News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Evolutionists claim that evolution was not connected to Columbine shooting in anyway shape or form. Well the video below shows that it was. And it's is also ironic that this was also done on Hitler's birthday as well. Even though it is also denied that Hitler even ever heard of evolution. And used this theory as his excuse for what he did.



They even spoke of evolution on their website.




One wore a shirt that said: Natural selection.

So should I now claim that all Christians are evil because so many slave owners were devout Christians? And because they called themselves Christians, does that mean that their interpretation of Christianity is the only valid one, and should be a warning to us all? The nonsense above is just that: nonsense, and anyone who knows a bit about evolution would recognise that; those claims are a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation of science.

Please explain how the change in heritable traits over time has anything to do with the evils of modern society, and how the assumptions here are not yet another example of people trying pin their pet hate on said evils. I could do just as well by walking into a psychiatric ward, pulling out someone who says they're Jesus, and using them to ridicule the Christian faith. It would make about as much sense.

Those students were taking psychotropic drugs, do your videos mention that? Most school shootings have been perpetrated by people on psych meds and often they have recently stopped taking the meds, or changed them. Try researching that angle and I think you'll find some real substance there.

You had a good go at talking about geography with RAZD, then seem to have given up and gone for this kind of thing. A scientific explanation for why creationism explains the evidence better than evolution is still lacking.

Why don't you? You seem to have no problem with members like RADZ dishing it out as if insults are okay. You said that you saw no problem, and now you have a problem? What happened here is that you evolutionist dominance of hate was just lost as I showed the same amount of hate back to you. Your power through hate is gone as I matched yours, and went even a little further.

If hate is how you win a scientific debate, you now know I can match that hate. How does it feel to be treated pretty much like you treat others who disagree with you? Now do you know why I reacted as I did? Or do you still think spewing hate for evolution is still okay?

Now, please tell me if my next statement is not what you intended to be put forth in your initial post

You believe that the despicable actions by some people who adhere to a particular belief (evolution, in this case), causes that belief to be untrue?

Linda doesn't spew hate Ikester.

Quit trying to change the subject. This is about you guys spewing your hate just because people here disagree with you.

You are just serioustly pissing people off, Ikester, by being judgmental when you don't even know them. These are good people on here.

You are welcome to your opinion, But I happen to disagree. I guess you may not see it because you are not on the receiving end of it.

Did you not see the post where Linda defended the hate that RADZ was spewing at me? Condoning hate is not much different from spewing it. Shall I bring her post over here where she defended what RADZ was doing?

Also, you know why I did not accept RADZ apology? It was a lie. His website spews the same hate for all Christians and creationists that he spews here. So it was an attempt to calm things down for the "moment", just to restart them all over again. Which by the way, RADZ did show his true colors by taunting me with several posts after I said I would ignore him.

I see you guys still don't like it when the same hate is spewed back. Not my problem.

So show me a list of where I have done here that is worse than what has already been done with about every post by you evolutionists? It maybe suttle, but when done in every post it adds up. So I just took the last few threads to show what it added up to. Show the love for everyone that disagrees with you. And I'll do the same.

This statement seems to indicate that you believe ALL evolutionists spew out hate. Perhaps we should go through the posts between all the evolutionists and all the creationists on this board and count the numbers of insults that have been used by each. Then we can compare them to see who spews out the most hate.

We probably have to agree on what exactly constitutes an insult.

I know I have stated some things that could be construed as an insult. I'm willing to take my lumps. What about you?

They believe strongly in their opinions - but you're kind of lumping them in with some serious fanatics and it is pretty provoking. You're a good guy, too, obviously and feel strongly that you're defending what is right and I even agree and believe in the creation. I just don't see people as black and white... I agree with Bex and Russ and the other posters on here overall..(even SoSick but don't like how she talks to anyone and have been the butt of that myself with her) and you - but you're just approaching it in a way that is contentious. Not everyone is as strongly converted as you to your way of thinking - true or not - and its actually just adding to the divisiveness touting the strong generalities you're making and then using their (understandable) anger to verify your claims (to yourself) that they should be lumped in with the other hate groups. Horrific things have also been done in the name of Christianity...I think that is the point LindaLou was making. (Indirectly). WHere are you coming from with all this? Its admirable that you're so passionate, but you're also very forceful about it. I have the same tendency to like to mess with people that come on like this and, personally, think some of them are just messing with your head. I mean that in the nicest way toward the head messers...
Maybe I'm all wet here, but that is my take on it. Are you mercury toxic? You seem rather agitated. No one is personally attacking you - but you are saying some pretty derogatory stuff yourself. The main posters like to debate the science... They're "science geeks" if you will excuse the negative reference - (not meant as negative - you know - like computer geeks...). Obviously intelligent folk with a lot of knowledge which I cannot claim to have. I find some of the arguments intriguing and interesting, but still hold that whatever true science is mixed in there it will someday be proven to be consistent with the creation as revealed.

Actually, Ikester, LindaLou and I have had out moments, but we worked it out : )

I'm probably saying too much and offending everyone and their dog. I need to do pilates so best quit dodging it by being on here. Helps my back. Take care Ikester and all. See you later.

I like you Linear : )

(Not meant as a flirt)

No, at another forum I help run. We have evolutionists who we debate all the time that do not spew a bunch of hate. And we also do the same. I debated an evolutionist on youtube the other day that showed me respect. And we did not trade one insult during a 4 page debate. So you see, it can be done. Some are not willing to try. We get tired of people whom we show respect to, to be only insulted for no reason.

The ultimate insult seemed to be the only way to get you guys attention. Because when I complained earlier, it was falling on death ears, was it not? So if it continues, I can continue on the same venue as well.

Then I will attempt to curb my sarcasm and debate with you in good faith. I do request that you point out to me when I insult you or your cause and I will return the favor. Not everything that causes insult is intended to do so and there is no gain in holding on to hurt feelings.

BTW: I don't consider disagreeing with your cause as an insult to it.

Yes, and I'm not proud of what I said about Hovind months ago. I stand by the truth of the information I gave about him, but the jeering had to go, it's not necessary and doesn't reflect well on the poster.



No it isn't, and no one here claims that it is. In fact what you've been doing here lately is not debating at all. Debating is when you present evidence for your position and have a civilised discussion with someone, not a rave fest about how your opponents are evil. Do you understand what ad hominem is and why it will not get you anywhere in a debate?

I don't hate you -- how can I? I don't know you. I don't hate anybody. Hate is unhealthy and makes you sick. It's bad vibes. I feel sorry for you though. You seem to be a very angry person. I think there's something rankling you at the bottom of all this and you are projecting your feelings about it onto people with the evolutionist label. Pain is part of life and we don't escape it by getting angry at people or blaming them rightly or wrongly; we only come out the other side by working through it. I can't imagine that posting here the way you do is making you feel any better and I'm not sure where you intend to go with this but it's not accomplishing anything positive.

Well I guess if you are going to continue I will also.

I have no problem with disagreement. In fact I want everyone to have choice. But where the evolutionists are concerned, it's their choice or prepared to get insulted. That is what I do not agree with.

If you told me right now that you would not change your mind regardless of what I said, do you know I would be happy for you? Why?

1) You told the truth about how you feel. I don't think much of a person's belief in something if they have to play games of cloak and dagger to prove their selfs and their belief.

2) I know not to waste my time trying t make you change your mind because that is not what you want.

Why don't we put our manners into action then by getting back to discussing the subjects of this forum. This is turning into a big distraction while any talk about science has gone by the wayside.

Yep, it's all my fault now LOL. Like I said, you do it and so will I. It relies on you not me. You guys did not like my threads when I first came here because you could not debunk them. So you started your little game of insults and twists of truth. And now I'm dishing it back. You stop, I stop. You continue, I continue. It's just that simple.

Question: Do you still think the insulting tactics of RADZ are okay? Yes? Well then it won't stop because that's what you like to do.

I was quite honest when I said you should get a little backbone. You were being asked to back your statements up with evidence. I was also being quite honest when I said I'd had similar words directed at me before. Why should I agree with scientists or people with scientific knowledge 100% of the time about everything? They don't agree with each other 100% of the time either. Those discussions made me think hard about my own position and beliefs. I wouldn't have got far if I'd decided instead to complain about everyone being unfair (which they weren't -- just opinionated). Some of them were not nice people but while I found it frustrating at times, they made me question myself and I appreciate that. I also learned a lot about them.

What exactly have you said here that you think has not been "debunked"? You are suggesting you have made a claim somewhere which has gone unaddressed? Please let us know where it is.

And what evidence would you accept? Lay it out in terms we can understand because so far you have more or less implied that all creation evidence is fraudulent. And that we all lie because we use fraudulent evidence. So what is good evidence to you?

No lumping is required. Just a little research. Reading only the current conversation is a poor way to understand things.

If you'll take the time to read the thread I linked to in the other thread (unattractive sentence, but it works), you'll begin to see what Ikester's talking about. I may just PM you a few other prime examples.

Every current evopusher has at least once, clearly (I mean totally crystal clarity) demonstrated by their actions that they have no interest whatsoever in truth. It takes time to read through some of the old threads, but there are two advantages: you won't have to wait for the next post, so you can proceed at your own pace; and you'll see what's behind the facade.

I seriously hope you don't believe that hype.

By omitting to read the old threads, you miss out on a whole lot of evidence that has been presented and ignored. You miss out on a lot of debunking. You play right into the hands of the evopushers. You help their cause if you harbour expectations that we should just cycle through all the discussions over an over again and again, just for the sake of bumping them to the top of the forum list.

Either you possess keen insight, or you've been scouting.

LindaLou doesn't even accept her own sources when they say things she's disinclined to hear.

One clear case starts here:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=29319#Post29319

To this day, she behaves as if she cannot even see the problem. ...and whines about the term 'evogoggles'.

Didn't mean to side track you CTD. See y'all later

Curiously, Jeanie is not an "evolutionist" ...

Enjoy.

I don't care honestly, CTD. Sounds like the arguing/debating has been going on a while. It gets ugly. But I detect a penitent tone in the attitude of late and a concession to try and see the other side and tone it down?? You trying to stir things up again?

Through the ages, yes, horrid things have been done in the name of Christianity and, sometimes, still. I could go on but need to clear off. Christian's motives are not always pure. (That is NOT a general statement or judgment but neither should it be toward evolutionists). The New Testament (will find the chapter and vses. if you want) speaks of Christians having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof (priesthood = power of God), much more. I really have to go. I'll let you to it CTD. Carry on... PM me if you want.... I'm not playing into anyone's hands. I just don't see these guys as the enemy.

Actually, though, for informational purposes if you don't mind going to the trouble I'd appreciate what you mentioned if you want to PM it to me. Not interested in proving how evil these guys are, not for that, but it would be nice to see evidences more conveniently arranged.... But that's up to you. Nice to offer at any rate. Thanks. I'll take you up on that.

still avoiding the real issue, ikester?

Yes, using objective evidence of reality and logical arguments based on that evidence is so hateful.

The fact remains: the Grand Canyon location is through a high point on the ridge, so if the ridge was as it is today when the water started to cut the canyon (Hovind's argument), then it had to run uphill to do so. Or Hovind's argument that the ridge was the same in the past as it is today is false. Either way the argument is falsified by the simple, objective, anyone can see it, evidence: the presentation of that evidence has nothing to do with the facts falsifying the concept.

This is a fact, facts cannot be "hateful" or "insulting" - they just are - nor can presenting facts as they are be "hateful" or "insulting" unless you think the truth is "hateful" or "insulting" ... reality is not kind, or evil, it just is what it is.

Enjoy.

Seen it before. Enjoy the show - I expect it's mostly for your benefit.

So you've allowed them to define "christianity". An unusual choice.

Yes, and I've found that the church was already infiltrated in those earliest days. Actually J. Iscariot would be the earliest named infiltrator if I'm not greatly mistaken. I consider it a mistake to agree that such are properly labeled "christians" even with a small 'c'.

Buggin' out myself. PM is on my 'to-do list'.

You've asked this question before and I've given you my answer. Empirical evidence. For example, if you are claiming that the Grand Canyon is young and was carved by a flood, you need to explain how this happened in a way which is compatible with known geological processes (e.g. catastrophic floods not cutting meanders), and you also need to explain why geological evidence such as uranium dating of eroded rock faces is erroneous. If indeed you can do this then you would be starting to make a more compelling case for your position.

You seem to be implying that you presented some kind of important creationist evidence that was deliberately ignored by me. In fact you went on to have a conversation with RAZD about the post you are referring to. We were all talking there about evidence from ice cores. If you would like to take it back up, I suggest you do it in the relevant thread.

I'm waiting for you to start talking about some science here again. If you're not careful, people will start thinking you don't actually have any to talk about.

Empirical evidence: Based on experimental data, not on a theory. Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.

The reason you say this is because you know that secular atheistic evolutionist control what is considered Empirical evidence. And since creationists are not allowed, how would we get experimental data?

Also, 50% of the evolution claim does not even meet Empirical evidence. How does the claimed millions of years of evolution, which is not observable or even able to experiment with. Meet Empirical evidence status? It cannot.

So what you want from all creation evidence to meet. You cannot even make all of the evolution evidence meet. Double standard .

Empirical evidence is physical evidence we can study. We can study the rocks in the Grand Canyon. We can study other canyons. We can study many different kinds of rocks over long periods of time and come up with a body of evidence about what can be learned from those rocks. We can develop better and better methods to study those rocks (i.e. raidometric and cosmogenic dating; detailed microscopy).

Almost half of scientists in the US say they are theists, so I'm not sure how you would justify your "secular atheist evolutionist" comment. And in fact, not all of the evolutionists here are atheists either. Why do you insist on labelling people in such a derrogatory, stereotypical way?

You also seem to be claiming that we can know nothing about the history of the earth or the life on it because we weren't there. Where does that leave forensic science then? Does that invalidate every investigation of a crime scene, because the police weren't there, or do you think there are sometimes clues left behind that we can study?

If you're not careful, people might start to think you're complaining so much about what is acceptable scientific evidence for creationism, because you can't find any.

But can you study the actual process of millions of years of claimed evolution and truly say it's all observable?

Incorrect. Rocks are evidence. What you conclude from the rocks isn't evidence; it's a conclusion. A body of conclusions is not evidence either.

That some consider 'atheist' a derogatory label is one reason so many atheists "stay in the closet". Dawkins has complained that they need to come out, but few seem to be following his advice.

I missed that claim.
We do have a thread about investigating history. Will I need to transplant this as well?

Those who've looked won't fall for that one. They've seen how abundant and inescapable the evidence is.

We observe all the "clues." And Russ2 has presented evidence here of it happening today, including bacteria which have evolved beneficial traits through mutations. So we can observe the evidence, form hypotheses based on it, and test those hypotheses. We would not make much scientific progress in any area of we narrowed our definition of truth to only that which can be directly observed in the moment.

We know enough about the evolution of organisms such as foraminifera that they can be used as index fossils. Geologists, for example, use these index fossils to help them find coal and oil deposits. If index fossils were not good predictors of where things are in the geological record, then how would they be able to do this? Does this not show that there is something more to their pattern of distribution than mere randomness?

And why, if God created all creatures that ever existed in the last 6000 years, do we not find trilobites mixed with dinosaurs and dinosaurs mixed with humans in the fossil record? Fossils are found in faunal succession across the world. This is either because they evolved over a long period of time, or because God for some reason wanted it to appear that they had. Unless you have a third explanation?

Fossils contained in rocks, and the order in which those rocks appear in the geological column, is evidence too. We can even look at the rate of radioactive decay within the rock.

Presumably you are not claiming that all we can learn about a rock is that it is a rock. Like a forensic detective, scientists look at the clues and piece them together. Indeed they might get it wrong at times. Which is why you have been asked to present evidence here for why you think this is the case. Before you do so, you need to take into account the body of knowledge which already exists. For example, we can look at a particular type of rock and know from its characteristics whether it is sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic. We were probably not "there" when the rock was created but we can know these kinds of things from studying thousands of rocks and comparing them. That's how we learn most things about rocks actually.

You could play a game of infinite regress here. So how do you even know what you're looking at is a rock? That's a conclusion too. You can list its characteristics and conclude it's a rock but you never know, you may be wrong. How do we actually know that anything is real? How do you know that your reality and mine are the same? We're getting philosophical now. That detective work is really what saves us from these crazy possibilities.



Ikester is simply wanting to label evolutionists with as many traits he believes to be undesirable as he can. In his eyes it is a supreme insult. In my eyes it is one of many ways of looking at the world and trying to understand it.



Ikester is claiming that we can't know anything about millions of years that have passed. It seems to me that this is the old "Were you there?" argument which we've already discussed here with Bex. It's a convenient excuse for ignoring the large body of evidence we have about the past, because it doesn't jibe with what is "supposed" to have happened.



Just like you've proved in the Grand Canyon thread that the Grand Canyon was carved by a global flood and that radiometric dates are erroneous? Thanks for the chuckle.

If you had said "some evolutionists", I would not have considered this an insult. As it is stated, I do, because it includes me.



What if I told you that I don't know what my particular reaction would be to what you told or showed me? I truly don't know, since I don't know what evidence you have.

Perhaps some atheists have are unsure about the treatment they would get if they should reveal themselves. We don't know what they feel since they don't reveal themselves. The problem with your statement wasn't the label of "atheist" by itself. It was the combination of "atheist evolutionist" which made us think that you are saying that all "evolutionists" are atheists. Those of us who are believers in God and also think that evolution did occur, take issue with that generalization.

Please don't.

Well I know that not all think this way. But I get used to including all because we are always categorized as an all issue when ever things like pink unicorns and flat earth is used. And if people on the same side do not like being categorized themselves, then they should speak up when they see it done to others. But all I hear is silence. Silence speaks volumes where words do not exist.



Then you are more open minded then most here. And is probably the reason I don't see you participating in the insults here either. Mature vs the immature.

Sorry ikester, I just have a small quibble with this:

There is a small confusion here with what is being studied, what is a process, what is a theory, and what is being used as evidence.

We study evolution in the present day, where it can be tested, measured, quantified, etc.

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. You agree that this process occurs, that it is an ongoing process of life.

As populations evolve they sometimes split into two or more subpopulations, which then have different accumulations of new mutations. When these subpopulations do not interbreed when given the opportunity we say that speciation has occurred. You also agreed with this process and concurred that it happens and has been observed, that it too is an ongoing process of life.

When we get to the fossil record we are not studying the ongoing process of life, but the natural history record of what has happened on this planet in the past (historical, pre-historical, geological, etc): we are observing what has already happened rather than what is happening.

You can take all the known fossils in the world and arrange them by location (lat/long/depth), no knowledge of biology needed, no presumption of evolution or creation or any other process, as this is the record of what has happened in earths past. This is evidence of objective reality: it's not going to change if evolution is true or false, it's not going to change if creationism is true or false.

Enjoy.

RAZD, if Ikester doesn't appreciate that breakdown, I do. I was reading today about how long folks lived on the earth the first thousand years till not long after the flood when lives were cut down to more an average of about 120 years old. (This is Biblical through lineages so also historical). With regards to alleles and genetics I figured Adam and Eve's kids having children was kind of contradictory with the problems that causes today, (close cousins or immediate family) but read someone's assumption as a believer in the Bible, that back then we didn't have the genetic issues and were generally healthier as new humans. (My thought process on that was that with the ages they lived it would've made a difference. In either case, though, I know you don't think or believe this way - but is there not some way you could figure that in with the genetic stuff??? (I know that is simplistically put....but makes sense to me : ) Try and approach it with an open mind..... : ) (Are you an expert there? Or Russell, could you throw in, too? Let's just say for arguments sake there Adam and Eve WERE the first humans.....

You're confusing who said what. I didn't use the term "atheist evolutionist" in this thread. But I understand it to be a noun preceded by an adjective, like "green cow". Most English speakers wouldn't think the term "green cow" even begins to imply that all cows are green.

But a cow looking for an excuse to feel insulted might try to twist things for the benefit of a stupid audience.

Transfer fodder.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39203#Post39203

Hi Jeanie, the whole earth atmosphere, if we are to believe in the Genesis account was ideal and without the ramifications from sin. Pure and good. Killing did not take place on any level and Adam and Eve were vegetarians. The animals lived in harmony with eachother, and also man. The earth and the abundence that came from it would have been wonderful, containing full nutrients, complete in everything. Not only this, but they also ate from the "Tree of life". They were intended to live forever, NOT die. As God was closely united with his creation and the earth was his delight, not just for Himself, but for us.

Even after the fall, the superior health of the planet would still have made what we have today look like peanuts I'm sure. It would account for the long ages of human beings, no surprise and larger stature (there were giants in those days). As even now, in certain areas (tropical) there is a tendency for insects/plants etc to grow much bigger than others. It may sound too unusual, simply because to us, this is normal. But to them? our height and age would seem ludicrously short in comparison.

Since the beginning, the world has been groaning under the weight of our sins and anticipating the renewal, which has been promised to us in the bible. All things will indeed be restored.

Death/suffering were not God's intentions, they were the result of sin. Sin, according to God is our greatest enemy. Death/suffering are unpleasant (to say the least), but they attack the body, rather than the soul (depending on how a person faces it). They can often be a means to chasten us and remind us this life is temporary and not to rely on the temporary "pleasures" or "riches" of this world, but consider greatly the next and preparing to meet our God.

They can also cause one to think more of Christ's suffering for us on the cross and HIs wonderful promise of ressurrection.

I don't think I said you were stupid. If I did then I apologize.

The way you worded this sentence makes it difficult to completely understand your meaning. Is this your way of saying that I was twisting ikester's words?

Your post about the pre-Flood atmosphere seems like mere speculation to me. Could you start another thread about it so the details can be discussed without the distractions of this thread?

I agree Bex with all your points in answer to my inquiries. We do look at the fall a bit differently, though, it is confusing even to those of our own faith. Basically, though, it worked out like it was supposed to. We are here to experience death....and live by faith. Its all temporary right now.

The atmosphere thing, though, the misting....that should likely be in another thread, but wonder if anyone has ever addressed that?

Didn't mean to interfere with the topic of this thread, I got caught up and side-tracked. Sorry everybody. My input was the understanding from the biblical account of the "Edenic" pre-flood world. Took God at His word! Still do.

Personally I think all things are related anyway at least as far as what we were talking about....

It all depends on who you catch and when.

(Bad language warning *) Here is a pair of Evopushers happily crediting their religion in a case where the reports don't link it to the shooting.

As you might expect, the report says nothing about the all-too-obvious worldviews of the shooter. His fans have no trouble discerning it, but the rest of us are supposed to, I'm sure.

In another related - and offensive case, we have this fan's page.

Ze Dead German Kidlings

If someone were writing fiction, or just trying to smear these people, would it be plausible to make up such stuff? Reality is worse than fiction.

I can understand those who don't want to look. I can understand those who don't want to believe such people exist. I don't want to see such things myself, and I dearly wish these events didn't take place. I wish such people did not have fans dedicated enough to design a special web page in honour of senseless, evosick mass murder. Yet we cannot deny the fruits of sin. Don't dwell on it, but do understand that denying it won't make it go away any more than the silly proposals to "tighten gun controls" or ban video games put forward by those seeking to exploit the situation.