Ark - Page 1

how big was the Ark, so evry living species around today was what was present on the ark, every insect, bacteria, reptile, marsupial.......why did the dinosaurs get excluded, too evil? every child that did not get on was worthy of genocide?


that creation museum, that is the pinnacle of human intellect, what an embarrassment for not only the US but everything born with a brain.


is extreme stupidity and ignorance a sin?



just asking.

vk4gsd,

I am not going to waste a keystroke on keyboard, but this video will answer your questions.

.

...oh the irony vk4.

first chuckle was when they said how will use science to prove basically science is wrong, then they i got up to the part where it said they only took animals of a same "kind" from which all the other species emerged from the "kinds" emerged in that  sense is just another word for evolved very clearly. i felt too many brain cells die going that far and stopped, i will watch the rest tho. so far it is absolute falsity wich i think is a sin?

anyhoo next part of my question i don't think is in the clip? what sin did the possible millions of babies(not on the ark)  commit in order to get the death sentence via drowning.

btw 2 minute you tube is clearly the highest standard of rigour you are capable of, do you have anything in the form of equations that have been peer reviewed, then we can talk as equals??

I am going to bring back my very old post in regards you mention the word evolved:


The word “Evolution” has many meanings, only one of which is scientific.
 

1. Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space and matter, i.e. Big Bang.
2. Chemical Evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star form.
4. Organic Evolution. Origin of Life.
5. Macro-Evolution. Changing from one kind into another.
6. Micro-Evolution. Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.

 
The Bible says the animals will bring forth after their kind. Charlie Darwin wrote a book called:
The Origin of Species: You see the dog and the wolf are the same kind of animal but they are different species, he “Charlie” fooled everybody by changing the words from kind to species.
 
Last option what we have what it’s called Micro-Evolution; this is changes within the kinds. Now that one happens. I will go alone with number #6 option. I think animals can produce who variety of offspring; you know - long hair, short hair, long legged, and short legged. That happens. But the first other five options of evolution are purely religious, it’s NOT science, we never observed any of those. And all evolutionist people all they give is example number #6 which there is no argument about – it happens. But then they imply that is somehow magically evidence for all other 5 options of evolution and it is NOT. 

Evolution is really not an evolution – all it is - variations between same types of creatures, any creature produce within its kind or maybe with minor or some little changes and evolutionist people calls it micro-evolution. When a dog produces another dog – it is still a dog and there is simply a lot of variety of different dogs.
 (Chihuahua and German shepherd are completely different, but it’s still a dog) Example: They might have common ancestors like a wolf or coyote; lol but they are completely different from banana…. But some very smart scientist couldn’t figure that out!!!!
 
But the Bible says: Animals will bring forth after their kind; that’s all they ever do – bring forth after their kind. (They don’t make brand new things.)
 
Evolution did not happen but just humanist thinking.
 
The theory of real evolution is when one creature completely changes to another creature which called Macro-Evolution - this is not scientific but a religion world view. But the real science is when we can see, test and demonstrate…. So the Marco-evolution never being observed and it’s not part of the fact or science.

are you one of these guys that make the claim that because no two humans have ever produced an ape as a child then it proves that evolution is not true?

 

No, I look at the reality, but you live in fantasy world.

I just like to bring back my old posts lol.
Evolution Text book says and show a picture. Four wing fly, which by the way it cannot fly: And it says Normal fruit flies have two wings. This mutant has four. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful. Then it says beneficial Mutations are the raw material for natural selection.
 
Oh no, hold on a minute, why don’t they show us an example of beneficial mutation?
 
Why would they tell us about good ones and don’t show us picture of it. “The Good one”
 
Do you know why they didn’t show us a good picture of a good mutation in a text book? Because nobody ever seen one. There was never been one beneficial mutation. And they say Evolution and Natural Selection go together. It says Natural selection causes evolution, that is a lie, natural selection, selects. It doesn’t create anything. Natural selection is not a creative force, okay!
Natural selection maybe stabilizing force, but its not a creative force, anybody with a half of brain could figure that out. Natural selection, cannot create any property, it can only select.
And text book says, Evolution by natural selection had occurred in just one year. No they are lying.
And it says natural selection can lead to evolution, that is a lie! Natural selection, selects, it doesn’t create a thing.
Mutations are the original source of variation in populations. I agree mutations happened, no question… But mutations do not produce evolution, mutations scrambling up existence generic code; they are not making anything new.
Example there was 5-legged bull that is the mutant, there is no new information added, he already had information how to make a leg, he just made one in the wrong place, that’s all. It’s not new information, it is scramble information. Another example shot legged sheep, again, no new information; by the way it’s not beneficial.
Evolution is dead, the theory is “defunct” there is no evidence to support it, but some of the followers are pretty dedicated, and have hard time to let it go.

Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions.
Number 1, they say mutation makes something new, that was never been observed…Number 2, natural selection makes it survive and take over population. Evolution is actually religion of death, in order to evolution to work; one animal evolves little better than the rest, what must happen to the rest to make this thing work? They got to die or else new improve gene swamp back into the gene code. The question is so simple and profound, did man bring death into the world like the Bible says or did death bring man into the world like evolution says… Somebody is wrong!

Here is the example for you.
If you work in the factory that makes cars, suppose you work in quality control, your job was is to check the car when they are got done building it, you know kick the tires, slam the doors and drive it around – see if it runs…If you caught every single mistake, they don’t by the way, but if you did okay. How long would it take that quality control process to change the car to an airplane? You would say quality control could not change to something else. Oh I know that. Only design engineers could change it, and God natural selection is a quality control that will never change to a different animal. You would just make sure you will get a good animal. That is all.

OK gotcha, thanks for clearing all that evolution nonsense up, what was i thinking, your "proof" makes it all so obvious.

no further need for me to participate on this thread, i need to be out standing on a street corner yelling evolution is wrong, the bible says so.

This is why no one wants to play with him.

....................................................................................:)