frame

Dear Evolutionists

Opening Argument

Oh Boy was I an idiot. So I would like to debunk a synopsis I gave for evolution back when I had faith in Atheism. Let's just quickly power-refute through some "proofs" of evolution.

1- Fossil record

A quick trip to http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils will reveal that evolutionists place their faith in human-to-ape evolution of primarily 3 things : AL 444-2, A fossil named Lucy,  Taung child.

Anybody with two brain cells looking at AL 444-2 (http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/embed_float/public/images/square/NHB2014-02767 AL444-2 sq.jpg?itok=bxPqi7X6) will notice that the entire thing is mostly just a cast. Where is the "evidence", a few white non-definitive bones that could literally belong to ape, man , baboon. It is confirmation bias that whoever reconstructed this, made it fit the cast of an ape-like creature. This is supposedly claim to be the child of Lucy which is also a hoax. https://books.google.ca/books?id=_s4TDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=al+444-2+refuted&source=bl&ots=S-DLltO9aQ&sig=uy3_n-hqBnQJ8JOeKtBDqvrHB1Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0rXBk8vVAhWHwlQKHbByCcwQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=al 444-2 refuted&f=false

Lucy, the fake hoax that turned out to be a baboon and not even close to ape or man.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/

Taung child looks like a baby human. Scientists confirmed it has a flat face which is what humans have. they can not make out what its skull shape is like because they supposedly can not find the back part of the skull.

All in All : Darwin said "“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”"

Scientists confirm that we have a realy ridicolous rare amount of fossils. 

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist says: "“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” - http://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking

Stephen M. Stanley says : "“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” - http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html

Even Richard Dawkins, the guy atheists worship,  said : “It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

So in conclusion, there is very very little fossils for evolution and the ones we discover are either extremely ape or human (Taung child) or turns out to be another animal (Lucy the baboon). The rest are just hoaxes. Scientists got so desperate they started making up hoax fossils in the past and put them out to the blind public like Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown man, etc. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/   +  http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/g3051/fake-fossils/ ;

Science has probably made up more fossils than has claimed other animals like the baboon (Lucy) are intermediate between Man and ape. Do you really want to keep trusting them?

Also, all the fossils for other animals have been complete hoaxes. 

The guy (storrs olson) who discovered archaeopteryx, supposed dinosaur ancestor to birds, has claimed multiple times that the fossil is a reptile and its own species and is not intermediate. What do the liars do? They literally glued feathers on the reptiles to make it appear as if it used to fly. Here is the guy's letter. http://www.thegrandexperiment.com/images/pdfs/Storrs L. Olson OPEN LETTER.pdf

Tiktaalik. Here is tiktaalik. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Tiktaalik_Chicago.JPG/1200px-Tiktaalik_Chicago.JPG      +     http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2006/tiktaalik_fossil.jpg

I can not be the only who sees that it proves no evolution.

So yeah here is just a brief history of scientific fraud.

2- vestigial features

This is probably the worst argument because it is slowly but surely wearing out. Evolutionists started with the claim that there are over 30 vestigial features in humans. Now it is down to ... 1. Wisdom teeth. The biggest trump to this argument was that the appendix was found to house bacteria that rebooted the digestive system after diarrhea. Although it should be noted that tailbones were also a major trump when they found out The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position. http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx

3- Pseudogenes 

We are slowly finding out all their benefits and functions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078729/     + https://apologetyka.com/ptkr/groups/ptkrmember/inne/2003/Pseudogenes Are they junk..., caly tekst Balakirev.pdf   + https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593336/

like wnt3a for example thought to be useless. Now Science confirms that it is far from useless. It is responsible for tasks in the fields of embryonic development, neural development, cell differentiation, proliferation, and tumorigenesis. 

4- Homology

This argument presupposes that evolution is true but presuppositions aside. Homology could also point to a common creator.

5- DNA 

could also mean a Common Creator if presuppositions are removed.

8- Antibiotic resistance

A lot of antibiotic resistance comes from one bacterial species recieving a plasmid with antibiotic resistance genes from another bacteria. Where did these genes come from to begin with? Antibiotic resistance genes are "a natural phenomenon that predates the modern selective pressure of clinical antibiotic use."   - http://easweb.eas.ualberta.ca/download/file/papers/paper_108.pdf

So yeah, they are ancient genes not evolved genes.
 

All the evidence AGAINST evolution and for creationism:

1- Genetic mutations barely happen. 

Scientists though that coelcanth would have evolved into a much different organism by now since evolution turns organisms into other organisms. They thought it would be a walking organism by now. 70 million years later, Coelcanth is the EXACT same. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html   
No mutations, no evolution, no new genes proving gene mutations happen very rarely not even once every 70 million years in the case of this fish.

2- Most genetic mutations are neutral not beneficial for survival let alone new species.

Not only are the vast majority of mutations neutral meaning they do not create new species and do not even increase the odds of survival - https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127 ;

Whatever mutations are left are harmful and actually cause organisms to devolve or cause diseases that kill the organism. - http://genetics.thetech.org/about-genetics/mutations-and-disease

3- Irreducible complexity

Some structures like flagella and ATP synthases within humans are irreducibly complex meaning they could NOT have evolved that way and must have been designed in such manner. 

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/evidevolcrs/ircomp/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity.html

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. " - Page 348, Origin of species

A lot of nobel-winning scientists condemn evolution and support creationism because it has MUCH more evidence ( I have covered a tiny little bit)

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/


Here is a good summary by a Harvard Doctor  : 



passedbillErfisflat1Hacker0SilverishGoldNovaMax_Air29DrCereal
  1. Where did we come from?

    15 votes
    1. God made humans (Adam and Eve)
      46.67%
    2. Eviloution (apes gave birth to humans)
      53.33%
«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Barrow and Typler in their book the "anthropic cosmological principle" calculate the possibility that Humans evolved to be 1 in  4^180^100,000. According to Emile Borel's law, anything more improbable than 1 in 10^50 is impossible and will never happen. To put that enormous number into prespective, the ENTIRE universe has 10^82 atoms (https://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/). So put that into prespective and imagine this. Grab a person, blindfold him and put him in a room with ALL THE ATOMS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. But take out one atom and paint it green, throw it back again and lock the room. It is more possible that the guy picked the green atom out of the sea of particles than it is likely that humans evolved from animals. Game over atheists. 

    Barrow and Typler's calculations are based on the preliminary ten steps.

    Christopher Hitchens gets destroyed on this : 
    passedbillHank
  • Adam and Eve had happened. Evolution is not real and can't be due to different human types and coming from one type of animal.
    m_abusteitGeorge_HorseHank
  • @m_abusteit when I saw you flip on atheism, I thought at first it was another trolling. You have proved to be a worthy adversary to evolutionism.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    I mean anybody with two brain cells should be an adversary to this stupid theory. Literally all the evidence for it is either straight up lies, irrelevant or are just hoaxes made up scientists who could not cover up their lies well enough.
    ErfisflatHank
  • @Erfisflat

    I mean anybody with two brain cells should be an adversary to this stupid theory. Literally all the evidence for it is either straight up lies, irrelevant or are just hoaxes made up scientists who could not cover up their lies well enough.
    That's the same way I feel about the shape of the earth.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    I would not agree with you there but that is fine. The shape of the Earth is not a fundamental christian doctrine, which I assume you are a christian. Jesus cared more about taking the sins of the world, promoting peace and for us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to pray for our persecutors than what shape the earth was/is. 
  • FOR THE READERS : 

    I skipped over one of the other supposed "proofs" for evolution. Comparative embroylogy. 

    The first row is the hoax drawings by Haeckel while he would open up the stomachs or look at aborted fetuses. So another hoax (I am surprised <span>:neutral:</span> )

    The second row are pictures taken with modern technology by an actual scientist called Richardson.

    http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol20/richardson_embryos.jpg ;

  • Similarly, anyone with two brain cells would realise that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever for the existence of a god.
    Certainly not the bible.
    The bible is simply a book, written by human beings.

    As I continually state.
    Until someone comes up with a rational solution to the something from nothing conundrum, the reason for the existence of everything will continue to be impossible to know.
    Hank
  • @Fredsnephew

    "there is no evidence for God"

    http://imgur.com/i4fHBcs

    "There is no evidence the bible is reliable"

    We do have tons of evidence that the bible is true namingly external evidence, internal evidence, authorship and dating, extant manuscript, secular attestation from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Mara Serapion, etc.

    https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence


    Of course atheists would love to deny all of this because they love living in a delusion.
  • + we have empirical reportings of the supernatural like this :     Which is from the archives (unedited, unmodified) and people there saw it too.
    Hank
  • + we have empirical reportings of the supernatural like this :     Which is from the archives (unedited, unmodified) and people there saw it too.

    The bible is a book written by human beings.
    Human beings are unreliable.

    Now your promoting ghosts as proof of the existence of a god!
    Just show me god. That's all the proof I need.
    m_abusteitHank
  • @Erfisflat

    I would not agree with you there but that is fine. The shape of the Earth is not a fundamental christian doctrine, which I assume you are a christian. Jesus cared more about taking the sins of the world, promoting peace and for us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to pray for our persecutors than what shape the earth was/is. 
    I'm not necessarily a Christian, though I am a theist. I'm guessing you are familiar with the great deception?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • De Sun Do Move John J Jasper

    The Lord is a man of war; the Lord God is his name. (Exodus 15:3)

    ‘Low me to say dat when I was a young man and a slave, I knowed nothin worth talkin bout concernin books.  Dey was sealed mysteries to me, but I tell you I longed to break de seal.  I thirsted for de bread of learnin.  When I seen books I ached to git in to ‘em for I knowed dat dey had de stuff for me and I wanted to taste dere contents, but most of de time dey was barred against me.

    By de mercy of de Lord a thing happened.  I got a roomfeller – he was a slave, too, and he had learned to read.  In de dead of de night he give me lessons outen de New York Spellin Book.  It was hard pullin, I tell you; harder on him, for he know’d just a little and it made him sweat to try to beat somethin into my hard head.  It was worse with me.  Up de hill every step, but when I got de light of de lesson into my noodle I fairly shouted, but I know’d I was not a scholar.  De consequence was I crept long mighty tedious, gittin a crumb here and dere until I could read de Bible by skippin de long words, tolerable well.  Dat was de start of my education – dat is what little I got.  I make mention of dat young man.  De years have fled away since den but I ain’t forgot my teacher and never shall.  I thank my Lord for him and I carries him memory in my heart.

    Bout seven months after my gittin to readin, God converted my soul and I reckon bout de first and main thing dat I begged de Lord to give me was de power to understand his word.  I ain’t bragging and I hates self-praise, but I bound to speak de thankful word.  I believes in my heart dat my prayer to understand de scriptur was heard.  Since dat time I ain’t cared bout nothing ‘cept to study and preach de word of God.

    Not, my brothren, dat I’s de fool to think I knows it all.  Oh, my father, no!  Far from it.  I don’t hardly understand myself nor half of de things round me and dere is millions of things in de Bible too deep for Jasper and some of ‘em too deep for everybody.  I don’t carry de keys to de Lord’s closet and he ain’t tell me to peep in and if I did I’m so stupid I wouldn’t know it when I see it.  No, friends, I knows my place at de feet of my master and dere I stays.

    But I can read de Bible and get de things what lay on de top of de soil.  Outen de Bible I know nothin extry bout de sun.  I seen its course as he rides up dere so gran and mighty in de sky, but dere is heaps bout dat flaming orb dat is too much for me.  I know dat de sun shines powerfully and pours down its light in floods and yet dat is nothin compared with de light dat flashes in my mind from de pages of God’s book.  But you knows all dat.  I knows dat de sun burns – oh, how it did burn in dem July days!  I tell you he cooked de skin on my back many a day when I was hoein in de corn field.  But you knows all dat – and yet dat is nothin to de divine fire dat burns in de souls of God’s chillum.  Can you feel it, brothren?

    But bout de course of de sun, I have got dat.  I have done ranged through de whole blessed book and scoured down de last thing de Bible has to say bout de movement of de sun.  I got all dat pat and safe.  And lemme say dat if I don’t give it to you straight, if I gits one word crooked or wrong, you just holler out, “Hold on dere, Jasper, you ain’t got dat straight,” and I’ll beg pardon.  If I don’t tell de truth, march up on dese steps here and tell me I’s a liar and I’ll take it.  I fears I do lie sometimes – I’m so sinful, I find it hard to do right; but my God don’t lie and he ain’t put no lie in de book of eternal truth and if I give you what de Bible say, den I bound to tell de truth.

    I got to take you all dis afternoon on an excursion to a great battlefield.  Most folks like to see fight – some is mighty fond of gittin into fights and some is mighty quick to run down de back alley when dere is a battle goin on for de right.  Dis time I’ll ‘scort you to a scene where you shall witness a curious battle.  It took place soon after Israel got in de Promise Land.  You ‘member de people of Gideon make friends with God’s people when dey first entered Canaan and dey was monstrous smart to do it.  But, just de same, it got ‘em in to an awful fuss.  De cities round bout dere flared up at dat and dey all joined dere forces and say dey gwine to mop de Bigyun people off de ground and dey bunched all dere armies together and went up for to do it.  When dey come up so bold and brace de Gideonites was scared outen dere senses and dey sent word to Joshua dat dey was in trouble and was up dere directly.  Dey had an awful fight, sharp and bitter but you might know dat General Joshua was not dere to get whipped.  He prayed and he Fought and de hours got away too fast for him and so he asked de Lord to issue a special order dat de sun hold up awhile and dat de moon furnish plenty of moonshine down on de lowest part of de fightin grounds.  As a fact, Joshua was so drunk with de battle, so thirsty for de blood of de enemies of de Lord and so wild with de victory dat he tell de sun to stand still till he could finish his job.

    What did de sun do?  Did he glare down in fiery wrath and say, “What you talking bout my stoppin for, Joshua?  I ain’t never started yet.  Been here all de time and it would smash up everything if I was to start.”  No, he ain’t say dat.  But what de Bible say?  Dat’s what I ask to know.  It say dat it was at de voice of Joshua dat it stopped.  I don’t say it stopped; tain’t for Jasper to say dat, but de Bible, de Book of God, say so.  But I say dis; nothin can stop until it has first started.  So I knows what I’m talkin bout.  De sun was travelin long dere through de sky when de order come.  He hitched his red ponies and made quite a call on de land of Gideon.  He perch up dere in de skies just as friendly as a neighbor what comes to borrow somethin and he stand up dere and he look like he enjoyed de way Joshua waxes dem wicked armies.  And de moon, she wait down in de low grounds dere and pours out her light and look just as calm and happy as if she was waitin for her escort.  Dey never budged, neither of ‘em long as de Lord’s army needed a light to carry on de battle.

    I don’t read when it was dat Joshua hitch up and drove on, but I suppose it was when de Lord told himto go.  Anybody knows dat de sun didn’t stay dere all de time.  It stopped for business and went on when it got through.  Dis is bout all dat I has to do with dis particular case.  I done showed you dat dis part of de Lord’s word teaches you dat de sun stopped which show dat he was movin before dat and dat he went on afterwards.  I told you dat.  I would prove dis and I’s done it and I defied anybody to say dat my point ain’t made.

    I told you in de first part of dis discourse dat de Lord God is a man of war.  I expect by now you begin to see it is so.  Don’t you admit it?  When de Lord come to see Joshua in de day of his fears and warfare and actually make de sun stop stone still in de heavens so de fight can rage on till all de foes is slain, you’re obliged to understand dat de God of peace is also de man of war.  He can use both peace and war to heap de riches and to scatter de host of de aliens.  A man talked to me last week bout de laws of nature and he say dey can’t possibly be upset and I had to laugh right in his face.  As if de laws of anything was greater dan my God who is de lawgiver for everything.  My Lord is great!  He rules in de heavens, in de earth, and down under de ground.  He is great and greatly to be praised.  Let all de people bow down and worship before Him!  Dere you are!  Ain’t dat de movement of de sun?  Bless my soul!  Hezekiah’s case beat Joshua.  Joshua stop de sun, but here de Lord make de sun walk back ten degrees; and yet dey say dat de sun stand stone still and never move a peg.  It look to me he move round mighty brisk and is ready to go any way dat de Lord orders him to go.  I wonder if any of dem philosophers is round here dis afternoon?  I’d like to take a square look at one of dem and ask him to explain dis matter.  He can’t do it, my brothren.  He knows a heap bout books, maps, figgers, and long distances, but I defy him to take up Hezekiah’s case and explain it off.  He can’t do it, my brothren.  De Word of de Lord is my defense and bulwark and I fears not what men say nor do – my God give my victory.

    Low me, my friends, to put myself square bout dis movement of de sun.  It ain’t no business of mine whether de sun move or stan still, or whether it stop or go back or rise or set.  All dat is out of my hand entirely and I got nothin to say.  I got no the-o-ry on de subject.  All I ask is dat we will take what de Lord say bout it and let His will be done bout everything.  What dat will is I can’t know except He whisper into my sould or write it in a book.  Here’s de Book.  Dis is enough for me and with it to pilot me, I can’t get far astray.

    But I ain’t done with you yet.  And de song says, dere’s more to follow.  I invite you to hear de first verse in de seventh chapter of de Book of Revelations.  What do John under de power of de Spirit say?  He says he saw four angels standin on de four corners of de earth, holdin de four winds of de earth and so forth.  Low me to ask if de earth is round where do it keep its corners?  A flat square thing has corners, but tell me where is de corner of an apple or a marble or a cannon ball or a silver dollar.  If dere is anyone of dem philosophers what’s been takin so many cracks at my old head bout here, he is cordially invited to step forward and square up dis vexin business.  I hear tell dat you can’t square a circle but it looks like dese great scholars done learn how to circle a square.  If dey can do it, let ‘em step to de front and do de trick.  But, my brothren, in my poor judgment, dey can’t do it; tain’t in ‘em to do it.  Dey is on de wrong side of de Bible – dat’s on de outside of de Bible, and dere’s where de trouble come in with ‘em.  Dey done got out of de breastworks of de truth and as long as dey stay dere de light of de Lord will not shine on dere path.  I ain’t care so much bout de sun, though it’s mighty convenient to have it but my trust is in de Word of de Lord.  Long as my feet is flat on de solid rock, no man can move men.  I’s gettin my orders from de God of my salvation.

    The other day a man with a high collar and side whiskers come to my house.  He was one nice Northern gentleman and think a heap of us colored people in de South.  Dey are lovely folks and I honors ‘em very much.  He seem from de start kinder strict and cross with me and after a while he broke out furious and fretted and he says: “Allow me Mister Jasper to give you some plain advice.  Dis nonsense bout de sun movin where you are gettin is disgracin your race all over de country and as a friend of your people I come to say it’s got to stop.”. . . Ha!  Ha!  Ha!. . . Mars Sam Hargroven – ever hardly smash me dat way.  It was equal to one of dem old overseers way back yonder.  I tell him dat if he’ll show me I’s wrong, I give it all up. . . My!  My!. . . Ha!  Ha!. . . He sail in on me and such a storm bout science, new discoveries and de Lord only know what all, I never hear before and den he tel me my race is urgin me and poor old Jasper must shut up his fool mouth.

    When he got through – it look like he never would – I tell  him John Jasper ain’t set up to be no scholar and don’t know de philosophies and ain’t trying to hurt his people but is workin day and night to lift ‘em up but his foot is on de rock of eternal truth.  Dere he stand and dere he is going to stand till Gabriel sounds de judgment note.  So I say to de gentleman what scolded me up so dat I hear him make his remarks but I ain’t hear where he get his Scripture from and that between him and de Word of de Lord, I take my stand by de Word of God every time.  Jasper ain’t mad; he ain’t fighting nobody; he ain’t been appointed janitor to run de sun; he nothin but de servant of God and a lover of de Everlasting Word.  What I care bout de sun?  De day comes on when de sun will be called from his race track and his light squinches out forever; de moon shall turn to blood and this earth be consumed with fire.  Let ‘em go; dat won’t scare me nor trouble God’s elected people, for de word of de Lord shall endure forever and on dat Solid Rock we stand and shall not be moved!

    Is I got you satisfied yet?  Has I proven my point?  OH, yet whose hearts is full of unbelief!  Is you still holding out?  I reckon de reason you say de sun don’t move is cause you are so hard to move yourself.  You is a real trial to me, but, never mind, I ain’t given you up yet and never will.  Truth is mighty; it can break de heart of stone and I must fire another arrow of truth out of de quiver of de Lord.  If you has a copy of God’s Word bout your person, please turn to dat minor prophet, Malachi, what write de last book in de whole Bible and look at chapter one, verse eleven.  What do it say?  I better read it for I got a notion you critics don’t carry any Bible in your pockets every day in de week.  Here is what it says: “For from de rising of de sun even unto de goin down of de same, My name shall be great among de Gentiles. . . .  My name shall be great among de heathen, says de Lord of hosts!”  How do dat suit you?  It looks like dat ought to fix it!  Dis time it is de Lord of Hosts hisself dat is doin de talkin and He is talkin on a wonderful and glorious subject.  He is tellin of de spreadin of His Gospel of de comin of His last victory over de Gentiles and de worldwide glories dat at de last He is to get.  Oh, my brothren, what a time dat will be!  My soul takes wing as I anticipate with joy dat millennium day!  De glories as dey shine before my eyes blinds me and I forget de sun and moon and stars.  I just remembers dat long bout dose last days dat de sun and moon will go out of business for dey won’t be needed no more.  Den will King Jesus come back to see His people and He will be de sufficient light of de world.  Joshua’s battles will be over.  Hezekiah won’t need no sun dial and de sun and moon will fade out before de glorious splendors of de New Jerusalem.

    But what da matter with Jasper?  I most forgot my business and most gone to shoutin over de far away glories of de second comin of my Lord, I beg pardon and will try to get back to my subject.  I have to do as de sun in Hezekiah’s case – fall back a few degrees.  In dat part of de Word dat I’m given you from Malachi – dat de Lord hisself spoke – he declares dat His glory is gwine to spread.  Spread?  Where?  From de rising of de sun to de goin down of de same.  What?  Don’t say dat, does it?  Dat’s exactly what it says.  Ain’t dat clear enough for you?  De Lord pity dese doubtin Thomases.  Here is enough to settle it all and cure de worse cases.  Wake up here, wise folks, and get your medicine.  Where is dem high collared philosophers now?  What dey skulkin round in de brush for?  Why don’t you get out in de broad afternoon light and fight for your collars?  Ah, I understand it; you got no answer.  De Bible is against you and in your consciences you are convicted.

    But I hears you back dere.  What you whisperin bout?  I know!  You say you sent me some papers and I never answer dem. . . Ha, ha, ha!. . . I got ‘em.  De difficulty bout dem papers you sent me is dat dey did not answer me.  Dey never mention de Bible one time.  You think so much of yourself and so little of de Lord God and thinks what you say is so smart dat you can’t even speak of de Word of de Lord.  When you ask me to stop believing in de Lord’s Word and to pin my faith to your words, I ain’t goin to do it.  I take my stand by de Bible and rest my case on what it says.  I take what de Lord says bout my sins, bout my Savior, bout life, bout death, bout de world to come and I take what de Lord say bout de sun and moon and I cares little what de haters of my God chooses to say.  Think dat I will forsake de Bible?  It is my only Book, my hope, de arsenal of my soul’s supplies and I wants nothing else.

    But I got another word for you yet.  I done work over dem papers dat you sent me without date and without name.  You deals in figures and thinks you are bigger dan de archangels.  Lemme see what you done say.  You set yourself up to tell me how far it is from here to de sun.  You think you got it down to a nice point.  You say it is 3,339,002 miles from de earth to de sun.  Dat’s what you say.  Another one say dat de distance is 12,000,000; another got it to 27,000,000.  I hears dat de great Isaac Newton worked it up to 28,000,000 and later on de philosophers gone another rippin rise to 50,000,000.  De last one gets it bigger dan all de others, up to 90,000,000.  Don’t any of ‘em agree and so dey runs a guess game and de last guess is always de biggest.  Now, when dese guessers can have a convention in Richmond and all agree upon de same thing, I’d be glad to hear from you again and I does hope dat by dat time you won’t be ashamed of  your name.

    Heaps of railroads has been built since I saw de first one when I was fifteen years old but I ain’t hear tell of a railroad built yet to de sun.  I don’t see why if dey can measure de distance to de sun, dey might not get up a railroad or a telegraph and enable us to find something else bout it dan merely how far off de sun is.  Dey tell me dat a cannon ball could make de trip to de sun in twelve years.  Why don’t dey send it?  It might be rigged up with quarters for a few philosophers on de inside and fixed up for a comfortable ride.  Dey would need twelve years’ rations and a heap of changes of raiment – mighty thick clothes when dey start and mighty thin ones when dey git there.

    Oh, my brothren, dese things make you laugh and I don’t blame you for laughing except it’s always sad to laugh at de follies of fools.  If we could laugh ‘em out of countenance we might well laugh day and night.  What cuts into my soul is dat all dese men seem to me dat dey is hitting at de Bible.  Dat’s what stirs my soul and fills me with righteous wrath.  Little cares I what dey says bout de sun, provided dey let de Word of de Lord alone.  But never mind.  Let de heathen rage and de people imagine a vain thing. Our King shall break ‘em in pieces and dash ‘em down.  But blessed be de name of our God, de Word of de Lord endureth forever!  Stars may fall, moons may turn to blood and de sun set to rise no more, but Thy kingdom, oh, Lord, is from everlastin to everlastin!

    But I has a word dis afternoon for my own brothren.  Dey is de people for whose sould I got to watch – for dem I got to stand and report at de last – dey is my sheep and I’s dere shepherd and my soul is knit to dem forever.  Ain’t for me to be troublin you with dese questions bout dem heavenly bodies.  Our eyes goes far beyond de smaller stars.  Our home is clean out of sight of dem twinkling orbs.  De chariot dat will come to take us to our Father’s mansion will sweep out by dem flickerin lights and never halt till it brings us in clear view of de throne of de Lamb.  Don’t hitch your hopes to no sun nor stars.  Your home is got Jesus for its light and your hopes must travel up dat way.  I preach dis sermon just for to settle the minds of my few brothren and I repeats it cause kind friends wish to hear it, and I hopes it will do honor to de Lord’s Word.  But nothin short of de Pearly Gates can satisfy me and I charge my people, fix your feet on de Solid Rock, your hearts on Calvary, and y our eyes on de throne of de Lamb.  Dese strifes and griefs will soon get over; we shall see de King in His glory and be at ease.  Go on, go on, ye ransomed of de Lord!  Shout His praises as you go!  And I shall meet you in de city of de New Jerusalem where ye shan’t need de light of de sun – for de Lamb of de Lord is de light of de saints!



    https://thevalueofsparrows.com/2013/06/30/sermon-de-sun-do-move-by-john-j-jasper/
    VaulkSilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • I started to type up a full response to the OP, but I soon saw that the poster is so disingenous and dishonest that there was no point finishing.

    A quick trip to http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils will reveal that evolutionists place their faith in human-to-ape evolution of primarily 3 things : AL 444-2, A fossil named Lucy,  Taung child.

    If you actually click on the link, the OP's claims are not substantiated. Nothing on the page backs up his claims and in fact it's a gallery of over 100 different fossil specimens. It is also patently false. A quick google can show plenty of other evidence from dna comparisons to atavisms to embryonic development and more.

    Anybody with two brain cells looking at AL 444-2 (http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/embed_float/public/images/square/NHB2014-02767 AL444-2 sq.jpg?itok=bxPqi7X6) will notice that the entire thing is mostly just a cast. Where is the "evidence", a few white non-definitive bones that could literally belong to ape, man , baboon. It is confirmation bias that whoever reconstructed this, made it fit the cast of an ape-like creature.

    This is a logical fallacy. The OP thinks it's absurd, so obviously his unsupported unevidenced opinion matters. He also asks "where is the evidence" like that isn't patently obvious. A 5 second search of the records shows that scientists have published peer reviewed journals analysings and explaining why they come to their conclusions. See for reference Brunet, Michel, et al. "A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa." Nature 418.6894 (2002): 145.

    This is supposedly claim to be the child of Lucy which is also a hoax. https://books.google.ca/books?id=_s4TDAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA125&amp;lpg=PA125&amp;dq=al+444-2+refuted&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=S-DLltO9aQ&amp;sig=uy3_n-hqBnQJ8JOeKtBDqvrHB1Y&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjZ0rXBk8vVAhWHwlQKHbByCcwQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&amp;q=al 444-2 refuted&amp;f=false

    Putting his poor syntax aside, if you follow the link you'll see that it doesn't support his claims. It says that it was popularily called that, not that it was ever claimed to be Lucy's child. Calling someone a real son of a gun does not mean that you think the person is the literal child of a gun. The basic context of what is meant here is clear and does not support the OP.

    Lucy, the fake hoax that turned out to be a baboon and not even close to ape or man.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27325-baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton/

    The OP's own article explicitly states the skeleton is real. When the scientists who discovered it were putting the peices together, they did at one point include a baboon bone before it was analysed and removed as it didn't fit and as the OP's own article says "the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage." Again, the OP has completely misrepresented his source.

    Taung child looks like a baby human. Scientists confirmed it has a flat face which is what humans have. they can not make out what its skull shape is like because they supposedly can not find the back part of the skull.

    An unsupported claim and to be honest, so badly written that I'm struggling to parse the meaning.

    All in All : Darwin said "“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”"

    The OP presents this as Darwin presenting some insoluble problem that exposes a flaw in Darwinism. In fact he was asking a rhetorical question, answered it immediately after and went on to dedicate a chapter of his book to explaining the answer to this.

    "It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural connections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time."

    Scientists confirm that we have a realy ridicolous rare amount of fossils. 

    Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist says: "“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” - http://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking

    Stephen M. Stanley says : "“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” - http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html

    IN fact, here the OP does a complete 180 and starts advocating for evolutionism!

    The OP presents these points as valid. Although he does not quote them, if he thinks they are valid - that the conclusions are right -  then he must agree that the preconceptions, evidence and logic that lead up to and support those conclusions are right. The only problem is, all those logic and that evidence show the existence of evolution! These two quotes come from supports of different types of evolution from the norm such as punctuated equilibrium. They are raising issues not because they think the evidence shows no evidence or poor evidence for evolution, just that they think it shows evidence for a slightly different type of evolution. By endorsing their arguments, the OP is endorsing arguments for evolution!

    At this point the misquotes and false claims were too much. M_abusteit is obviously not arguing in good faith and is being as manipulative, false and deceptive as he can be to provide a biased picture and there is no point continuing because this isn't an open and honest debate.
    Erfisflatm_abusteitNonCredenti
  • @Fredsnephew

    I just gave you evidence that the supernatural exists (literally a picture of an angel). There is no pic of God. If there is, then christianity would be false because then there would be no faith. Show me a picture of your brain and I will believe it exists. By your stupid logic, morals, logic, math, energy,etc. do not exist because we have no pictures of them.
    Max_Air29
  • @AlwaysCorrect

    "If you actually click on the link, the OP's claims are not substantiated. Nothing on the page backs up his claims and in fact it's a gallery of over 100 different fossil specimens."

    Yeah most of these "specimen" are either 100% ape or 100% man. Some are non-definitive at all (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/oh-16http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/feldhoferhttp://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/bar-100200http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/mojokerto + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngandong-7 + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/salé + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1808 + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-bc-1 + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/oh-8) and some do not even have photos (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-wt-40000 + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/sts-14 + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/narmada + http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/ngandong-14 ), whatever few "fossils" are left are hoax, baboons, mostly man-made.

    "from dna comparisons to atavisms to embryonic development and more.

    DNA comparisions have been debunked in the OP.     

    I made a superb post on comparative embryolgy embryology here : https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/6sv0bj/supposed_comparative_embryology/

    How do atavasims prove evolution. Plus, what little cases we have are mutations as a result of disasters where men turn into apes or primate contrary to the proposed evolutionary ancestry.



    " This is a logical fallacy. The OP thinks it's absurd, so obviously his unsupported unevidenced opinion matters. |"

    You can literally look at the thing for your own self. The predominant black part is a man-made cast. the white parts are random bones that do not prove anything.


    "Putting his poor syntax aside, if you follow the link you'll see that it doesn't support his claims. It says that it was popularily called that, not that it was ever claimed to be Lucy's child."

    Not the point of the embedded link.

    "The OP's own article explicitly states the skeleton is real. When the scientists who discovered it were putting the peices together, they did at one point include a baboon bone before it was analysed and removed as it didn't fit and as the OP's own article says "the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage." Again, the OP has completely misrepresented his source."

    Yes the skeleton is real but it is that of a baboon. Yes they did analyze its bones and they belong to a baboon. The analysis discovered that Lucy had the bones of a baboon which means that it is a baboon. The analysis compared the bones of the fossil to the bones of the baboon and then that was their conclusion that Lucy had baboon bones.

    "An unsupported claim and to be honest, so badly written that I'm struggling to parse the meaning."

    You can look at it rather than taking peoples' words. It does not look like an ape or ape-man.


    "Scientists confirm that we have a realy ridicolous rare amount of fossils. " 

    You are corroborating my point.

    "The OP presents these points as valid. Although he does not quote them, if he thinks they are valid - that the conclusions are right -  then he must agree that the preconceptions, evidence and logic that lead up to and support those conclusions are right. The only problem is, all those logic and that evidence show the existence of evolution! These two quotes come from supports of different types of evolution from the norm such as punctuated equilibrium. They are raising issues not because they think the evidence shows no evidence or poor evidence for evolution, just that they think it shows evidence for a slightly different type of evolution. By endorsing their arguments, the OP is endorsing arguments for evolution!"

    Punctuated equilibrium does not mean that apes jumped to humans right away. It merely means that humans evolved from apes a little bit faster than gradualism and we should still find transitional fossils which we have none or extremely rare of.

    You have not even addressed the rest of the fake evidence and you have not addressed the shaddy history of science providing fake hoax fossils like nebraska man, piltdown, peking man, etc. which were all fake in a desperate attempt to cover up the absence of fossils and to save their stupid theory which has no evidence.
  • Your first argument for creationism is flawed; lactose tolerance is a genetic mutation, which is not a rare characteristic. Secondly, you seem to misunderstand what evolution means. It does not mean that humans were birthed by apes, but rather that they evolved or, over time, changed from them into the homo-species they are and were. 

    The lack of evidence towards this you so helpfully pointed out is in part due to the fact that this is relatively new science, considering, and that the planet has undergone many changes since then which have shaped the landscape out of archaeology's favor. 

    The reason for the lack of vestigial features is simple: humans are an ever-evolving species. Soon, wisdom teeth will go, as well. Or they will find a new purpose. That doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen.

    Now you're trying to fit the facts to your argument. If you remove both evolution or creationism, homology and DNA could point to us all being comes of each other at some point.

    But DNA is made up of nucleotides (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine), which are molecules, which are made p of atoms, which are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

    Having DNA doesn't point to "a common creator"; It points to a scientific existence. Also, ancient genes can also be evolved genes. Just because they're old, that doesn't make them completely constant.

    Finally, you state that the human complexity is too great to have been evolved, but this is simply untrue.

    Complex accidents happen often; Such as a twenty-car highway gridlock formed out of nowhere, or insanely long division. Complexity doesn't have to be guided to be a reality.
    “I'm not a person who thinks they can have it all, but I certainly feel that with a bit of effort and guile I should be able to have more than my fair share.” 
    ― George Carlin, When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?

    “Unbelievably, a goldfish can kill a gorilla. However, it does require a substantial element of surprise.” 
    ― George Carlin, When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?
  • Well there's no such thing as creationism. No god created humans, we evolved from a common ancestor to apes.


    ErfisflatHank
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry


  • This is 2017. The OP is using 30- 40- and 50-year-old dishonest arguments that even most creationists have stopped using because they've been so embarrassed. Quote-mining Gould is so 1980s
    m_abusteit
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    To think that universe is made with you in mind is an undoubtedly selfish and egocentric . To be a Christian is to believe that for 98,000 years of human life God, this paragon of wisdom and power, watched from above without indifference. Life expectancy was 25 years, if you were even lucky to make it past birth. God watched as we killed ourselves down to a population of approximately 40,000, watched for 98,000 years while we were plagued by disease, malnutrition and potent fear. Then just 2,000 years ago he decided: it must be time to intervene. So he chose the most backward, illiterate, barbaric, superstitious, savage people he could find and decided to send them a message - this is a brutal, enslaved and superstitious crowd. He then forced them to cut through everyone of their neighbours through slaughter, genocide and racism, then send his son down to be hideously tortured and publicly executed so that everyone could be forgiven. And all of these revelations occur only in the same district.

    Forgive me for being so 'deluded' as to refuse such a believable idea. 
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    Barrow and Typler in their book the "anthropic cosmological principle" calculate the possibility that Humans evolved to be 1 in  4^180^100,000. According to Emile Borel's law, anything more improbable than 1 in 10^50 is impossible and will never happen. To put that enormous number into prespective, the ENTIRE universe has 10^82 atoms (https://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/). So put that into prespective and imagine this. Grab a person, blindfold him and put him in a room with ALL THE ATOMS IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. But take out one atom and paint it green, throw it back again and lock the room. It is more possible that the guy picked the green atom out of the sea of particles than it is likely that humans evolved from animals. Game over atheists. 

    Barrow and Typler's calculations are based on the preliminary ten steps.

    Christopher Hitchens gets destroyed on this : 
    @m_abusteit "According to Emile Borel's law, anything more improbable than 1 in 10^50 is impossible and will never happen." 

    The approximate total number of unique humans allowed by DNA is 3 x 10^614. The chance of your very existence is so statistically improbable it is baffling. But you are here, are you not?
    NonCredenti
  • HankHank 66 Pts
    edited November 16
    To think that universe is made with you in mind is an undoubtedly selfish and egocentric . To be a Christian is to believe that for 98,000 years of human life God, this paragon of wisdom and power, watched from above without indifference. Life expectancy was 25 years, if you were even lucky to make it past birth. God watched as we killed ourselves down to a population of approximately 40,000, watched for 98,000 years while we were plagued by disease, malnutrition and potent fear. Then 2,000 years ago he decided: it must be time to intervene. So he chose the most backward, illiterate, barbaric, superstitious, savage people he could find and decided to send them a message - this is a brutal, enslaved and superstitious crowd. He then forced them to cut through everyone of their neighbours through slaughter, genocide and racism, then send his son down to be hideously tortured and publicly executed so that everyone could be forgiven. And all of these revelations occur in the same district. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch