Welcome!

News: I've opened a Print Account. If you're interested, come check it out: [link]



So I’m a raging, science-defying, fundamentalist, wild-eye, young-earth Creationist. Some people have serious issues with that standing. More often than not, it’s because they are raging, science-defying, fundamentalist, wild-eye, Atheistic Evolutionists. So as you can probably tell from that analysis, the Darwinians clearly have the logical (?) upper hand.

I’ve addressed (the pseudo-religious, scientific train wreck that is) Evolutionary Theory in my previous articles, but I’ve never actually written a post that directly addresses the topic. Every time that I bring up my disdain for this theory I immediately get swarmed by bands of marauding Atheists who are hell-bent with a mission from on High to prove that there is no God or Hell (?). Mind you, these are not all Atheists, just the ones who think that God encompasses everything that’s wrong with the world, and hence think that religion should be destroyed. So what I want to do here is to lay out the problems that I have with the theory. Now, before I begin, I would like to clarify a few of my standpoints.

I don’t think that evolution theory leads to Communism or Nazism (at least not in all cases). I think it’s a slippery slope argument to make that point. Inversely however, I don’t take serious any arguments about how religion always leads to theocratic oppression (like the Inquisition) for the same reason.
I don’t think that Creationism (Intelligent Design) or Evolution should be taught in public school systems. I think this is an issue that the government needs to stay out of all together. I think there is lots of great stuff we could be teaching in science class without ever addressing where anything came from. I think kids should be taught raw science without theoretical ideas of origin, and when they get older, they can hear both sides of the issue away from the public school indoctrination and make an unbiased decision of their own based purely on scientific reasoning. The whole idea behind taking God out of the curriculum was to stop prejudice between different religions (which I acknowledge is a legitimate concern when you are dealing with children). But, by making Atheism the chief focus of science, this idea has backfired and made a sect of people who oppose *all* religion. I say just drop the subject from the system.


**So here is the Table of Contents for what I am going to be addressing:

Origin of the Universe: The popular theory runs entirely on imagination.

Abiogenesis: This is the idea that life just started all by itself (‘A’: without. ‘Bio’: life. ‘Genesis’: beginning). Atheistic Evolutionists have to support this in debate, otherwise they are toast.

Biological Evolution: This is the chief topic. Does something turn into something else over time? Can it be explained rationally? Are their problems that aren’t being taught in school?

General Misconceptions: There is quite a lot of “facts” that get thrown around by evolutionary “science” that are not remotely factual or scientific.

Conclusion: I’ll need to stop eventually…

Finally, Some Funny Stuff: Something my brother wrote to provide a little satirical food for thought.


**Here is what I am NOT addressing:

“Why Christianity above other Religions?”: This is a fine topic for discussion, but it is pointless in an argument that is debating the mere existence of God. When this is brought up it’s usually just a red-herring to change the subject. It would be the same as a Christian pressing an evolutionist to explain if he believed traditional Gradual Progression or if he ascribes more to Punctuated Equilibrium, and making him justify himself for his view. It’s meaningless. The person posing the question doesn’t even believe in evolution of any sort in the first place, why should it matter to him? These questions of specification are only useful when both sides have common ground to debate on (For example: a Christian debating a Muslim. Both believe in God, thus have common ground). I am only addressing that there IS a God. Trying to throw in who he is will just convolute the topic at this point.

Morality: Again, a good discussion. A lot of Atheists argue against the existence of God because there is “bad stuff” in the world (and theism is swiftly and theoretically brought to its knees). They have no focal point of morality, so I don’t know how they define “bad” as opposed to “universally indifferent” but all I’m saying is that this is not consequential to the topic here. This is about the false science that is used to support evolution, and whether or not we can rationally conclude that there is a God. When you discuss morality you’re getting into a metaphysical sidequest and have wandered away from the topic at hand.

The Earth is Flat: For otherworldly reasons that are beyond me, people bring up this topic when a debate on the existence of God gets heated. A. I don’t believe the Earth is flat. B. The Bible doesn’t teach that the Earth is flat. C. Due to the absurdity and frequency of the argument, the first person to make that insinuation will get a hardy fish-slapping!

Oh, and for the skeptics out there that try to do their homework, let me give you a hint: Don’t cite “Christian Science” as an actual source of science believed by Christians. The “Church of Christian Science” is a cult spin-off of Christianity. Please don’t waste your time telling me how stupid it is, I already know.

Anyhow, now that you have a headache from reading, let’s get into the topic.


Origin of the Universe:
There is a problem for evolutionists with trying to explain the origin of the universe. I think there was lots of alcohol involved when the popular solution was developed.

--------------
Scientist 1: (having his ninth shot of tequila) So like, we know thr’s no God, right? But I mean… Where did we all come frum thn’?

Scientist 2: (looking up from his empty ‘Mickey 40’ ) Um… I dunno… Oh hey! Maybe everything was made by G-- Oh wait, no…

S1: Oh wait! What if everything just came from a, um… a um…

S2: A marmoset? We a’ready tested that one. Someone got on the whole “where’d the marmoset come from?” thing.

S1: Well, what’s something that comes from out of nowhere?

S2: Nothin’. Except…

S1: ‘Cept wut?

S2: Well, I always see these action movies where things blow up for no reason…

S1: Tha’s it! Everything came from a bang! A big, BIG BANG!

S2: … Dude…

S1: Dude!

S2: I’ll drink to that!
-------------

I don’t know if this account of the conversation is accurate, but I think I’m close.

Now, I’ve heard it said that the Laws of Physics were established gradually after the Big Bang (isn’t that convenient?). I would like to meet the genius who thought of this. He makes the two drunken scientist above look like modern Galileos. How he knows that kind of thing is anyone’s guess. Every argument that has been presented by Atheists on the origin of the universe is absolute speculation, and simultaneously, absolute drivel. I would love for someone to argue against the existence of God with empirical evidence to justify a natural means for the formation of time, matter and-oh yeah- the universe. Good luck guys!


Abiogenesis:
This one is fun. Anyone that has ever seen the pitiful display that follows an Evolutionary scientist being asked about this one knows what I mean. The answer usually involves some guy named Miller who made a botched experiment, a carbon dioxide atmosphere, a bunch of random amino acids floating in a puddle, and most importantly, lots of bad CGI that shows life spontaneously generating. Ta-da!

“What Creationist is gonna front on *THIS* CGI, uh? They can’t say this doesn’t happen, we saw it on TV!”

Seriously, these arguments are hysterical! I’ve asked a question before, and people can’t seem to answer: What developed first, the metabolic functions of the first organism, or the reproductive function? I mean these are both incredibly complex systems, even on the simplest organisms, and the creature won’t survive without them both.

I also want to know how long periods of time can make anything come to life. Hey tell me, when you’re dead how long does it take to come back? Life is a down hill slope. Everything gets old and dies, right? So you want me to believe that life started by something getting old and suddenly becoming alive? What kind of monkey-tarded idea is that?

“So we can’t make it happen, we don’t know how it could have happened, but we do know that it wasn’t that “God” guy!”

Now I know my critics out there… Yes, I know the science nerds who think it’s clever when they can add some hair-splitting detail to something I’ve said and classify that statement as a logical rebuttal. The people who watch movies like Bambi and complain about the erroneous notions of talking animals. The people who always have to make a correction every time some calls a spider a “bug”. These people have a funny response when you bring up either Origins of the Universe or Abiogenesis. Here’s what they say: “Oh, you’re not talking about Biological Evolution. That’s a completely different topic!” These people pick their noses only to alphabetize their boogers. To these folks who think that’s an actual rebuttal, let me explain: We, the creationists, are trying to show you that God is a necessary part of the world we know. Therefore, we are trying to prove that he exists. When you take the stance that he doesn’t exist, based on science, then you’d better have a justification for it. Since you have no justification for the origins of the universe (something that is kind of important for the rest of your Atheistic theory to work) you therefore have no case. That’s the point. We don’t care if it’s biological evolution; it’s still a central premise to your Atheistic stance that we are addressing. Now go back to your alphabetizing.

One of the strong points that really make this topic sticky is the origin of information. I’ve heard several people try to explain complexity from chaos, and the explanations are all bad. One of my old debate opponents said on youtube that we see complexity coming out of chaos all the time. He cites diamonds as an example. WOW!!! Of course! Complexity from a rock!! (Slaps forehead) You’ll notice that a lot of the citations that are given on this topic are things like this: natural formations that seem somewhat more sophisticated than typical chaotic activity. There is one problem though: Information. Nothing can live without genetic information no matter how “naturally complex” it might be. So even if you can show me a book naturally carved out of a tree by wind and erosion, it still needs coherent information within or else it’s a meaningless, deformed piece of wood.


Biological Evolution:
Here it is…
The big one…
The idea that started it all…
The big stink…

I will hand this much to Darwin; from a standpoint of creative thinking, the whole Natural Selection thing was brilliant. There is even some measure of truth to it. I have no problem saying that. But… The theory as a whole is rubbish. Let’s look at a few things here:

After the whole Abiogenesis, spontaneous generation episode, the first living organisms had to figure something out. They were living on a planet that had a hot, powerful sun that was raining harsh radioactive light on them. So then a young amoeboid, let’s call him Frank Clausthiem for whatever reason, realized that this problem could be solved. Frank was not very smart, a common trait among amoeboids, but went to work to find out what to do. His pitiful, nerveless nucleolus soon discovered a solution so simple it boggled the mind! He just combined 54 carbon atoms, 70 hydrogen, 6 oxygen (which are hard to find in a CO2 atmosphere) and 4 nitrogen, he fused them together into an aromatic hydrocarbon ring, and set with a magnesium ion. Shazam! He made a stylish green pigmentation to absorb the sun’s energy! So it’s all thanks to old Frank and his Chlorophyll v1.0 that life began to thrive on this planet.

OK, so I made all that stuff up. But we are supposed to believe that chlorophyll, among other things, just appeared from out of nowhere (Actually, I think my story is much more plausible than the actual theory).

There is a problem with this theory you see. The theory works like this: Things change gradually in adaptation to new environments. Or if you believe in punctuated equilibrium, things change very quickly to adapt to their new environments. I don’t care, it’s stupid. The problem with the theory isn’t that animals don’t change; it’s that they change for the wrong reasons. When an animal is adapting to a new environment, it will experience changes over time, but there is no new genetic information being fed into the gene code. What’s happening is simple: the creature is getting a buildup of one genetic sequence, but gradually loosing others. Let’s make an example here to illustrate: A group of dogs find that their climate has gotten cold. A lot of them are dying off because they can’t stand the weather. A few of them though just happen to have been born with a little extra fur than the others. This is not unusual, since fur is a natural part of the dog’s gene code. The one’s with more fur survive better, and soon become dominant (Natural Selection). However, many potentially advantageous genes have been lost due to the dramatic drop in population. Additionally, now inbreeding and genetic problems can become more prominent. So what is left is a creature that is adapted to its environment, but has ultimately lost a part of its genetic heritage that cannot be replaced. You see, natural selection keeps a species alive, but ultimately genetics are being lost not gained. This is why macro-evolution doesn’t work; it’s a two-steps-back, one-step-forward process.

Look at the interview with (Supreme Atheist High Priest) Richard Dawkins when he was asked what natural processes cause an increase in genetic complexity. [link] He goes stone quiet then asks them to turn off the camera. Then after he is allowed to start the feeble motors in his mind, the camera is turned back on, where he promptly changes the subject. Good old Dick-Dawk, always good for a laugh. What was hilarious was that some guy one Youtube decided to answer the question for Dawkins, and said that Down Syndrome was an example of increasing genetic complexity. That’s great! An additional gene that causes mental retardation has to be the answer! That’s like throwing a monkey wrench into a machine and calling it an upgrade! There is no known process for increasing complexity, and it makes a real problem for this theory.

So what’s next? Next is the issue of irreducible complexity. You see, a machine that needs five gears to run, just can’t run on four, right? Well, what if you had to make all five gears separately but simultaneously, and you had to put them all in at the same time to make this contraption work? Seems far fetched. I pointed out earlier, the topic of which came first, metabolism or reproduction. One doesn’t help if you don’t have the other. Many things in nature work exactly this way: Things need entire systems to work, otherwise they are useless. Do you know how many parts there are to your digestive system? Do you know how big a problem you would have if your body did something as simple as stopping production of one specific enzyme? Everything has to work just right to make you function.

Michael Behe discussed this topic in his book called Darwin’s Black Box. For clarification, I should explain first what he means by a “Black Box”. A Black Box is something that essentially works behind a curtain of sorts. We don’t see how it works, it just does. Like the screen you are looking at now. How does it work? You probably don’t know. It just does though. You press a button and it lights up. Well, the claim of evolutionists is that evolution happens. Like you and your monitor though, they don’t know how it works. More problematic still is that they can’t prove that it does work. It’s just a theoretical Black Box of operations.

One last thing I’d like to cover is what I call the “foothold” issue. You see, if you are going to claim that some cell, billions of years ago, just started growing a primitive eye, then explain, what stimulated this development? What makes something like this trigger? Even if you can explain the use of a half-wing on a half-bat creature, can you explain to me what caused this creature to start developing this change? Some people say, “Well the advantages are obvious” – Not the point. Advantages mean nothing because Natural Selection is a mindless process; I’m asking why did it start? There is a claim going around that this can be brought about by mutation. The problem with this idea is that mutations don’t make any new genetic information, and they have only about a one in a trillion chance of producing anything remotely beneficial – Unless you happen to be reading X-Men comics; then it’s about nine times out of ten. Mutation is only random scrambling (or even loss) of existing genetic data and has no reason to generate new or useful functionality.


General Misconceptions:
So, you’ve read this far and you’re still thinking about things that you’ve heard in science class and still doubting me. Well then, let’s address some other stuff right quick:

Radiometric Dating: You’ve heard of these before. The most popular one is Carbon 14 dating. I don’t know who in their right mind would date Carbon, he’s such a geek.
… Sorry. I couldn’t help the bad pun… Anyway, radiometric dating has been shown to have some serious problems. False numbers are very common. You can find extensive lists of known false dates found. And mind you, I’m not talking about being off by a couple of years, I mean off by numerous thousands of years, if not millions. One problem with carbon dating, specifically, is that the carbon in our atmosphere doesn’t seem to have equalized, which makes a problem for the formula. Radiometric Dating is not an exact or even very accurate method for dating by any means. So it is simply not valid source for proving Evolutionary science.

Geologic Column: The earth has lots of layers that geologists claim to be different ages. This, however, cannot be true because there are fossils that run from one layer into another. These are called polystrate fossils, and they are proof that the layers formed rapidly. I think they were formed in a giant flood, but that’s just my interpretation of the facts. My point is that the Geologic Column idea is nonsense based on speculation.

“Evolution is a fact”: *Note: A personal opinion.* People keep saying it, but there is still no proof. Keep this phrase in mind: ‘Unverifiable certainty’. The fact of the matter is that no one was there when evolution allegedly happened. We haven’t seen macro evolution, or anything like it (See above). When people say that evolution is a fact, you will notice that they are citing sketchy circumstantial evidences, but nothing absolute. Look at the “Fossil Record”. This is not a record at all; it’s a bunch of dead stuff. There is nothing recorded on this. Evolutionary Scientists draw conclusions based on unprovable, preconceived notions. Now, by this line of reason, one might say that creationism too cannot be scientifically proven. That would be correct. Creation is not scientifically provable because A. nobody saw it happen. B. it’s never been reproduced, and C. science has no grounds to analyze the supernatural (as the very term would indicate that it is beyond the natural realms of science). I don’t believe in God because he is scientifically proven, I believe in him because he proved himself to me. This might be getting into the metaphysical, and like I said before, I’m trying to avoid that here, but all the same I should make my views known for the record as long as we are on the topic of personal opinions.

“Evolutionary scientists are unbiased”: Not even slightly true. I have been told numerous times that these scientists question everything before they come to conclusions. Do you really think that any of these people stumble across evidence that would disprove evolution, then start questioning the theory? Uh, no. They start working to find some way to make this anomaly coincide with their idea. Ben Stein is releasing a film entitled, “Expelled” ([link] ) that is about numerous professors and scientists that have lost their jobs, tenures, and/or credibility because they have ascribed to the idea that maybe there was a Creator. Atheists across the globe have lashed out ruthlessly calling this the “New ID (Intelligent Design) Movie”. The premise of the film is the censorship and discrimination against scientists that are skeptical of the official story, but somehow critics feel threatened by someone upholding the idea of free thought. To all the Atheists that are reading, don’t fool yourselves thinking that there is no bias in the scientific community. It’s there, and it’s vicious.


In closing, I have shown valid grounds to question, if not outright deny the concepts behind Atheistic Evolutionary ideals. The reasons that I write this article are to A. show my brothers and sisters in Christ that this is not a proven topic that needs to be tossed into our personal theologies, and B. so that the Atheist can see his/her personal biases and misinformation in the full light of truth. There is not only reason to doubt the theory; there is plenty of reason to turn away from it. Don’t think that doing so makes you “unscientific” in any way. There is a God, there is no other explanation. If you keep yourself in the mindset that God is an absurd fairytale then you are only kidding yourself. Open your minds and learn the truth that there is a Creator: The Lord God of Hosts. Amen.














------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for a little bit of fun:
(Here is something that my brother wrote, and I just thought that it had to be posted for all to see)

“The Skeptic Skoler's Debate Glossary”
-by J.C. Thibodaux

Preamble:
This idea of compiling this glossary occurred to me after debating with a certain Atheist for several posts. During my years of debating with many Skeptics of Christianity I started to notice a pattern, specifically: Despite the similarities in terminology that we used in the course of our discussions, many of the words that Atheists often use hold drastically different meanings than those which a normal speaker of English would associate them with. When I say 'Atheists', I refer largely to the whiny, nitpicking, 'internet-intellectual' variety who will tirelessly and militantly push on others their anti-religious imaginings and absolute loathing of a Being they claim does not exist, and think that a sound refutation consists largely of a Wikipedia link. Yes, these webducated wonders are firmly convinced that there is absolutely nothing after death, and show their utmost confidence in this viewpoint by mercilessly hounding anyone who dares to disagree with them, despite the fact that if they are indeed correct on their views about life and death, then divergent opinions would ultimately change nothing. This special breed of Atheist I have arbitrarily dubbed 'Skeptic Skolers', and my focus is the language that they speak. This glossary, while by no means exhaustive, should provide a basic understanding of the terminology used by Atheist Internet Skolers, and will hopefully facilitate future meaningful discussion with individuals of said mindset. Note that this glossary has been expanded and modified from its original outline in terms of specificity into a more general-use format. Also please note that this is SATIRE, and should not be referenced as a credible source of scientific information, held up as an example of correct spelling, be used to extinguish small fires, or replace traditional forms of worship.


Archeology - According to some Atheist sources, a pure science that can empirically verify portions of history.

Arrogance - 1. Having the audacity to disagree with an Atheist. 2. The thing we accuse Theists of to take attention off the fact that they've destroyed our case despite the fact that their beliefs are based on faith, not empirical evidence. This is effective, because even though we can't prove they're arrogant, they can't DISPROVE it!

Atheism - The belief that there could possibly be a god(s), but probably isn't. This is distinct from the belief that there absolutely is no god, which is called...um...wait, don't tell me, I know this one....

Belittlement - Anything that anyone says (intentional or otherwise) that any Atheist could possibly take offense to, including questioning their statements and sources, expressing opinions that they disagree with, or making any kind of pun whatsoever.

Bias - Any ideas in favor of religion or special creation held prior to engaging an Atheist in discussion.

Bigot - Anyone who would dare call another person wrong or belittle them for their beliefs, something that those moronic Creationists do a lot!

Circular Reasoning - Whatever an Atheist tells you it is. If one says that citing a historical account is circular reasoning, then you'd better believe it, because Atheists are correct in their views because Atheism is correct, and we know Atheism is correct because Atheists are correct in their views...

Creationism - The root of all evil and bigotry. Creationists are often seen trying to use their religious views to push the idea that certain actions are morally wrong or evil. This is a bad thing to do.

Darwinism - A scientific fact. We know this because if speciation can occur, then it follows that elephants and elephant garlic are descended from a common ancestor.

Dawkins, Richard - A truly revolutionary and brilliant mind, whose specialty in the field of animal behavior clearly entitles him to be a credible voice in the debate over God's non-existence, and has certainly never given Atheists a bad name by idiotic and ill-informed statements over religion.

Debate - An exchange of ideas in which a skeptic presents his or her side of the case and the other side had better shut up and agree.

Ego - The reason those stupid Creationists won't shut up and let Atheists verbally bombard them in peace.

Eyewitness Testimony - Totally unreliable. Why can't you see that?

Facts - A series of selected data, real or imagined, designed to refute Christianity.

Faith - Something that by necessity cannot have any grounding in factual data and its proponents just blindly accept without questioning for fear of being shunned or insulted by their peers. And if you don't believe in that definition of faith, then you're obviously just some religious wacko who hates science and talks to donkeys.

False Religion - 1. All of them. 2. A religion so ridiculous, that it must somehow mean that all religion is false.

Finished - The state of a heated verbal discussion once the other side shuts up and lets the Skeptic have the last word.

Google - If you can't find it here, it must not exist. Can I see God if I Google Him? No? Then God must not exist!

Humor - See: Belittlement

Hyperlink - When you're backed into a corner and lacking in knowledge on a specific subject, just Google similar words to the ones your opponent seems to be using and try dropping one or two...or nineteen of these.

Ignorance - 1. Disagreement with Atheism. 2. The first thing we accuse Creationists of when they display a better command of the facts than we do.

Illogical - See: Theism

Logic - That which supports Atheism and/or Neo-Darwinism.

Logical Fallacy - An argument presented by Creationists or Theists.

Opinion - Something to which only Atheists and other non-Christians are entitled to.

Proof - Anything authored by Dawkins.

Propaganda - Any information that Atheists wish didn't exist.

Refuted - Any argument or line of reasoning that a Skeptic simply calls 'stupid', 'ignorant', or 'repetitive', or posts a link in response to.

Religion - A system of beliefs specifically designed to allow ignorant people to look down on and belittle others.

Repetitive - Any line of reasoning that repeatedly defeats Skeptical arguments.

Science - See: Darwinism

Scientists - Vaguely identified researchers who somewhere have apparently uncovered irrefutable proof against Christianity.

Speciation - I'll bet you ignorant Creationists don't even know what that even is, do you? Let me send you a link to dictionary.com...

Specifics - [No Entries]

TalkOrigins - Absolute geniuses in debate who would never by any stretch of the conceivable imagination that an individual(s) may or may not possess in their vast array of cognitive and highly creative and powerful reasoning and logical skills argue the case in any of the various or specific points of discussion concerning the creation/evolution (lack of intelligent creation and/or design) verbal exchange by saying a lot of nothing.

Theism - See: Illogical

Wikipedia - The single greatest source of accurate scientific information on the planet-- like this article about African elephants...


(J.C. Thibodaux - [link] )

My other articles:

Balance Principle [link]
Oh No! Not Politics! [link]
Rules of Engagement [link]
My Philosophy on Art [link]
I am More Open Minded than You [link]
"Let's Discredit the Bible!" [link]
"Christian Hate Speech?" [link]
Logic Anyone? [link]
Issues in Churches [link]

My humor:

How Ignorant People see Christians [link]
President Miazaki?? [link]
My Ears are Eggplants [link]


Links
[link] My big brother’s site. He’s really good with Bible issues, and he has a lot to say about the misconceptions of Calvinism.

[link] A little bit of tough love for the world.

[link] Creationism website. A lot of people who don’t believe in God believe in "science" which is falsely so called. This is for you guys.

[link] I have a Myspace page! All my party peoples in the place to be: Come on down and get hooked up on my happenin' friends list!