The truth . . .will offend

Results of my research . . .

Bible is amazingly historically accurate

Shroud of turin seems to be real

Bible DOES contain MINOR errors and contradictions, yet is the most published book in the world and has had a big impact on history. It contains some fables and mythology . .. but . . . shroud of turin???  Plus a lot of the old testamenT REALLY HAPPENED?!!! Yup!!

Litteral creationists are ROCKING THE SCIENTIFIC WORLD

In near death experiences the brain opperates WITHOUT ANY SINGS OR NEURAL ACTIVITY.  So we don’t know a lot about consciousness yet so we need to be CAREFUL.

There are cities  . . ancient cities  . . . named AFTER NOAH’S SONS.

The world is VERY YOUNG  . . . making the Bible very very ANCIENT.

I choose Christ!!!


Tags: , , , ,

11 Responses to “The truth . . .will offend”

  1. limey Says:

    Sorry Mike, gotta disagree with you on this one.

    The shroud of Turin is not at all real. Samples taken from it date to the wrong era and most damningly, the cloth weave matches medieval cloth and does not at all fit with the right period for Christ. The medieval period was a period well known for generating many Christ artifacts, the shroud of Turin is just one of them.

    As for literal Creationism rocking the scientific world! Nothing could be further from the truth. literal creationism is exasperating the scientific world, because it is shown time and time again to be false and yet keeps rolling out the same disproven arguments.

    DNA has shown a literal Adam and Eve as described in the Bible did not happen.
    Geology has shown that the global flood described in the Bible did not happen.
    Archaeology has seriously questioned the Israelite exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible because no corroborating evidence can be found.

    These are not minor errors. They are major inaccuracies that affect the basic tenets of Christianity.

  2. limey Says:

    I have questioned evolution stacks. I spent 20 years as a YEC so I am very experienced in questioning evolution.

    You claim that genetic homeostasis proves a limit to variability, well if you search for the wildflower ‘goatsbeards’ you will find that after it arrived in the US it diversified and the is now a separate species that is no longer able to reproduce with the original. Just one example of observed evolution that puts doubt on your claim.

    You claim that experiments show that diversification means genetic variability diminishes.

    Citiation required! if you really want to make a claim like that, provide the link to the experiment details please. If you read anything about evolution and sexual reproduction, you will read that this increases genetic variation, not decreases. Also, if your claim was correct and we were all descended from a single couple, Adam and Eve, why is our DNA so diverse? Surely you would expect it to be the same, if we all descended from one couple and diversification means reduced genetic variability.

    The fossil record does not show spontaneous formation of life. That is a complete misunderstanding. The cambrian explosion covered a period of more than 60 million years. That’s about the length of time mammals have had to evolve since the KT impact. Its a long period of time. its called an explosion because its RELATIVELY rapid, compared to the previous rate of evolution.

    Re Adam and Eve. Again, you have misunderstood what was reported. The Adam is a single human male that can be traced to about 140,000 years ago through DNA. The Eve is again a single female, but at a very different time, at this moment I am unable to confirm when, wikipedia suggests 200,000 years ago but I though it was more recent than the Adam. Either way, the single male and female that our DNA is traced too, never existed as a couple. Worse than that, DNA tracing suggests that the human population was about 10,000 strong at its lowest level.

    Yes, creationists do keep using the same arguments, they might word them differently, but in essence they are the same. I know this because I used to use the same arguments myself and I very rarely see anything that I haven’t used in the past myself. Okay, occasionally something thing new will come up when there is new science to deny.

    No I probably can’t name all the parts of a cell without looking it up. That proves nothing. Doing lots of research also doesn’t mean a lot when you are researching the wrong thing.

  3. mike00000000001 Says:

    Actually I have researched BOTH sides of the argument quite a bit. You mention one thing about a wild flower that sounds like something I should look up.

    As far as researching “the wrong thing” goes that is not how I think. I didn’t have a preference for evolution or creationism and have looked at both sides of the story. I feel so far that the weight of evidence is on the side of the creationists.

    As a creationist who is open to new facts, I can’t possibly use the same arguments over and over. It hardly matters though. What matters is making or breaking that argument. Looking up your wild flower link now . . .

    It does matter whether you researched cell biology. You can hardly begin to understand the complexity of the cell unless you have researched it somewhat.

    Here is a much better variation of an old creationist argument . . .

    You have a challenge. Play this game for me if you dare. Take a car . .. any car . . your challenge is . . to change this car into an airplane one small mutation at a time. You can’t cheat by adding a whole wing or two parts simultaneously. And you can only add any new part 1/100 at a time. Additionally, you must add, for every positive change to the car, 500 negative and 1000 neutral changes. The car is driving in the dark at night. You must accomplish this transformation without crashing the car. If you can describe how this could happen while having the car still turn into a plane then you win my little game.

  4. mike00000000001 Says:

    Actually the flower example you gave only proves that mating can be prevented. No information was increased. . . .

  5. mike00000000001 Says:

    “If you read anything about evolution and sexual reproduction”

    You mean in those colledge text books that are wrong?? You need more that a sermon on evolution to convince me.

  6. mike00000000001 Says:

    Correction . . . you can add 1/100 of a wing but you have to switch around the car randomly adding adjustments.

  7. mike00000000001 Says:

    “1/100 of a wing at a time” …

  8. mike00000000001 Says:

    Due to the fact that I failed to cite I deleted my reply. Sorry for the confusion. Look lets face it, you will never be able to show me one example of a less complex species changing into a more complex species.

  9. limey Says:

    I read through your car / plane challenge and this is my response.

    The criteria you have specified is very rigid, evolution does not work to such rules. You can’t dictate or assume that for every beneficial change there will be x number of non beneficial changes. It really does not work like that at all.

    In your example, one way in which a car you grow wings is, not by the addition of wing components, but by a gene mutation that specifies how wide the roof should be. A mutation could come in that extends the width of the roof beyond the width of the car, at first this would make little noticeable difference. Further generations could eventually lead to an extended roof that acts like wings and there you get the benefit.

    This is seen in many DNA profiles. One gene specifies a bone component (for example) and another gene specifies how long it should be. Different specifies with similar skeletal structures show what different ends results there can be when these genes continue to change after difference species have diverged.

    If your game could be fun, but frankly it is not an accurate demonstration of how evolution actually works.

  10. limey Says:

    Look lets face it, you will never be able to show me one example of a less complex species changing into a more complex species.

    Again, this is a major misunderstanding. One species evolving from another does not at all have to mean that one is more complex. Yes it has happened, but it does not always happen.

  11. limey Says:

    I notice that you have not answered the question I asked you. I shall repeat it below for your convenience.

    Also, if your claim was correct and we were all descended from a single couple, Adam and Eve, why is our DNA so diverse? Surely you would expect it to be the same, if we all descended from one couple and diversification means reduced genetic variability.

    If, as a creationist, you believe that all of humanity is descended from a single couple, Adam and Eve. What would you expect the DNA of the world’s population to be like currently? Does that differ from what we actually observe now?

    Your previous assertion gives me the impression that you would not expect the current genetic diversity that we currently have if we all started from a single couple.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: