted: October 13, 2006 in Atheism, Comedy, Religion, Reviews

godsaidlogosm.gifSomethingAwful.com is not exactly what you could call a high brow, intellectual site – but then, it’s not meant to be. They also have a wonderful habit of pointing out some truly idiotic websites that we can all point at and laugh. Thanks to the SA crew, I found my way to God Said Man Said … and I haven’t been able to stop laughing yet.

The people behind the website in question must truly be idiots, there’s no other way to succintly label their range of beliefs. It would seem to me that this website indicates that they’re the sort of people that believe in … well, what do they believe in? Let’s grab some random statements from the website and disprove them.

Much conversation has been bantered about concerning what God has to say about homosexuality. The Word of God is very clear about the cause, the punishment and the solution for homosexuality. GOD SAID homosexual activity is an abomination

The Bible does say that, more or less (some messing up with the translation may have occurred). But as a wonderful scene from the West Wing points out, the Bible also has a lot of other rules that we, possessing modern rational beliefs, have thrown out the proverbial window because they’re a load of horsesh*t.

Therefore, if you’re one of these whacko fundamentalists that think that homosexuality is wrong then I expect you to be out there hassling farmers about their crops and stoning women for their fashion choices. You can’t pick and choose what biblical passages you follow, you have to choose if the bible is 100% correct or bits of it are irrational.

This question is carried further in the minds of men. Speculation abounds and vast resources are committed to establishing whether there is life in outer space. To evolutionists, it is the unholy grail…a type of missing link. If they find life in outer space, their false assumption is that it will prove the theory of evolution.

Huh? What? What in the name of Elvis’ Spleen does the theory of evolution (which has already been proven as much as any scientific theory can) have to do with the possible existence extra-terrestial life? There is no link there at all. We could be visited tomorrow by an armada of green skinned, pink eyed, stoned college attending aliens and it would not affect evolutionary thinking at all. Scientists would instead go ‘Hey, look; Aliens! We shall speak with them and learn from them (and maybe catch one and dissect it while no one is looking!)’. Statements like the one above really demonstrate how ignorant some people are, it’s simply amazing.

The Bible clearly teaches the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. Conversely, evolutionists claim years into billions.

Yes, billions. It’s a rather big number and I dare say the site authors reject it because they have trouble with the concept of numbers bigger than the amounts of their inbred kin. Of course, the age of the Earth is pretty much undebatable by anyone who has more sense than that of your average garden variety rock. How do we know the age of it? All sorts of things, starting with carbon dating, fossil records, historical records, archaelogical records, geological records and sheer common sense.

Ancient secular history goes back about 5,500 years and the trail grows ice cold. The reason the trail grows ice cold is simply because there isn’t much more history beyond it.

Huh? What bodily orifice did they pull that one out from? We’re pretty sure that the first people crossed over into Australia about 40,000 years ago (testing the age of paintings made by the earliest of Aboriginal settlers is a very easy thing to do and very accurate), we know humans have been walking the Earth for at least 100,000 years (thanks to fossil records) while we have all sorts of evidence about ancient civilisations which justify each and every one of the historical beliefs held by science today.

Remember the need for witnesses in order to certify truth. Collaborated historical record is witness of the past.

Witnesses certify truth? What? You don’t need witnesses, you need evidence. For example, there are no witnesses that can tell us that J Edgar Hoover liked to have … individual wardrobe choices available. Yet we know he did because there is evidence to support such a theory. There are no witnesses today that can tell us how the Pyramids were constructed, yet we have a pretty good idea how there were because of … you guessed it … evidence.

Being that credible recorded history, which is proof of the past, does not exceed 6,000 years, it is impossible to prove the earth older than 6,000 years.

And the United States allows people like this vote and breed? This statement, just by itself, demonstrates the unbelievable stupidity and ignorance of the people behind GodSaidManSaid.

I could go on and on, reading the website simply makes me travel the emotional spectrum from disbelief (of the mass amount of stupidity), wonder (at how anyone can be that ignorant) and joy (Oh, how I laughed! My sides hurt!). Just go read it for yourselves, just don’t be drinking anything you don’t want coming out of your nose.

I wonder what their response would be when it can be stated that the Bible is completely historically inaccurate (no evidence at all for pretty much anything in the OT, while supposed witness accounts for much of the NT is laughable) while historical records for supposed lynchpin stories such as the global flood and the exodus from Egypt pretty much disprove any such events ever took place.

About these ads
Comments
  1. Catana says:

    I shouldn’t be, but I am, constantly amazed at the non-sequitors that those people can come up with.

    Thanks for the comment on my blog–and the laughs here.

  2. edarrell says:

    Sometimes it’s fun to get these guys engaged in a discussion about what is known about Jericho. The site has been continuously occupied for about the past 15,000 years, with a settlement there in one form or another for the past 12,000 years. This is what the Biblical archaeologists say.

    And just to top it off, there is no sign of a flood there — it’s a desert, true, but it’s also 800 feet below sea level. So had there been a major flood in the past 15,000 years, it should show up in the silt at Jericho. But it doesn’t.

    Try it in discussion some time.

  3. omnologos says:

    > you can’t pick and choose what biblical passages you want

    I agree with the rest, but the above is strictly correct only wrt the “fundamentalist whackos”

    The fact that Mr Kurtz or Marlow may have never existed does not make Heart of Darkness a complete fantasy

  4. Wes says:

    If the writer of the above article finds GodsaidMansaid.com (of whom I research for) and the Bible to be so ridiculous and unsupported by the evidence; I then ask then what is logical and supported by the evidence? Surley not the evolution theory. For where in the fossil record are all the so-called transitional forms that Charles Darwin was sure would turn up? Where might I ask is the “evidence” for turtle evoultion in the fossil record? How about the evolution of bats? If reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years as is claimed; then how shall you account for the fact that reptiles and birds have 2 totally different lung systems? Birds have a one way lung system while reptiles have a 2 way lung system. At what point in their slow evolutionary journey did they switch from the 1 way lung system to a 2 way system and how could it survive a slow change when the system has to be totally a one way system or totally a two way system for it to function properly. You also claim that the global flood in the Bible is completely historically inaccurate. Well apparently you have not taken the time to research this topic; for there are if I remember correctly, currently around 300 known legends from ancient cutltures from all over the world stating that there was once a flood of worldwide proportions. Some of these legends are also quite close to the Biblical story as well and mirror many of the same events in the story such as the building of the ark. Not only that, but the fact that there are trillions of fossils buried in rock layers layed down by water all over the earth is a tremendous arguement in favor of a worldwide flood. So in closing I leave you this.

    1. What is proof?
    2. What is truth?
    3. Prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

    • Marion says:

      WooHoo! Thank you Wes. It is time to put forth the truth, and truth does not lie in theory. Theory is “I think such and such happened, so it must have happened.” The truth must be told, and I am fully satisfied with the finding of GodSaidManSaid.

    • Michael Whitaker says:

      I appreciate Wes’ speaking out. I subscribe to Godsaidmansaid.com and find it a huge blessing. I just hope that those who follow this blog will go to the scriptures themselves and ask the God behind them to show Himself to them instead of taking some atheistic professor’s rhetoric as to the truth of scripture.

  5. Matt says:

    “I then ask then what is logical and supported by the evidence? Surley not the evolution theory.”

    It surely is. There’s so much evidence out there for evolution being right that actually debating whether or not it’s true is almost a waste a time – it’s only those who don’t understand the concept or willfully ignore the evidence that say that evolution isn’t happening.

    The various points raised have been answered many times and show a rather incomplete knowledge of evolutionary theory.

    There is no evidence for a global flood, which in itself would be physically impossible on many fronts – there is no mass erosion, no mass sediment layer, no uniform layer of mass animal remains, no source for the water or any credible theory on where it went. Add to that there are serious holes in the story itself (for example, the survival of fish and birds, the measurements of the supposed ark, etc)… well, it doesn’t take a genius to realise it’s a load of phooey.

    ‘Prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years old.’

    Oh please tell me you’re joking. Please. Young Earthers are only marginally less ridiculed for their complete out of touch beliefs than Flat Earthers. Again, there is so much incredible evidence for the Earth being millions upon millions upon millions of years old that you’d have to have a considerable wall of ignorance to even consider any sort of other alternative.

    Claims of being a researcher seem far fetched at this time, since it has been demonstrated that there are very serious gaps in your knowledge of evolutionary theory.

  6. Wes says:

    Typical evolutionist reponse; continue repeating the mantra that evolution is true and creation is ridiculous, without specifically addressing any of my scientific objections. If the points I have raised have already been reasonably answered; then why don’t you answer them for me.

    A global flood is not impossible on any fronts. The flood would have had catastrophic effects throughouht the world that would have totally changed the landscape and shifted tectonic plates together causing mountains to form and massive sedimentary layers to be laid down; which when you look at the earth is exactly what we find. And yes there was erosion that took place such as the formation of the Grand Canyon; which evolutionist ridiculously claim was formed as a result of the Colorado River carving out the canyon over millions of years. And yes there most certainly is mass sedimentary layers of animal remains; its called the geologic column and it was formed during a massive worldwide flood and not millions of years of evolution. Fossilized trees have been found upside down going through multiple rock layers proving that the layers did not form over millions of years. The water for the flood came from underground chambers of water that erupted as well as a from a canopy of water that once encompassed the earth as recorded in the Bible. As far as where it went, you needn’t look to hard for over two thirds of the earth ‘s surface is covered by water. The birds survived on Noah’s ark with the rest of the animals that were brought on and though many fish were killed in the flood; they were not all killed because they survived by breathing under water like they always do. And I see no problems with the measurements of the ark.

    Again if there is so much evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, then show me. I don’t need a lot, just give me your very best one that indisputably proves without objection that the earth is older than 6,000 years old. But before doing so; just simply define: 1. what is proof and 2. what is truth. Then with those defintions in hand, proceed to show witout using unprovable assumptions, that the earth is older than 6,000 years old.

  7. Matt says:

    ‘Typical evolutionist reponse; continue repeating the mantra that evolution is true and creation is ridiculous, without specifically addressing any of my scientific objections.’

    That’s an interesting way of looking at it, since you didn’t address any of the points raised in the original post – instead regurgitating stuff from the already laughable godsaidmansaid website.

    ‘And yes there was erosion that took place such as the formation of the Grand Canyon; which evolutionist ridiculously claim was formed as a result of the Colorado River carving out the canyon over millions of years.’

    Ridiciously? It is what all the available evidence points to. The Grand Canyon/Great Flood argument has been disproven so many times, I find it hilarious that anyone even has the sense to bring it up yet again. Next you’ll be saying that the remains of Noah’s Ark have been conclusively found…

    ‘The water for the flood came from underground chambers of water that erupted as well as a from a canopy of water that once encompassed the earth as recorded in the Bible. As far as where it went, you needn’t look to hard for over two thirds of the earth ’s surface is covered by water.’

    So you’re saying that the supposed great flood formed the oceans as we know it? Do you even realise how that would effect the atmosphere? The hydrosphere? The sudden increase in moisture in the air would have signalled a complete loss of life as we know it. Forever. It wouldn’t matter if you were on a magic boat or not, you’d be dead. Everything would be dead, with the possible exception of bacteria and other really small life forms.

    ‘The birds survived on Noah’s ark with the rest of the animals that were brought on and though many fish were killed in the flood; they were not all killed because they survived by breathing under water like they always do’

    The bird’s only landing place would be the Ark … yet they’d have nothing to eat. Why? Because when salt/sea water and supposedly fresh water collide, it becomes an unlivable environment for most fish. Do some research into the opening/closing of estuary mouths – it’s pretty much the same principle. The fish population would have been decimated due to the huge and sudden change in mineral, oxygen and temperature levels.

    ‘And I see no problems with the measurements of the ark.’

    Think about the size and number of animals required to be on the thing. Compare that to the dimenions laid out the bible. Think about it.

    ‘Again if there is so much evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years old, then show me.’

    Geological records. Carbon dating. Fossil records. Records of ancient civilisations. Archaelogical records. How much do you need? There is so much evidence that you’d have to have a rather large Wall of Ignorance to even consider an alternative. Heck, a nice skull has been dug up quite recently (I think I even posted the story on this blog) which was dated at 3.3 million years old.

    Even the size of the Universe combined with the known and unarguable speed of light dictate that the Earth is pretty old. It’s not hard to realise that the Earth is damn old, a far sight more than a mere 6,000 years – which is laughable at best.

    • ty says:

      Dude you sound quite ridiculous, giving answers with no proof, carbon dating is proved to be inaccurate at very best, be it radiocarbon, argon etc. Evolution is still unproven, if you supposedly can find billion year old primate ancestors bone structures, then why not million year old half monkey half man remains?? Hmmmm maybe because we weren’t monkeys (or lizards, fish etc) lol. you poke fun at people who believe in a young earth and global flood, but you believe that we developed our circulatory, respiratory, nervous, systems from single celled organisms over billions of years?

  8. Wes says:

    This will be my last post, as my objections have yet to be answered after 2 different exchanges. It would appear you are not capable of defending your evolutionary beliefs, just bashing Creation and the Bible. You ask why I didn’t go through and address the points made in your original post? Well other than the fact that I don’t have the time to be answering all of your questions, it is because you didn’t address your original post specifically to me but to your like-minded unbelieving friends. So my first post was a scientific challenge addressed to you after reading through your nonsense, to defend your Godless evolutionary beliefs after bashing the site and the Bible; not to answer your arguments. But when you specifically challenged me with your scientific inquires, then I answered them. I have specifically challenged you with various arguments against your position and you have refused to defend any of them in any detail, other than statements such as: “The Grand Canyon/Great Flood argument has been disproven so many times,” and just simply stating that Carbon dating proves an and old earth. If the Grand Canyon/Great Flood argument has been disproved, then disprove it; don’t just claim that it has. And if Carbon dating or something else proves an old earth without using baseless assumptions, then show some kind of evidence that it does.

    I also noticed that you refused yet again to answer my questions of what is proof and what is truth. And also, when I stated that the water for the flood came from underwater chambers and an atmospheric canopy; I was not implying that they were the only sources; for the great oceans had already existed on the earth before the flood because on the third day of creation the “gathering together of the waters called he Seas.” So water would have came from the Seas to, I was just naming two additional places it came from. And yes the mixing of the water would have killed many Sea creatures which it most certainly did. The fossil record is evidence of that for something upwards of 95% or more of all the trillions of fossils found to date are Sea creatures. But not all of them were destroyed. As for your accusations that the ark wasn’t big enough, we address that on our “Noahs Ark, Fact or Fiction,” on Godsaidmansaid and show that there was plenty of room. Your speed of light argument is also on the site under “Starlight and the Age of the Universe.”

  9. Matt says:

    Heh, I shall take that as an admission of defeat then, shall I? Interesting. Oh well, let’s go through your last post, shall we?

    ‘I have specifically challenged you with various arguments against your position and you have refused to defend any of them in any detail’

    Those points you raised were dubious at best, revolving around lung structures which anyone who understanding evolutionary theory will tell you is quite fine as is. As you seem to lack understanding of the theory you don’t believe in … well, my time is limited and I have far better things than to teach you what people could easily write multiple thesis papers on.

    ‘If the Grand Canyon/Great Flood argument has been disproved, then disprove it; don’t just claim that it has.’

    You claim to be a researcher and yet you appear to possess considerable ignorance of this matter. Again, basic common sense, basic understanding of geology and how a global flood would actually affect the Earth would immediately rule out it ever taking place. Thankfully, others have done the work for me – here’s just one of the almost countless pages which show that the great flood is about as plausible as Santa.

    http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-6.shtml

    ‘And if Carbon dating or something else proves an old earth without using baseless assumptions, then show some kind of evidence that it does.’

    Carbon dating has been shown to be an extremely accurate scientific tool for the measurement of age in more or less any given object. Unless you want to argue that the entire premise of carbon dating technology is false (which, quite bluntly, you can’t seriously do) then the findings of said tests stand.

    ‘I also noticed that you refused yet again to answer my questions of what is proof and what is truth.’

    I skipped it because they are concepts which are taught in primary schools, concepts that any person knows quite well enough already. In short; the question was a waste of time.

    Your arguments for a source of water for a global flood, as already detailed in the link provided, are laughable and show a gross ignorance of many field of science. For example, a quick passage from your site:

    ‘This very day there are fish fossils on nearly every mountain peak in the world. Men have actually found shark fossils in Cleveland, Ohio. Remember, fish fossils are on nearly every mountain in the world. How does a fish fossil get to a mountain peak?’

    Tectonic plate shifts would not have occurred in the time of Noah, which (according to you) could not have been more than 6,000 years ago. Do you have any idea how long geological movements take? Plates shift around 2 inches per year on average, mountain ranges takes hundreds of thousands of years (at minimum) to start to recognizably form. This is scientific fact, it is the basis of the field of geology – it is something that can not be argued against unless you’re stark raving mad.

    Your statements about Noah’s Ark are wonky, at least. Do you have any idea what it takes to look after an animal, the physical movement it requires? The engineering impossibility of a vessel that can stay afloat given the dubious amounts of material available with such a load onboard? You can definitely not shove, using your sites example, a whole bunch of sheep in the equivalent of a box car for over a month. Modern sheep ships, which travels the world’s oceans, are specially designed for long haul journeys which do take considerable time – sometimes two months. They are, as noted, especially designed to allow the animals proper food, ventilation, and freedom of movement to a degree which keeps them acceptably healthy. Even with modern materials, technology and good ol’ know-how… it’s still a stretch. Animals still die on these ships, they still get sick.

    You see, one of the main problems with sites such as yours and those people who believe in it is that you all approach situations in a complete unscientific and non-objective manner. You assume a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it – you assume the bible is right and latch onto flawed evidence and gross misunderstandings to justify the events told therein. You assume god exists and do the same. Instead, you should be looking for evidence and forming your conclusions based on it – instead of the topsy turvy method you’re using now.

    • Ally says:

      Matt, do you just like to hear yourself talk? Science has proved nothing in the Bible incorrect. You may not believe now, but you will.

      • Matt says:

        Oh dear, I guess someone hasn’t actually read all the scientific findings and data. Or even the posts on this humble blog for that matter.
        Global flood? Disproved.
        Exodus from Egypt? Disproved.
        etc etc etc.

  10. edarrell says:

    Grand Canyon? Do creationists fail to notice that the land slopes the wrong way for runoff to form the Grand Canyon in a single flood event? Water would have to flow uphill to get it started . . .

  11. Matt says:

    I am glad to say that it’s generally only that rather bizarre ‘Young Earth Creation’ crowd who even buy that Grand Canyon thing for a moment. Most other creationists don’t go for the YEC arguments at all (thank goodness) and accept that the Earth is billions of years old and life has been walking around for a few million of those years.

  12. SugarDaddy says:

    These people clearly don’t understand the nature of logic and therefore cannot be reasoned with on the same level as a free-thinking individual. They’re fundamentalists, which means they have a base of assumptions that they consider to be fact. Those assumptions are safe from scrutiny by like-minded folk using tactics like “to question such is heresy.” We, as thinking people, question everything, and we see their base assumptions as laughable because, well, they are! For example, the bible is clearly a work of man. Not only that, but it has been changed hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. How can you consider any such thing to be fact if it is not even close to being verifiable? That is not faith. That is called ignorance. Often people confuse the two.

    The main thing that pisses me off about these people is that they basically pull all of their arguments out of thin air, or they base them on unverifiable assumptions simply because they don’t like what science, which is verifiable, has concluded. There IS a happy medium between religion and science. It is certainly not found on godsaidmansaid.com. That site is complete trash and astoundingly hypocritical and ridiculous. Down with fundamentalism!

  13. SugarDaddy says:

    Grand Canyon? Do creationists fail to notice that the land slopes the wrong way for runoff to form the Grand Canyon in a single flood event? Water would have to flow uphill to get it started . . .

    In their world, water can flow uphill. Small details like this which completely demolish their beliefs fall on unlistening ears. You can’t speak logic to these people, so please don’t bother. Just know that there are many more people like you or I, and we can all laugh at these fools. The more we laugh, the less power they have because eventually no one will take them seriously.

    I would be interested to study how people get like this? This willful ignorance; this doublethink is quite a phenomenon. What causes people to engage in such things? Fear? Insecurity? Self-doubt? Lust for power? I’d like to know.

  14. Mike says:

    There is a happy compromise…it is called the Holy Catholic Church. The Church, founded by Jesus around 33 AD, has always left room for evolution as a theory regarding the beginnings of the world as we know it.

    Let’s face it, even the most staunch evolutionists can’t explain where the matter, even the single cell, came from that would have been required for evolution.

    And, even the most staunch creationists have failed to explain the scientific evidence that rebuts their theories.

    However, the Catholic Church allows for a belief in an evolutionary process, as long as we also believe that our Father in Heaven started the process. We must also believe in an original creation of man…not that man came from some primordial slime, or evolved from apes, etc.

    This is the belief system that makes the most sense. That’s why I believe it.

    No amount of arguing is going to convert one side to the other. The strict fundamentalists (who have MANY flaws in their belief systems, in my opinion) fall short, and the strict scientists (who also have a flawed belief system, in my opinion) fall short as well.

    Mike Maturen

    mike@mikematuren.com

    • James says:

      Mike, your Catholicism is just a simple cop out. Most Catholics have no idea that they are working their way into Heaven. It is by FAITH alone in Jesus Christ that we are able to have eternal life not works or sucking the pope’s dick. Anyway on to my original statement, you are trying to please men Either you believe the Bible 100% (as I do) or you just simply say that some of it is allegorical. Remember what Jesus said ” ye cannot serve two masters for ye will love one and hate the other” . More important though is what are you relying on to get to Heaven? Is it what His said in his Word or is it what man (the pope or Catholic church) has taught. Religion doesn’t save you, only the blood of Jesus Christ does.

  15. Steve says:

    I would like to point out that Darwin never said he thought humans were descended from apes. He said he thought apes and humans had a common ancestor. Organisms change over time because of environmental and biological factors. That is evolution. It can’t be argued against rationally. Look at all the different kinds of finches found on the Galapagos Islands. They evolved different kinds of beaks in order to exploit different food sources. Look at the different paths evolution has taken on Australia and Madagascar. However, one may logically argue that humans were created until an indisputable missing link is found. And also, one could maintain that humans were created by God using the tool of evolution. My mind remains open. I challenge the rest of you to keep yours open too.

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    However, one may logically argue that humans were created until an indisputable missing link is found. And also, one could maintain that humans were created by God using the tool of evolution. My mind remains open. I challenge the rest of you to keep yours open too.

    Now that we have a score of “indisputable” links not missing, is it safe to say humans evolved in our present physical form, and were not created in this form without it?

    Or are our minds open to everything but the evidence?

  17. Bad says:

    I would like to point out that Darwin never said he thought humans were descended from apes.

    And are, in fact, a type of ape.

    Look at the teeth in your mouth. OMG someone put ape teeth in there!

    Look at the pattern of hair coverage: OMG someone put ape hair on you!

    Look at your fingers: OMG ape fingerprints!

    And so on.

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    And blood types. OMG! We have gorilla blood in us!

  19. Matt says:

    I knew I had a craving for bananas for some reason….

    Ook.

  20. Christopher says:

    You sound like an angry sinner trying discount any possibility of being accountable to his sin. I have good news for you. No matter what you have done God has made a way for you to be forgiven! He sent His Son Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for ALL our sins. All you/we have to do is accept it and part of accepting is turning away from your sin while believing that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin to be forgiven. I hope you look into this further; it is available to you and anyone willing to believe. As far as evolution goes, I suggest that you look at it more critically. For example you claim old earth is proven by geological and fossil records, but that in and of itself is in conflict. The “fossil record” age depends on the “geological” age but the “geological” age depends on the “fossil record”, clearly a circular argument that has no real scientific basis. Carbon dating is very inaccurate and cannot measure in the millions of years so it could never prove the earth to be millions of years old.

    Carbon dating is known for inaccuracies also. For example, “One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and ‘wood found immediately around the carcass’ was 9,000-10,000 RCY.” (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)
    Notice the 2 different dates for the same mammoth and another date from wood found in close proximity.

    Science shows that it is mathematically impossible for the complex information that we find in every living cell to happen by accident.

    Science shows that left handed amino acid which is the building block of all life cannot be replicated by scientist. It is not found anywhere but in living matter showing that the very building blocks of life do not exist outside of life, therefore life could not have happened by accident.

    We see in the fossil record where life appears instantly. This layer is called the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionists have no scientific reason for this. There are some ludicrous theories which are too ridiculous to debate.

    In the days of Columbus “scientists” thought that the earth was flat, now the same types of flat earth scientists continue to pursue the theory of evolution. The above science proves your ranting to be in vein. The evidence of God is overwhelming to the one who loves the truth. Not blind faith but faith backed by facts not base theories from those who refuse to acknowledge God. For the latter it is reserved the darkest corners of Hell. Not because they were abandoned but because they refused to accept the redemption that their loving Creator God FREELY offered to them. Before Hell is a sentence it is a choice. A choice not made by God but by those who reject Him. This does not need to be your end but it is your choice. Choose wisely!

  21. Matt says:

    You sound like an angry sinner trying discount any possibility of being accountable to his sin. (snip)

    And you sound like someone who relies on blind faith to deny personal responsibility and pass it on to mythological figures without any actual reason to do so.

    For example you claim old earth is proven by geological and fossil records, but that in and of itself is in conflict. The “fossil record” age depends on the “geological” age but the “geological” age depends on the “fossil record”, clearly a circular argument that has no real scientific basis.

    You’ve done no actual research into the matter, have you? Geological age is determined through several independent means which are come up with the same answers. I don’t know about you but that seems pretty indicative of something to me.

    Carbon dating is very inaccurate and cannot measure in the millions of years so it could never prove the earth to be millions of years old.

    Carbon dating is actually rather accurate in a given period of time. It’s very accurate up to about the 50,000 year old mark, after that it becomes unreliable. For ages/measurements older than that, other methods are used to accurately date things.

    Carbon dating is known for inaccuracies also.

    Any tool misused brings bad results. Your following examples are silly as you’ll see.

    For example, “One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] (snip)

    “The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth, which Brown also mentions (Péwé 1975, 30). The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown’s source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates. Ukraintseva (1993) reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth. ”

    Science shows that it is mathematically impossible for the complex information that we find in every living cell to happen by accident.

    No, it does no such thing. The odds of it are small, yes. But as any one who knows anything about probability knows, it only had to happen once.

    Science shows that left handed amino acid (snip)

    I don’t know where you’re digging up these long ago refuted creationist arguments from, but you really do need to do better.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

    We see in the fossil record where life appears instantly. This layer is called the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionists have no scientific reason for this. There are some ludicrous theories which are too ridiculous to debate.

    Wow. You’re just loving the long refuted arguments, aren’t you? This one is even in my ‘Argument Responses’ page.
    It certainly does nothing to negate or weaken the Theory of Evolution. The term ‘explosion’ is somewhat misleading since it applies to an ‘event’ that lasted five to ten million years. The soft bodied animals that existed previously simply did not fossilise well while the harder bodied ones which evolved did, thus a greater number of fossils for post-Cambrian organisms but it is not indicative of a greater number of overall species. That being said, there are many scientific explanations on why an increase of complexity of species may have occurred at this time; increase in oxygen levels, the Earth coming out of an ice age for just two reasons.

    In the days of Columbus “scientists” thought that the earth was flat, now the same types of flat earth scientists continue to pursue the theory of evolution.

    See, that is the great thing about science – it’s always progressing, always ready to admit when it’s wrong. New evidence came to hand which showed everyone that the world was indeed round. Of course, the ancient Greeks had worked out the shape of the Earth centuries earlier. Cunning fellows, those Greeks. How’d they do that? Through science! Dun dun dun!

    The above science proves your ranting to be in vein.

    Nah, your claims above just show you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • Larry says:

      I would like to critique a few selected points on the validity of Evolution as many have postulated. And to do this,not in a spirit of “bitter name calling and a shouting match on the internet ” but as an exchange of ideas as they have been formed by your and my research into the “Theory”.I hope we can do this in a gentelmanly manner as there is nothing to be gained by name calling on either side.I also will keep my arguments brief,simple and succint and in doing so I may obversimplify and leave out some facets .First I think we should explain the “Theory” . I dare say many on both sides don’t know that much about it or how it(supposedly) leads to new species . According to Darwins’ his “Theory of Descent With Modification” would be accomplished through envronmental effects(cold weather causing longer hair) and aquired characteristics( a giraffe like animal stretching its neck to get leaves higher in a tree) and these in turn would be passed on to suceeding generations ,giving it an advantage in competition for food and subsequent reproductive advantages.These small steps over a long period of time would give rise to a”new species “distinctly differnt from a preceeding type ;such as a fish to an amphibian.However genetic studies have shown this theory of acquisition to be wrong. The only way to get a real change is through the germ cell or DNA. In response to this the” New Darwinian Theory “was developeded in the 1950s which proposed that evolution was accomplished through DNA copying errors or changes in DNA caused by chemicals or radiation. We must rememer that classical Evolution has no direction and is blind to the needs of an organism.If we subject Evolution to the Scientific Method it cannot pass the test for you can’t predict results (as its never been seen occuring)from a test(What test would you propose?) Neither can you test Creation for the same reason either one must be taken on faith. Evolution is shown to have occured through the Geologic Column with “simpler animals” at the bottom and more complex at the top.Now the absence of transitional fossils was even a problem to Darwin himself and he even said this was the greatest argument against his theory. Dr. Steven Gould even developed the Punctiated Theory ,to account for the abscence of transitional fossils, and postulated evolution occured in jumps or salutations.If you examine the fossil record you will find organisms aren’t getting morer complex they’re getting less complex. Look at the great complexity in the Cambrian explosionsuch as the giant Nautiloid or the trilobite with its complex eye not seen in creatures today. In addition there are very few who would suggest a believable seqence that would lead from scales to feathers.Evolution has never been observed and most of the ones cited are changes within species ‘which creationists don’t deny, but this is not evolution. Even bacteria that are resistant to drugs have been found in ancient depositsbefore the advent of medicine.Please don’t give me the peppered moth as again there were always two types of moths and a new one never evolved.Contrary to popular belief Darwins” theory was rejected by many scientests of his day not on religous grounds but on bilogical grounds and ironically it was accepted by the church much more than the science community.I once was a believer in Evolution but after looking at the facts I found I did’nt have the faith to believe in evolution and like Darwin “I shudder to think how the eye could have developed this way”

  22. Christopher says:

    Matt said: “Geological age is determined through several independent means which are come up with the same answers”

    Your so called independent means also conflict with each other. Please stop with the nonsensical responses. Your non answers and circular arguments actually show your ignorance in the matter.

    Carbon Dating
    Matt said: “Your following examples are silly”

    Well it seems as though you just don’t like the facts. All you have done is found someone who will make excuses for the facts that don’t agree with your belief system. People are not looking for base excuses for your lack of understanding of our origins. Your own excuse shows inconsistent and blurred data. Come on you can do better than that! It is a known fact that carbon dating is wildly inconsistent. Get the facts or shut down your web site. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Left handed amino acids
    Matt said: “I don’t know where you’re digging up these long ago refuted creationist arguments from, but you really do need to do better”

    The link provided hardly refutes anything let alone the argument of left handed amino acids. I want to discuss facts not nonsense conclusions to scientific studies. Your answers are typical. You point to some misguided studies that come up with ridiculous conclusions. You confirmed my points in my previous comments very well, thank you.

    Cambrian Explosion
    “Wow. You’re just loving the long refuted arguments, aren’t you? This one is even in my ‘Argument Responses’ page.”

    You just keep confirming my original comments don’t you. Your “arguments page” is littered full of nonsensical arguments and ridiculous conclusions. They may stump your average 5th grader but certainly not the educated. Perhaps you should go on that show “Are you smarter that a 5th grader”, you may win some money. The sudden appearance of life in the fossil record utterly crushes the theory of evolution. You are either in denial or are completely devoid of understanding of the very theory you are pushing.

    Mathematically impossible
    Matt said: “No, it does no such thing. The odds of it are small, yes. But as any one who knows anything about probability knows, it only had to happen once”

    This really shows your lack of understanding of mathematics! I hope your community college doesn’t get wind of this; they may take away your associates degree. This only requires a low level of understanding but for your sake I will try and make it simple. For evolution to happen there are trillions of levels of probability that would have had to happen. Not just one, silly. Lets pretend for you flat earth scientists that all the chemical foundations of life were all together on a planet that had all the perfect conditions of life placed in the exact perfect spot in a solar system which just happen to be perfectly place within its galaxy. There are hundreds of thousands of levels of improbability just for this which in and of itself is mathematically impossible. But just to help you we will go on. Now lets pretend that somehow the physical makeup of a cell was at the right place at the right time and bonded together to form the cell wall that can contain all the things a cell should contain. So now we have just a container ready for the next step. If you can grasp it just from this simple example you see many more than just one improbable thing had to happen just to get to the container level, no life yet.. So now we have to wait for the thousands of biological micro-machines in the cell to develop and of coarse the complex information (DNA). Unfortunately the cell wall couldn’t wait a trillion years for the complex portions to develop (which is another ludicrous claim that a magnitude of complex information can happen by accident) so the whole process starts again stacking on top of the improbability. My point is that each step has a statistical improbability that is logarithmically increasing with every next step. Not to mention the vast increase in impossibility when complexity is accounted for. That is a fact. Your lack of understanding does not negate these facts. This is science and it proves your silly theory wrong. WOW science dun, dun, dun.

    A final note: Science is GOOD! Ridiculous theories (evolution) based on denial rather than the science is bad. You flat earth evolutionists should just call it what it is, the Evolution Religion. In order to be a member you must be blind to the facts, able to come up with conflicting conclusions that sound scientific and by all means you must deny mathematics. Darwin would be proud!

  23. Matt says:

    Your so called independent means also conflict with each other.

    Really? How so? All the research I’ve found rather conclusively state they support each other. For a quick example:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold

    You seem to be making a lot of claims but utterly failing to back them up in any way at all. That doesn’t cut the proverbial mustard.

    Well it seems as though you just don’t like the facts. All you have done is found someone who will make excuses for the facts that don’t agree with your belief system.

    Yes, I suppose actually properly done scientific findings (eg, Ukraintseva (1993)) count as ‘excuses’ in your world.
    Likewise, pointing out the supposed research you’re referring to was faulty … well, I guess that must be an excuse as well.

    It is a known fact that carbon dating is wildly inconsistent.

    And yet you’ve so far been unable to show any examples to backup this rather interesting claim of yours. Indeed, scientific research and long history of use of the technique shows pretty much the opposite.

    The link provided hardly refutes anything let alone the argument of left handed amino acids.

    Then you better read it again. It points out several reasons why the left handed amino acid argument is full of proverbial holes.
    * Some life doesn’t use left handed amino acids (such much for your ‘all life’ claim).
    * The process for selection of amino acids, which rather nicely explains how the selection process sorts it all out.
    * Mechanisms for the production of left handed amino acids.

    All of which, of course, are supported by scientific studies and research as list. Of course, you’ve been unable to back up any of your claims so far.

    You just keep confirming my original comments don’t you. Your “arguments page” is littered full of nonsensical arguments and ridiculous conclusions.

    All my conclusions are based on verified scientific findings. Yours, at this point, seem to be based on random claims backed up by … well, nothing. You do need to backup any claims you make, which is something you’ve so far failed to do in any way, shape or form.

    They may stump your average 5th grader but certainly not the educated.

    That does leave me wondering where you fit in.

    The sudden appearance of life in the fossil record utterly crushes the theory of evolution.

    Not at all. We have plenty of records of life from before that period and plenty of mechanisms which explains while a lot of new life appeared within a 5-10 million year period. All which fits rather nicely into the Theory of Evolution, since new life appeared to fill the niches provided by the changes in the environment.

    Your lack of research into this particular area is showing.

    This really shows your lack of understanding of mathematics!

    I suggest you do a little look into an area called ‘probability’. I’ll even let you into a clue; one of the basic little concepts of that is that as unlikely as something might be, for it to occur it only need to occur once.

    For evolution to happen there are trillions of levels of probability that would have had to happen (snip)

    You’re making the same old creationist mistakes, some of which I’m surprised anyone attempts to argue for anymore. For example, you seem to be missing the difference between Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution completely (here’s a hint; one deals with the origin of life and the other deals with the diversity of species).

    You should also probably take a look into what’s known as the Anthropic Principle. I’ll even link to the relevant wiki article to help you on your way:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

    Your calculations are also rather off and bring into play factors which original life would not have needed, which is another rather silly creationist mistake. Now, I think you have wasted enough of my time so I’ll link you to all the calculations and things which have already been written up.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    Please note how all those calculations and things are all backed up and fully referenced to research which has been peer reviewed and verified.

    Now where’s your actual evidence, hm? Or are you going to continue with personal insults and un-evidenced claims?

  24. AV says:

    For evolution to happen there are trillions of levels of probability that would have had to happen

    OOC: how was this figure–i.e. “trillions”–arrived at? Who arrived at it? What is the evidence that this figure is accurate?

  25. Ed Darrell says:

    Chris, with your Answers in Genesis URL, I must ask: Are you a functionary of the group?

    They may stump your average 5th grader but certainly not the educated.

    Which old line should we use here, the one about Jesus saying we must come as a child (the fifth grader having natively a better mind for such matters, in other words)? Or the one where we ask if you have a fifth grader handy to help you out in the discussion?

    But now, Chris, let me ask you: Have you ever wondered why Jericho has never been flooded and left under standing water?

  26. Christopher says:

    Matt. Once again you confirm everything I say. You continue to search the internet for silly excuses for why your fantasy world doesn’t work (no scientific basis, just outlandish conclusions from people who don’t like the facts). I agree with you, stop arguing you keep falling flat on your face. You used many words that gave no factual arguments.

    AV – Go back to school, I don’t have time to teach you basic math. What is the evidence that it isn’t? Please don’t respond with some rediculous theory.

    Ed – hu……

  27. AV says:

    Go back to school, I don’t have time to teach you basic math. What is the evidence that it isn’t?

    Go back to school, Christopher. What you have committed there is a Argument from Ignorance fallacy. If you make a claim that you want others to accept, the onus is on you to substantiate the claim. You’re entitled to believe anything you want, of course. You’re entitled to believe that the moon is made of green cheese and that an invisible pink unicorn resides in your garage, having landed in a spacecraft in your backyard last Thursday. But if you want others to accept your claims, you’re going to have to back them up with supporting evidence.

    Now, you were about to tell us how this figure–i.e. “trillions”–was arrived at, who arrived at it (and I might throw why they should be accepted as an authority on the matter into the mix), and what the evidence is that this figure is accurate.

  28. Christopher says:

    AV!

    Wow you made my point excellently!!!!

    Read what you wrote and take it to heart. I hope Matt reads it.

    First you prove your “invisible pink unicorn” exists. Then if you have the courage to admit it doesn’t, we will talk more. Until then you and your friends in fantasy excuse land enjoy your weekend. Thanks again for proving my point.

  29. Matt says:

    nce again you confirm everything I say. You continue to search the internet for silly excuses for why your fantasy world doesn’t work (no scientific basis, just outlandish conclusions from people who don’t like the facts).

    Christopher, it would seem that your reading comprehension skills need a lot of work. Every single thing I linked to and every conclusion I listed is backed up and fully referenced against verified, peer reviewed scientific findings.

    Whereas, on your side of the equation, the evidence you have supplied is basically non-existent. Looking back, you have literally offered nothing but unsubstantiated claims, which you have failed to back up with evidence even though it has been repeatedly requested.

    You also do not seem to comprehend basic logic much less the concept of ‘burden of proof’.

    The entire basis of your arguments appears to be “I don’t understand it so it must be ridiculous and therefore not true” which, of course, is a logical absurdity. I do not understand automotive mechanics but that does not make any claim that my car is run via the power of Leprechauns true.

  30. […] Brainfart #2 occurred recently in a thread at Matt’s Notepad: […]

  31. Christopher’s name links to answers in genesis says it all really.

  32. Christopher says:

    A search on Wikipediia is hardly a “peer reviewed scientific finding” The information I gave you is fact but you give no REAL science against it.

  33. Christopher says:

    OK Matt, lets play your little game but it may rock your fantasy world. If you’re reading comprehension will allow it, read on.

    Oh, one last note, what your about to read is “fully referenced against verified, peer reviewed scientific findings”. dun, dun, dun

    The reaction products of the R and L enantiomers with an exclusively right handed substance R′ , that is R-R′ and L-R′ (called diastereomers), are not mirror images. So they have different physical properties, e.g. solubility in water, thus they can be separated.

    However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists.

    Cohen, J., 1995. Getting all turned around over the origins of life on earth. Science, 267:1265–1266.

    YIKES Matt, that one must of hurt. But dont worry the real world is not that scary.

  34. Christopher says:

    Matt!! More science YIKES!!

    In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:
    • Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
    • Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
    • Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
    • John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
    • Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
    • Steven Austin, PhD Geology
    • Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
    • Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
    The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from major coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples in all three “time periods” displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods proved a very young earth.

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Can you explain exactly how measurable carbon 14 in coal nullifies anything in geology, Chris?

    The RATE project is a famous and colossal failure of creationism. Nothing from the work of the bunch has ever been submitted for scientific review — the authors probably understand well that there isn’t solid science there. And, if you wish to claim that the journals are biased, you should know that with regard to the RATE material, twice federal courts have found that there is no bias in the journals, only that creationists have failed to submit anything for review.

    Here’s a partial explanation of the manifold problems of the RATE project, for stuff they did report on their own sites (see the remarks of Hurd):

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul06.html

    The simple question remains: If RATE is decent science, why won’t the ICR people submit it for review and publication? Clearly it’s not trade secret — they’ve been flapping about it at their own website and at churches all over the world, including Mosques of Islamic renegades in Turkey. Why won’t they submit it for review and publication?

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    Hey, Matt. I got a sizable post that won’t take. Is it in your spam filtuer?

  37. Matt says:

    Nothing in the spam queue or awaiting moderation, sorry. Try pasting it in a section at a time and see what happens. The WordPress spam filter thing can be a tad unpredictable at times. And yes, Ed is right; RATE was from the get go a rather discredited venture which degenerated even further into a sad and rather sick joke.

  38. Matt says:

    Christopher,
    Copying and pasting from summaries out out-dated scientific research won’t help you hide your blazing ignorance on this matter.

    Your reference is from 1995, whereas all the papers that talkorigins.org refers to were published after that and therefore contain more up-to-date findings on the subject.

    Here are those references, just so you don’t have to go to the tremendous effort of having to actually click on a link.

    1. Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
    2. Cronin, J. R. and S. Pizzarello. 1999. Amino acid enantiomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.
    3. Engel, M. H. and S. A. Macko. 1997. Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non-racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389: 265-268. See also: Chyba, C. R., 1997. A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389: 234-235.
    4. McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
    5. Pizzarello, S. and A. L. Weber. 2004. Prebiotic amino acids as asymmetric catalysts. Science 303: 1151.
    6. Saghatelian, A., Y. Yokobayashi, K. Soltani and M. R. Ghadiri. 2001. A chiroselective peptide replicator. Nature 409: 797-801.
    7. Service, R. F. 1999. Does life’s handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
    8. Takats, Zoltan, Sergio C. Nanita and R. Graham Cooks. 2003. Serine octamer reactions: indicators of prebiotic relevance. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 42: 3521-3523.
    9. TSRI. 2001 (15 Feb.). New study by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute suggests an answer for one of the oldest questions in biology. http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/021401.html
    10. Zepik, H. et al. 2002. Chiral amplification of oligopeptides in two-dimensional crystalline self-assemblies on water. Science 295: 1266-1269.

    Typical. References something and doesn’t see if more accurate findings have been published…

  39. Christopher says:

    Hmmmm, imagine my surprise when Matt answers my facts with, and I paraphrase;
    Nuh – ah

    Critical thinking is key. One more time I will disseminate the facts for you.

    From your link:
    “suggests a possible answer to how one of the early steps necessary for the origins of life arose”

    A couple of code words here from your link. Code words for the puppets who love to parrot the ignorance of the flat earth evolutionists.

    The first one is “suggest”. That means; we really don’t know but we will make the conclusion based on our fantasy world view.

    The second is “possible”. That means; it could be if we take all the “pink unicorn” assumptions and fill in all the unknowns with what we want it to look like.

    Give me a break Matt. I told you that searching the internet for some theoretical mumbo-jumbo is not facts. You flat earth evolutionists are always saying things like “it could be”, “this might be”, bla, bla, bla, bla.

    When intelligent people using intelligence learned from other intelligent people to design an experiment to get the results they are looking for, it is called intelligent design…dun, dun, dun.

    You see Matt, in your world; the “template” couldn’t come from someone intelligent for this to be a valid excuse.

    OK now, get ready….here are the real world facts. It looks like you’re the one cutting and pasting outdated data. Ouch!

    A kinetic model has been designed to describe and to analyze the stereoselective behavior of a recently discovered heterochiral template-directed peptide self-replicator by Ghadiri and co-workers [Nature 409 (2001) 797–801]. It turned out that previous assumptions stating that exclusively homochiral species participate in a stereoselective and autocatalytic pathway and that heterochiral species originate only from uncatalyzed background reactions could not be validated by our model. On the contrary, excellent fitting of experimental data indicated that the whole combinatorial variety of possible cross-catalytic processes involving L- and D- peptide species play an important role and need to be taken into account. The system shows no net creation of chiral matter but only a redistribution of the initially present chiral material.

    Laboratoire des IMRCP, UMR au CNRS N° 5623, Université Paul Sabatier, 118, route de Narbonne, F-31062, Toulouse Cedex, France

  40. Ed Darrell says:

    One way to tell science neophytes who’ve never washed a bottle, cleaned up a lab bench, nor spent 72 hours waiting for some odd creature to show up in front of the lens: They reveal what they don’t know when they redefine terms with bluster, instead of talking about the science.

    Christ said:

    A couple of code words here from your link. Code words for the puppets who love to parrot the ignorance of the flat earth evolutionists.

    The first one is “suggest”. That means; we really don’t know but we will make the conclusion based on our fantasy world view.

    Except when “suggest” means “we’ve tried it in the lab for the past four years, and over 6,000 trials, this process worked every time. We can’t say ‘here it is, this is the one way,’ though, because we thought of three other ways it could also work. All three of these methods nullify creationism, but you’ll never hear them say that.”

    Fantasy world? Chris, you have what might be called way to much experience in that venue.

    You’re missing some key thinks in your rants, Chris. One, homochirality was demonstrated to be a non-problem about 8 years ago. There’s a good discussion of it in the transcript of the hearings for biology textbooks at the Texas Education Agency (it’s available on-line, not that you’d ever look for real stuff); not the best place to have such a discussion, but Andy Ellington explained it in less than ten minutes. It won’t tax your creationist attention span.

    A second thing you’re missing is any understanding of the processes you’re flapping about. That last one, for example, doesn’t suggest in any way that evolution has any problem. You don’t seem to understand you’re arguing an origins-of-life issue, which is not what evolution theory is about.

    So apart from your simply having no familiarity with the issue, your issue is a non-issue. Plus, scientists have already plugged the holes you claim can’t be plugged.

    “Could be” is good enough to falsify creationism, which must shoot for the moon on every hand with a “can’t possibly be.” And when your position must be “can’t,” when science finds multiple ways it can, your claim that we can’t decide between them is a little like complaining after looking at plants on land, that in the ocean there’s “too much water” for either plant or animal life to survive.

    Did you bother to check out any of Matt’s citations? Why not?

  41. Matt says:

    Ed, once again, is right and rather nicely shoots Christopher’s latest ramblings down.

    But it does leave me wondering … what, exactly, does Christopher accept as ‘facts’? He obviously does not believe in scientific results, so what does he accept? I also note he has failed to actually answer any of the questions or points put to him, such as any association he may have with the often derided AiG.

  42. Christopher says:

    Ed said: “you’re arguing an origins-of-life issue, which is not what evolution theory is about”

    That speaks volumes about your understanding Ed.

    Matt, I invite you to look more critically at what you call facts. Part of the problem is that your textbooks are full of long refuted fairy tails. That of course sets you up to believe the ridiculous conclusions from other scientific studies. Not bad studies just silly conclusions. It was quite obvious that you didn’t know basic math when you had no clue how to answer the mathematical problems of your theory. But now I grow weary of your inability to critically think.

  43. Matt says:

    That speaks volumes about your understanding Ed.

    It shows that he knows what he’s talking about, yes. The Theory of Evolution does nothing except rather nicely explain, backed up by evidence, the diversity of species. It is the Theory of Abiogenesis that deals with the origins of life on Earth.

    Your second statement is actually interesting since I am actually quite good at critical thinking, I even teach it. ‘Long refuted fairy tales’ … such as what, precisely? What mathematical problems did we fail to answer, precisely?
    Meanwhile, you have failed to present any credible evidence and fail time and again to back up your claims in any way. You have also failed every time to answer the questions posed to you.

  44. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed said: “you’re arguing an origins-of-life issue, which is not what evolution theory is about”

    That speaks volumes about your understanding Ed.

    Damn straight! It is also noteworthy that you have no response, or that you think a simple statement of fact has some error in it so obvious that you don’t need to respond.

    Chris, there are a dozen good sites on the internet where you can learn a lot about evolution. Would you try one, please?

  45. Mit says:

    Hey Chris,

    I sort of stumbled on this web site and read through your little debate with Matt. You’re amazing! I looked up some of the things you spoke of and you are right on. Unfortunately for Matt I agree he fell flat on his face. I found it particularly interesting that Matt used the Anthropic principal to argue the mathematics. That really wrapped it up for me. He claimed to be so scientific yet his argument used a philosophical argument rather than science. I am not sure why you waste your time with people like this though. Although I did find great humor in how you led them into admitting intelligent design without them knowing it!

  46. Matt says:

    I’ll assume Mit is speaking with heavy sarcasm in that particular comment.

  47. Christopher says:

    Thanks Mit, I totally agree with you concerning the Anthropic principal. It pretty much nailed Matt’s coffin shut. From his comments it seems that he is still in denial.

  48. Matt says:

    Christopher,

    You do not even know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis and you’re somehow claiming victory? Even though you have not offered one piece of non-refuted evidence?

    Your entire time here has been spent stating rather bizarre and vague claims without backing them up or proving them in any way.

  49. Mit says:

    Sounds like you have Matt all flustered Chris. The more Matt talks the more he shows his ignorance. (Seems typical of this web site) I noticed at the top of this page that Matt used a prime time soap opera to back up something, not sure what. Maybe you should go back to watching soap operas Matt and leave the experts (Chris) to the science.

  50. Matt says:

    Soap opera? Hm. Certainly an … interesting way to describe The West Wing.

    And again, Chris does not even know the difference between the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis, which is extremely telling about his science knowledge indeed.

    Time and again, Chris has been asked several questions from what, precisely, he regards as ‘long refuted fairy tales’ and if he has any association with AiG. As of yet he has failed to bring any actual arguments to the proverbial table, instead doing nothing but making un-evidenced broad statements. That does not cut the proverbial mustard.

  51. Ed Darrell says:

    It’s almost embarrassing that people who claim to be scholars of Christianity get shown up by the script writers for a popular television program!

    Of course, they had to research the show, and they were right, Matt. Commenters here recently don’t demonstrate the same high regard for the facts.

  52. Christopher says:

    It seems that Matt can only come back with, well… nothing. You were right Mit this is a waste of time trying to pull him out of fairy tail land. Matt breaks his fairy tail into sections so that when I utterly crushed the very foundations of it, it helps him go back into denial. I suppose it makes him feel better.

    Time and again I have given Mat facts and all he does is return with utterly feeble responses.

  53. Matt says:

    Nothing? How interesting. Time and again both Ed and myself have rather soundly every wild and unevidenced claim you have tried to pass off as fact.

    You have been shown up trying to pass off such frauds as the much derided RATE project, even though the most casual of evidence would show you that it had no credibility. Similarly, you have failed to answer the numerous questions which have been posed at all or been able to refute the evidence that both Ed and I have presented.

  54. jeff says:

    its a shame that all of this energy is being wasted. Science guys and gals can believe what they want and Christians can believe what they want.
    God Bless Us All!!

  55. Ed Darrell says:

    I don’t regard working against fraud and abuse as “energy wasted,” Jeff. Creationism kills. Make no mistake about it.

  56. don lane says:

    I read your piece on homosexuality on the website, Godsaidmansaid and the small video clip you played from the “West Wing” was quite ingenious,…..but all of the scripture quoted was from the old testament. (nice try)

    Try reading in the new testament in the book of Romans, Chapter one, verses 21 thru 27. take particular note of verses 26 and 27.

    P.S. YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN.

  57. Matt says:

    And yet every last word from OT still counts and must be obeyed according to the NT. Quite the conundrum for bible believers.

    As for being born again? No, thank you. One birth was enough.

  58. Ed Darrell says:

    Not a single word from Jesus against homosexuality. NT seems to agree with the OT — the sin is not in loving, but in hating.

  59. FRANK says:

    I WILL REPLY TO THIS POSTING NOT WITH BIBLE VERSES OR BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS. I WILL SIMPLY STATE THAT WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN AND CONSIDER ALL THE VARIOUS FORMS OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET AND SEE THAT EVERY PLANT AND ANIMAL HAS A ROLE AND A FUNCTION THAT THEY ARE ESPECIALLY SUITED ARGUES MORE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAN IT EVER WILL FOR EVOLUTION OR A GIGANTIC COSMIC EXPLOSION THAT LEFT ONE PLANET OUT OF NINE CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING LIFE

  60. TheEpicN00b says:

    Typical internet responses from everyone. When will someone actually use intelligent debate, and stop resorting to intimidation and personal attacks?

  61. TheEpicN00b says:

    Each side refutes the other side’s evidence! It’s like how Philip Pullman calls C.S. Lewis’ Narnia religious,propoganda, and C.S. Lewis fans call His Dark Materials atheistic propoganda! GodSaidManSaid calls Evolution pseudoscience, and evolutionists call Intelligent Design pseudoscience! Both sides are biased! Until we find an impartial judge, it’s impossible to decide!

    • Matt says:

      That would be a poor judgement call indeed. Since science has very clear guidelines of what is and is not science, that really is the only benchmark that is usable. ID fails against all of the set criteria; therefore for ID to be science, you would have to change the definition of science itself.

      And you would have to change it to such a degree that other kinds of idiocy, such as astrology, would suddenly be science as well.

  62. Robert says:

    I would like to comment and say great site.. love the layout.. perfect for an idea like this…. as far as the thread… omg its to long to read it all… reminds me of arguments I have had with an old friend of mine.. same deal .. going back between creation and evolution… two things.. 1. matter can not be created nor destroyed so how in the hell did the first cell get here.. since no one can “prove” the beginning than its up to theories and theories are theories… 2. carbon dating can only go back so many years.. the half life of carbon would deplete to the point that it can not be useful … there is no way carbon can be used to date a skull back 12 million years.. there is not enough carbon left to be used accurately.. I’m sure its on the internet somewhere but i think carbon dating can only go back something like 12 thousand years, correct me if i’m wrong…

    • Matt says:

      Matter can be spontaneously created (created may be an incorrect term; appear may be better) as predicted (and now observed) by quantum physics.

      Theories are not just theories, kindly refer to the arguments page. Scientific Theories are an incredibly different animal to how your average Joe Average regards the term ‘theory’.

      Carbon Dating goes up to a certain number of years, yes. But for older ages there are plenty of other fully tested and verified methods of testing the age of a given object.

  63. MattS says:

    Matt, it is not sporting to engage in a battle of wits with unarmed people. I am sure your intentions are only the best, but you can not use evidence and reason to persuade those whose world-view is based on faith and the supposed infallibility of a certain book.

  64. Craig says:

    Science, real science, can, and has proven, that there was a world wide flood (a red sand layer at the same level around the globe, mountains that are folded like ripples on a beach, and sea shells on top of the highest peaks, to name a few), that life on earth could not have existed more than 10,000 years ago (gravity decreases by half every 1,400 years, meaning it would have been too strong for anything to exist, even a microbe, before that), that there were people in excess of 9 feet living in and around Israel, and that predictions written over 4,000 years ago, in the Bible (Torah), were, and still are, correct (that the world is round, the earth moves around the sun, DNA, and events which are occurring in the world today).
    As for evolution, show me one animal which became something else entirely (cat into dog, pig into horse, etc…) and I will show you overwhelming evidence that animals changed throughout time through adaptation (Seagulls did not live more than one mile inland, and where totally white, when Europeans came to America. When they moved inland, and left trash around, the gulls followed and their feathers changed colors for protection. This is not evolution!) On his death bed, Darwin recanted his belief on the subject and asked GOD to forgive him.

    • Matt says:

      The ‘evidence’ you list is actually evidence for tectonic plate shifts. You know, those things that cause earthquakes?

      “that life on earth could not have existed more than 10,000 years ago (gravity decreases by half every 1,400 years”

      What are you on about? Gravity is created by mass. Your statement would mean the Earth would be twice it’s current size only 1400 years ago. Which would have been something of a shock to those crazy jam, ham and spam eating medieval knights. It also raises the really big question of where did all that extra mass go to?

      “As for evolution, show me one animal which became something else entirely”

      Oddly enough, the Theory of Evolution does not predict any such thing. Ignorance sense tingling!

      Your last line is also laughable and is not backed up by any sort of evidence.

  65. joshua says:

    I just spent a couple of hours reading god said man said and i agree it is pretty extreme.however homosexuality
    is wrong and that is where all your anger is coming from give up the peter and embrace a beautiful woman.

  66. Blessed says:

    I’ll pray for you…you obviously need it more than others…

  67. Doulos says:

    Matt,

    Homosexuality is wrong, because:

    1) God said so
    2) Simple biology/anatomy proves that humans are to sexually interact heterosexually
    3) Scientific/medical empirical evidence proves that homosexual activity increases biological abnormalities (i.e., infections and diseases) in humans
    4) Secular psychological/sociological empirical evidence proves that homosexual relationships increase the probability of persons so engaged, as well as those under their direct influence and control (e.g., minor children), to develop psycho/social abnormalities
    5) Logic, common sense, and the empirical proof of the overwhelming majority of human kind

    The basic problem here is that if one does not believe that there is a God (a Supreme Being, who created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), that the Bible is His Word (therefore, free from error since its source is that same Supreme Being, viz., God, and that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, the wife of Joseph, is the Messiah (the Righteous Warrior-King, the Kinsman Redeemer, the Anointed One, the Christ, the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, the second person of the triune Godhead, and is Himself God) then one is free to believe anything one desires and to act however one wants.

    By the way, since you could not/would not answer the questions “What is proof/truth?” I’ll help you out – Jesus Christ is the Truth and His creation is the proof, but without faith, you will have neither.

    Yes, Matt, sadly one birth is enough for you – to earn the second death. But rather than mocking the words of Jesus that you must be “born again,” the fervent hope and prayer of Christians is that you will accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and receive eternal life.

    Les Blanton, M.Div.

    P.S., MattS, we are quite well armed, with weapons of which you know nothing, not to mention that we are “super-conquerors”, equipped with the Sword of the Spirit (the Holy Bible), protected by the Armor of God, supported by myriads of Angels, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and commanded by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of Heaven, the Lord of Hosts, God Most High, even Jesus the Christ, amen and amen.

    • MattS says:

      Doulos, do not make assumptions about what I do and do not know. As with your comments to Matt, you make assertions without any supporting evidence whatsoever. But then, if you “believe”, evidence is unnecessary.

  68. help.nq.com says:

    My brother suggested I might like this website. He was totally right.
    This post actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

  69. Lawerence says:

    Hello, constantly i used to check webpage posts here
    early in the daylight, since i enjoy to gain knowledge of more and more.

  70. Yellow King says:

    Godsaidmansaid is irrelevant as these jokers claim that Hell is proven by some Soviets drilling boreholes in the Arctic. The hoax story was made up as a joke and Fundamentalists latched onto it as real. They then bring up the existence of long lived underground worms as further proof that Hell exists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s