Imaginary Ancient Big Bomb Believer Bigot Jim Villanuci and Darwinist Friends Refuted

According to the KKOB radio show host Jim Villanuci, who said repeatedly today that he doesn't care [about the truth], there are no Christian scientists who believe in a "young" earth (6500 is old young?), and anyone who believes in a young earth can't perform science at all and can't understand anything correctly because they don't listen to the facts, and merely explain everything with, "Jesus did it," or "angels did it". Is that why I'm repeating what you said and refuting it, again?

Where bigot, in this refutation of your ranting, and your ranting anti-Christian callers, have I said anything like that or an earlier one refuting your claim that we must have sex with a person to know if they are gay or straight?

Do you have the patience to read less than a few pages, if not, how can you claim to know what you are talking about when it comes to "young earthers" let alone Christians, science, evolution or the big imaginary bomb no one ever saw from billions and billions of years ago?):

Christians are scientists too, and not merely because I said so. You don't you know history and don't care to know it, and don't know what's going on around you accurately either, and don't want to, that is why in large part you are ignorant. Don't you know that Galileo, Copernicus and Euler were all Christians, and that atheists tried to shut them up using other Christians? No doubt, you being an ignorant mocker, if I hadn't added that last part you would have said, "Yeah and look what the Christians did to them." In addition to that Catholics are false Christians, so big surprise they would turn on their own at the request of atheists. Further, there are two recent polls that show about half of all scientists are religious as in believing in the supernatural, and CHEMISTS especially believe in God (gee can you figure out why CHEMISTS would especially believe in God? Could it be because they not only see the macro design in the universe, but also see the micro design which you stupidly ignore?)

Yet you pretend their are no young earth Christian scientists let alone religious ones, and that we all say, "Jesus did it," or "It looks young" or stupid things like that, which idiots like you actually say with, "But Darwin said so," "It evolved," "Oil is old," "Fission wouldn't work." You google "Evidence against young earth" or "creationism" and believe whatever so called scientific evidence there is against it. What a simpleton. Study Jim, don't just have faith.

Ironically, it's by your bigoted sarcastic statements like, "Jesus did it," or "The Grand Canyon looks young to me," and, "Evolution did it,", "The Big Bang did it", "Dinosaurs died a long time ago and did it", "The Hubble saw it," which shows that you are the one who reasons be feelings. It's you who don't believe in science and you who don't know what science is. Science is not, "It looks old to me so it must be old," or "Darwin did it" (to use your stupid bigoted sarcasm) or "evolution did it." Further, how in the Hell genius, would you figure out the Grand Canyon is very old let alone old from just looking at it? What the Hell? Can you explain that bizarre reasoning? No, you were brainwashed with endless propaganda that you in your gullibility bought into. You were repeatedly taught "this is clearly old" and so you think that way. Further, what the Hell scientist even says you can judge that a rock is old just be looking at it? Stupid. And can you show that any young earth CALVINIST (not some idiot Christian, a false one) doesn't believe in science? The father of microbiology was a Calvinist "young earther" you parrot.

You clearly don't understand what Young Earth geology is about, it's not simply, "The Earth is about 6000 years old" (it's a little older than that actually) and it's not about "Jesus lived with the dinosaurs".

You also don't understand nuclear power. Also the two caller that said it's a matter of faith and non-reason made no sense, unless he meant that old earth geology is non-reason, which would only be figurative. Regardless it was poorly worded and sounded stupid. The woman who mentioned the Christian that said it's just a faith issue was talking about a stupid Christian then, further she herself was ignorant and stupid since she said that young earther's explanation about why carbon dating isn't accurate is complicated, because IT'S NOT complicated, it this simple: Carbon dating has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate. It's also got nothing to do with nuclear power, you obviously don't know physics very well. Carbon dating is only accurate to about 5000 years, when it's used to measure things beyond that it's wildy inaccurate and what Darwinists / evolutionist SCIENTISTS do is arbitrarily choose the dates that match their dating theories. If it doesn't fit, they dismiss it or won't even mention it.

Also the Hubble has not revealed the universe to be billions of years old, again it has to do with how the data is interpreted, and Darwinist / evolutionist scientist interpret in such a way that it fits evolutionary theory, it's circular reasoning.

Further, you clearly don't know much about evolution even, since you would have known that every informed "young earther" knows to reject carbon dating for the reasons I stated, if you were knowledgeable, you would have referred to other radiometric dating methods (which have also been shown to be inaccurate).

As for Wikipedia being good, no it's not at all, you think it's good because it says things that match your uniformed beliefs. What they do is repeatedly and instantly ban "young earthers" not listening to their arguments and merely stating that websites like answersingenesis.org and other young earth sites are not reliable. They also are against TRUTH. Yes, you heard it right, THEY ARE NOT FOR TRUTH. They will literally tell people like me, when I use a logical argument that Wikipedia is NOT ABOUT TRUTH but rather references. And they will ban you for trying to speak the truths IF it cuts the foundation of atheism or doubt of Christianity. They don't just ban anyone for speaking a religious truth obviously, but that which would leave atheism and anti-Christian skepticism hanging in the wind with nothing to support it. They also obviously wouldn't want themselves to have been shown to have been gullible for over 100 years, as that would be a devastating blow to their own faith, and then where would they turn? They'd have to be agnostic or witches.

Further, no true Christian simply says, "God said it so I believe it" as anti-Christians love to say. We don't think that way, in fact the Bible commands us to have evidence for our beliefs, and says not to be a simpleton, there is a verse that literally says not to be that way, and not to simply believe whatever you hear. It also says to test those who claim to be Christians to see if they are telling the truth about being a Christian.

On top of that, there are many non-Christian physicists who are opposed to the teaching of the Big Bang AND ASTRONOMERS, and some are nominal Christians, simply believing the Bible to be true to a degree. There is not a consensus, and even if there was, you can't vote something to be true or feel it into being true, so your comment "you can believe whatever you want to make yourself feel good" and about you living in reality and not us, is something which applies to you. Further, I study issues regarding truth and reality as do all Christians, but I spend my life doing so, so if anyone is going to know what is real or not and what truth is it would be me, not you, who merely talks about politics all day and avoids getting deep into philosophical and religious matters. Sure you mention religion now and then and how people should be free to have their own religion, but you don't go much further than that, you don't get into critical analysis for the basis of religion beyond you belief that Christians merely feel he exists (no that's not all there is to it).

As for how oiled formed, all you did was read a statement claiming how oil was made, you didn't give any scientific evidence for it. Also, it's been a long time that that theory has been shown to be BASELESS. So you just read a statement that is based on a theory that was shown to be in dispute for many years. That shows how out of touch you are with modern scientific findings let alone old ones, including old ones that are still true which you are clueless about.

Now, if you want data, scientific data backing up what I said, and about their being no evidence for the Big Bang and no consensus:

No consensus, Darwinists ban and libel young earth creationists AND Intelligent Design OLD earth creationists (showing how intolerant they are and arbitrary and that it's about their hate for God, not "pseudoscience" as they pretend)

1) Ben Stein's: Expelled (which shows that Darwinists ban scientists to make it look like there is a consensus against Darwinism)
2) http://s8int.com/bigbang3.html
3) http://cosmologystatement.org
4) http://s8int.com/bigbang5.html
4) http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm
5) http://sn.im/archeology (don't you love how this book shows your "scientists" cover up geological and archeological findings in the name of science and for prestige and more money?)
6) Further, there were many "young earth" scientists
and there still are, and the first ones were the human basis
for modern science (now twisted by evolutionists):

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

Clearly these are not scientists/Christians who say, "Jesus made the oil the end."

Oil wasn't made millions of years ago or by dinosaurs:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
2) http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/08/23/australian-oil-its-quite-young

Starlight doesn't show the universe is billions or millions of years old:

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/star-formation-and-creation
2) http://icr.org/articles/view/214/245

The distance of objects in space has been in dispute for many years Jim. But you Jim, were gullible, you were deliberately ignorant even though you KNEW there is mass propaganda of all kinds. You imply "young earth" creationism is mass propaganda (why else would you say it scares you?) yet it never occurred to you that Darwinists were lying in any way, not even for money? So who's the stupid gullible simpleton? Hint for you skeptic Jim: Don't skeptics (who are nearly all Darwinists) always whine about how there can't be aliens here from other planets because the distance they would have to travel requires an "insane" amount of energy? Hint hint Jim, aliens are clearly still coming and are sighted all the time. Can you take the hint? MAYBE THE STARS AND GALAXIES AREN'T BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS AWAY AS DARWINISTS CLAIM? Super duh? Ultra duh? Massive duh? Big circular reasoning duh? Circular reasoning check Jim: "The stars must be billions of years old because they are billions of light years away, and they are billions of lights away, and they are billions of light years away because scientists said so, and there are no 'young earthers' scientists who say the opposite because I Jim said so, and I'm right because scientists said so, and scientists are right because I said so." Is that science Jim? That's your science Jim, not the science of true Christians.

There was no billions of years old big bomb that no one ever saw and never will that they just must believe in to be real scientists, cuz you anti-Christians said so:

1) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/davesmith_au.htm
2) http://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/090807_sjc.htm
3) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/big-bang
4) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/billion-problems-with-big-bang
5) http://creation.com/no-dark-matter-found-in-the-milky-way-galaxy
6) http://orionfdn.org/papers/arxiv-1.pdf
7) The Cult of the Big Bang
8) http://spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm (is this physicist "insane" Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
9) http://orionfdn.org/papers/predicts-enhanced-galaxy-brightness.htm (is this physicist "insane" too Jim? Can you show us why Mr. Physicist Expert Jim Villanuci?)
10) http://physorg.com/news85310822.html (is physorg.com a creationist website Jim?)
11) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/26666 (is physicsworld.com a creationist website Jim?)
12) http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422085830.htm (is sciencedaily a creationist website Jim?)
13) http://astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8435 (is astronomy.com a creationist website Jim?)
14) And what were you saying about Hubble Jim, as if you understood his scientific teachings or knew them? Was he and Einstein "dumb nuts" and "young earthers" too Jim?

Yet the true "dumb nuts" like you continue to claim INVISIBLE MATTER is everywhere and is evidence of the Big Bang. WHAT DARK MATTER JIM? OUR DARWINIST SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING IT'S NOT THERE, AND BIG SURPRISE SINCE IT'S INVISIBLE. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN WHAT IN INVISIBLE MATTER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO INDIRECT EVIDENCE JIM WHILE MOCKING CHRISTIANS FOR BELIEVING IN GOD WHO TO THOSE ON EARTH IS PURPOSELY INVISIBLE AND FOR WHOM THERE IS COUNTLESS EVIDENCE FOR, AS I'VE PARTIALLY SHOWN HERE? What's wrong with that picture you've given us Jim? Isn't the one who "believe[s] fairies run your engine" you, the guy who believes in invisible matter that no one can detect and in your ignorance keep claiming all scientists say is there?

"Old-earth" radiometric dating is arbitrary and flawed and one form shows the universe is "young" (though 6500 years old is hardly young compared to the age of the oldest humans):

1) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
2) http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
3) http://answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily/volume-058/radiometric-dating-shows-young-earth
4) http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
5) Creation's Tiny Mystery

Man did live and still does live with dinosaurs you idiot.

"Jesus lived with the dinosaurs" you said in sarcasm. MORON: DARWINISTS SAY HUMANS LIVED WITH DINOSAURS AND HAVE BEEN SAYING SO FROM THE BEGINNING YOU IDIOT. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT NORONS LIKE YOU, IGNORANT OF DARWINIST EVOLUTIONARY THEORY STARTED COMING UP WITH NONSENSE LIKE THAT, WHICH DARWINIST SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T USE YOU IDIOT. What they say moron, is that Noah's Ark is absurd, and for those who are more clever, they say it's also a contradictory story. You're so dumb you can't even be bothered to learn the precious theory of your heros correctly. That's how careless you are with the truth. On top of that moron, who in the Hell said dinosaurs were all dead, or that they all magically died when the first "Homo sapien" appeared? Do you know what living fossils are? Now that's not a big surprise you wouldn't though still is hardly excusable since Darwinist mention them now and then, and of course not to often SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CREATURES REFUTE EVOLUTION. Here Jim, more easy work for you that you could have done for yourself:

1) http://creationwiki.org/Living_fossil. Some are also listed in your precious Wikipedia (is Wikipedia a creationist website Jim?)

And how are you ignorant of dragon sightings and other dinosaur sitings, both ancient and modern? Why are you so unfun that you can't look into such stories? Why didn't the Loch Ness Monster sightings get you to start reading about such sightings? Is everyone who lives around the Loch Ness and all the tourists who have been there, who have seen dinosaurs there "nuts" too Jim? Is everyone nuts who sees what you don't?

And you're so stupid you can't figure out that we wiped out most of the dinosaurs by hunting them down for food, sport, or prestige, or that we burned down their habitat, as Aboriginees in Australia and those living in the Amazon still do today, in order to make the land safer for ourselves and to farm? But no, you think, "A comet did it," "A meteor did it," or "A volcano did it," don't you gullible Jimmy? And of course we just happened to survive while all the dinosaurs magically died or shurnk to the size of birds and mice. Nice stupid simpleton "fairy tale" Jim. Here little Jimmy, here unfun Jimmy, here unimaginative Jimmy, here Magic Meteor Jimmy; more help for your hardly imaginitive, lazy mind, lazy eyes and hands:

2) http://cryptozoology.com
3) http://theserenedragon.net/Tales/tales.html
4) http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
5) http://s8int.com/dino1.html
6) http://newanimal.org
7) http://lorencoleman.com/top_cryptids.html
8) http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com
9) http://cryptids.net/cryptopedia/index.htm
10) http://nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html
11) http://genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

And no biased Jim, those aren't all creationist websites; only three are. And even if they were, what matters is if they are true, not, "But those are all Darwinist sites." Even your precious Wikipedia lists cryptids Jim, even they declare them to be "noteworthy" Jim. Even "skeptics", your mentally ill kin, talk about cryptids in Skeptic Magazine, and very often.

And Jim, what happened to mammoths? Don't they count as dinosaurs? Oh, is it because they weren't reptiles? So only reptiles are dangerous? Mammoths were nice huh? And who said reptiles can't be lived near? I think you deluded yourself into thinking that all dinosaurs eat people from all the silly propaganda you were raised on, on those silly dinosaur coloring books, Discovery Channel and Jurassic Park cartoons, and B horror movies. But if only you had paid a little closer attention and put in a little more thought, and realized not all dinosaurs ate flesh you idiot, no dinosaur was said to have eaten humans you idiot, and that Discovery Channel isn't a nonprofit company that shows cartoons because they are just so concerned about teaching you how the entire planet was covered with man-eating Tyrannosaurs. Oh wait, they don't teach that. But you're an idiot who misses the details even when the propaganda is light.

And are Komodo Dragons good enough for you Jim? Do they count as dinosaurs? Duh? Are all the people living near Komodo Dragons dead? No, in fact the Komodo Dragons are the ones who are almost dead, and hardly anyone goes near them except to take a picture.

Your dumb Jim.

Another thing about your Wikipedia, where "the site all you nuts come from":

The long term editors and administrators deliberately try and make alternative scientists look bad regardless of whether or not their theories have been shown to be true, they try to have articles on breakthrough scientists and inventors deleted or made to look silly. You just are ignorant and don't care much about the truth Jim, no offense. You obsess on what you feel is true and believe what merely sounds to be true to you, and don't go further.

Jim, you're being hypocritical: many Darwinist Scientists and non-scientist Darwinists, often simply as you do, say the equivalent of, "It's so," "That's the way it is," "There's [scientific evidence]", and some even say, "Atheist" as their source/reference, referring to themselves. They might as well say, "Me,". You also merely make empty claims backed by mere emotion. You merely claim that oil is formed in such and such way and that's it's millions of years old. That's not evidence let alone scientific evidence. It's no better than your sarcastic stereotypes like,"Jesus made the oil" or "angels make radio waves".

As for your magical scientific evidence, "They all come from the same website" as in "Young Earth Creationists all come from the same website", says who? And what does that even mean? So all "young earthers" contact you via answersingenesis.com? Really? So now it's, "AIG did it!" Jim? That's your new scientific evidence against young earthers? Lame. AIG is staffed by people born from humans raised in many different ways, some who were former atheists or agnostics, not people who were born by a website. "Young Earthers" no more all or mostly come from AIG anymore than Gullibles like yourself all come from Wikipedia (Mr. Wikipedia Referring Jim). AIG refers to scientific evidence from multiple sources, they don't just invent things from a vacuum or say, "The Bible did it," and unlike Wikipedia - which you love and seem to think is evidence in and of itself - does not reject truth in favor of keeping the appearance of truth to suit their feelings.

Further, if we "all c[a]me from the same [web]site," whatever that means, how is that evidence, let alone scientific evidence that "young earth" creationism is wrong? So if "you all" Billions of Years Old Big Bombers came from Wikipedia, TalkOrigins or KKOB that would make you wrong? Well then you must be wrong too; you've contradicted your own arbitrary logic. And oooo, how bad: "They all have an organization, they're all organized," is basically what you said: yeah what a horrible thing Jim, what a sin, gotta really hate ORGANIZATION, cuz ORGANIZATION is so bad, right Mr. Chaos? Why do you chaos believers hate DESIGN, and ORGANIZATION so much? See how illogical your DISORGANIZED CHAOTIC mind is? Your hang ups say some powerful things about your false logic. It's just so bad to make things convenient for you anti-Christians isn't it Jim? If the information was chaotically spread out all over the Internet no doubt your hateful self would then say something like, "They're scatter brained and disorganized." Sorry to make things convenient for you Jim, so sorry to help you out by putting the info all in one place. So evil and unscientific of us. Wait, if that's a sin, why do you love Wikipedia?; yet again your insults backfire. Can't you stop contradicting yourself?

Further, you really don't know Christians or young earth scientists: you said 60+ million Calvinists come from ansswersingenesis. Really? Yes Jim, that's how many "young earth" believers there are. You're truly ignorant. But no, we don't all simply use that website, there are many "young earth" science sites, some of which are linked to the side of my journal and two others I have:

http://creationengineeringconcepts.org
http://answersincreation.org
http://answersingenesis.com
http://christiananswers.net
http://creationwiki.com
http://genesispark.com
http://creationists.org
http://unevolved.org
http://creation.com
http://orionfdn.org
http://nmidnet.org
http://halos.com
http://yecs.org
http://icr.org

So what was that about us all coming from one site Jim? Is what matters is, "Nanny nanny boo boo you only have one site we have more," or, "It's just a few people," "They're all from one house," "They're all from one apartment complex," "They're all from one block," "They're all from one town," "They're all from one city," "They're all from one state," "They're all from one country," "They're all from one side of the planet," "They're all from one planet," "They're all from one solar system," "They're all from one galaxy," "They're all from one galaxy cluster", "They're all human," "They're all from one universe"? No, what matters is: IS WHAT "THEY" SAY TRUE."

Ironically I met a moron even dumber than you who made fun of Christians for being "lazy" she said, because,"notice" she said, "You have more sites", "MORE" Jim, not "They're all from one site." So which nut arbitrary nut should the world, including us "young earthers" believe Jim? Oh God of Science and Religion Jim, which stupid insult defeats us? They can't be both right since they contradict. Hence, why we don't believe your ranting, because that's all you anti-true Christians do. You anti-true Christians show every hour that you are arbitrary, paranoid, racked with bitterness, and that your morality and logic is backwards. Yes "conservative" Jim, you're better than liberals in that you say Christians should have the right to home-school their children under Christianity, but you err when you discriminate against "young earthers", claiming that we're teaching children "to answer wrong on tests" you said. As you would notice if you bothered to READ FIRST OUR TEACHINGS, rather than putting childish words in our mouth, you bully, you would see WE TEACH YOUR STUPIDITY NECESSARILY, since you idiots won't shut up about it. You moron.

If you or others think I've not read the rebuttals to the sites and specific arguments I showed, you're wrong:

1) There isn't a rebuttal for many arguments against your arguments against the Bible. Can you guess the reason why besides some cheap lie you'd first think like, "We'll because you Christians are just nuts, and you say things that don't make sense"? Hints: THEY ARE TRUE AND CLEARLY TRUE, AND WHO IS GOING TO CHALLENGE ANTI-CHRISTIANS WHEN THEY SAY THE SAME THING AS "YOUNG EARTHERS". Were those hints clear enough?

2) I refuted the rebuttals, for example on Yahoo Answers and on Amazon.com. On Amazon.com I refuted a ranting nut like you, only more clever and who actually bothered to at least read what the opposition said, whole books even. I documented it early in my journal here. But what did two Amazon moderators do when I complained about this nut deliberately skewing the ratings of creationist books by repeatedly voting them down, and by repeatedly voting down my replies to him so that they would be hidden, and stalking me?: They deleted not only some of my reviews but dozens of my replies in the comment field to the ranting nut who was clearly stalking me. And what were your Amazon moderator buddies' reason for doing so? The one who bothered to email said it was because what I said was all hateful. Sure. Isn't that just such a good reason to censor replies to a ranting stalker Mr. "Christians Just Say Jesus Did It" Loving Non-Hateful Jim? You hypocrites. Ooops, I shouldn't have said that that's hateful because it hurts your feelings, your loving scientific "Christians are hypocrites for judging right from wrong and have no right to judge others who call themselves Christians or not," feelings. No you didn't literally say that, but you said the equivalent in your ranting one day against a congregation that was judging a former member who was still calling herself a Christian, the same day you said we can only know if someone is gay or straight if we have sex with them. No, ur not nuts and evil at all, not.

And Mr. Jim Pro Science Villanuci, how can there be scientific progress if you slander "young earthers" and misrepresent them and try and block them from being heard? So that's science, to block opposing view points that you can't even be bothered to listen to? So we should just believe whatever you and your Darwinists say is true and ask no questions and never point out any errors we see? It's because of morons like you, Darwinist morons like you, afraid of facing God, that there is gross scientific stagnation and fraud in Darwinist Mainstreamer dominated organizations like Wikipedia, the Smithsonian, NASA, and the U.S. Government in general, the same government you constantly rail against forgetting that it's mostly composed of Darwinists like you.

As usual, you anti-Christians accuse us of what you are guilty of doing, while pretending to be for Christ or neutral, while we really are for Christ, and believe the truth, rather than being neutral.

So is it any wonder that you're stuck below the top 65 radio show hosts in the US? Being a smug, boring, mocker who makes cheap lazy slanderous insults at Christians who spend their time and money helping the poor and needy only gets you so far.

Your the one teaching kids to answer wrong on man's tests, and much worse: wrong on God's tests.

Wikipedia Still Dominated By Hypcoritical Snakeoil Scientists

I posted this rebuke on the discussion page on Venus of Wikipedia:

Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda

Saidsoisms:

"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."

Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.

So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific.

References:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Volume_072/03.mp3
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/venus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp

Evolutionists Approve of Rape, Child Molestion, Thievery and Lying

What has happened when not just your typical ignorant evolutionists, but the most well educated ones do not accept these most basic and obvious and facts, even scientifically evident: that the universe is designed and all the things in it?

What happens when people think mere rhetorical questions, sarcasm, mockery, insults, their skepticism, disbelief or belief or the strength of their belief = evidence?

What happens when people forget the most basic meanings of common and essential words and concepts such as truth, lie, evidence, proof, love, mercy, justice, law, good, evil, material, spiritual, and God?

What happens when Darwin-worshipers, anti-creationists, and moral, scientific, and historical ignoramuses pretend that everyone is his own god? You get a nutty rape-infested liar's paradise:

http://digg.com/world_news/Rapists_and_Child_Molestors_Find_Paradise
http://digg.com/world_news/Darwin_Plaguarized_a_Creation_Scientist

Stupidity, bias, and complacency leads to destruction, not evolution. The fittest won't just survive, but will live forever in peace and joy.

A Critical Critique of the Critical Thinking Skills of Harvard University's Evolutionists

According to some evolutionists at Harvard evolution has been proven true to everyone in the world. Yeah.

Some excerpts from their rant "Snails Caught in Act of Evolution" with my commentaries:

"Walking along the south shore of Great Inagua Island, the Agassiz Professor of Zoology noticed a telltale change in the shells of land snails scattered on a mud flat. He saw large, finger-shaped shells of Cerion excelsior, an extinct snail once widespread in the Bahamas. Nearby were smaller, rounder, vertically striped shells with prominent whorls, belonging to a species called Cerion rubicundum"

He found devolved snails, small and puny. That's some great convincing "proof" of evolution already. Why is it "proof" of MICROevolution (yes, there are more then two kinds despite evolutionists repeatedly "forgetting" that important fact) always comes in less complicated punier versions of their ancestors?

"The history of life on Earth is written in shells, bones, footprints, and imprints found in mountains, canyons, and at the bottom of the seas. Over millions of years, movements of air, water, and continents destroy these silent signs, creating gaps in the natural record, or the fossils are scattered and compressed in different layers of sedimentary rocks."

In other words, "Satan did it; he removed layers of strata and put all those inexplainable fossils, polonium halos, and artifacts that 'shouldn't be' in millions or billions of year old strata and rocks. If not, then God is oh so devious trickster for making us evolutionists assume the earth is billions of years old. He made them draw false conclusions. God made us do it. Forget the fact he let others figure out the truth and he spread it at the cost of their family and lives, they are liars and don't deserve to speak! Cuz!"

Moving on:

" ... That was just a theory, however; Gould hadn't proved it. ... the researchers used a more expensive and time-consuming clock, the decay of radioactive carbon present in the shells. ... The oldest hybrids, those most resembling excelsior, were alive about 17,000 years ago. The youngest fossils, those most resembling the rubicundum invaders, lived on Great Inagua as recently as 3,000 years ago."

Cuz faulty radiocarbon dating which is unreliable after 5000 years according to your own anti-creationists said so: see What about carbon dating? "The dates provided enough proof for Gould and Goodfriend to go public."

Not enough proof for me and saved creation scientists however.

"They published their findings in the Dec. 13 issue of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (and got applauses from ignorant, wannabe scientists desperate for vain exaltation and easy and gullible "chics" and the back pats and prizes of deluded anti-creationists, therefore: Snails Caught in Act of Evolution By William J. Cromie of the Gazette Staff is true.)

So Harvard is a university of critical thinking skills and "higher learning" huh? Evolve into reality already.

Now here's a" real" article on snails: The Historical Development of the Old-Earth Geological Time-Scale

Yet Another Atheist Pretending to Be a Scientist Exposed

On amazon you can find a false review by IslandMoonWatcher (because the amazon moderators are anti-christian bigots who refuse to be fair to Christian authors and film-makers unless maybe you complain). Here my refutation:

"More idiotic drivel from the creationist camp."

Cuz u said so, and whatever the false scientist says who provides no evidence says is true, is true.

"It actually deserves zero stars. Even your own evangelists like Chuck Colson, Phillip E. Johnson and Hugh Ross agree on a "Big Bang", ie; God waved his magic wand about 14.7 billion years ago (or 6,600 years ago....whatever) and "POOF","

Cuz u said so, and whatever the false scientist says who provides no evidence says is true, is true.

"the universe and everything else was magically created out of pixie dust--fully aged of course,"

Who said it was created by pixie dust you slandering hypocrite? Slandering hypocrite where did the big bang come from? Ooops? Blind and bigoted much? Second, contradictory hypocrite, who said it appeared fully aged? Just because something as an appearance of age to you = it's therefore aged? You can that science you ranting, slandering, hypocrite? Hypocrite, if it was created new, then the AGE is not AGED you hypocrite, big duh. Also hypocrite it's already been shown that a new geological feature can have the appearance of being aged, see Tuluman Island you arguer from ignorance.

"like a good cheese."

God has problems making good cheese? Are you stupid? Why would it be hard for God to make good cheese if he can make a universe? Can you make any sense you babbler?

"PLEASE get a life"

Say what about eating your words?

"and leave science to scientists, not fairy-tale mythicists."

Cuz the non-scientist said so, and whatever the non-scientist says is true is true.

"Maybe I'll write a convincing-sounding fairy tale story about Noah and the Flood so I can sell books to the choir and steal a few thousand dollars too! "

So stereotypes = the truth? Hypocrite? So over 40 million Presbyterians and Baptists including their pastors and elders donating their hard earned money, not out of their riches and risking their lives to save others in third world countries and gang plagued areas, not thanks your evil silly Darwin god's racist preaching and you who parrot it like you've done here, are stealing and greedy? Thanks for the deep reasonless hatred that is the heart of a atheist myth-loving evolutionist.

Note: Notice you can't tell what IslandMoonWatcher has "reviewed"? So this is atheist "science" for you: ranting stupidity and falsely accusing others of the very evil the love.

Carl Flygare's Raving "Review" of "The New Answers Book" Refuted

My refutation of the slanderous, blundering, contradictory, hypocrite Carl Flygare who according to his review stats deceived at least 289 of 309 people who read his contradictory rant by his "review" titled "The New Absurdities Book" of The New Answers Book which he didn't have the scientific understanding and knowledge to critique in a scientific way but sloppily bashed anways. He said:

"The New Answers Book channels Jacques Derrida (French philosopher, founder of deconstructionism) and literal biblical inerrancy: everyone's view of reality is invariably shaped and determined by their initial assumptions."

You mean everyone assumes and no one makes a hypothesis or can be logical? That includes you too right?

"Truth is an illusion and no one can ever really know anything - unless it ended up in that mishmash of myths, superstitions, and unverifiable special revelations known as the bible."

Because you said so, and whatever the angry assuming, hypocritical, ranter says is true, is true! Angry ranter said it so I believe it!

"Ken Ham et al present ludicrous conceits in ways that seem, if not actually true, then at least not quite so patently false - truthiness theology or alternate reality apologetics - also known as intentional ignorance 101."

Because you said so, and whatever the angry assuming, hypocritical, ranter says is true, is true! Angry ranter said it so I believe it!

Your scientific method is awesome so far. A mish mash of hatred, slander, arrogance, assumptions, time-wasting sarcasm, atheist and pagan myths and hypocrisy. Moving on.

"Stock-in-tirade for Answers in Genesis (AiG), the creation-cult ministry behind this silly and delusional diatribe."

Yawn.

"Let's start with dinosaurs..."

Yawn.

"Chapter 12 (Ham) asserts that humans and dinosaurs lived alongside one another and are mentioned in the bible - "The Flintstones" as documentary."

Ignorance-loving deciever, see:

http://snipurl.com/dinosalive
http://snipurl.com/ooparts
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/living_fossils.asp
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/429481_tceor/why-i-dont-believe.pdf

Ignorance-lover according to evolution subhumans (who had religion and could paint better than many people today) lived along side dinosaurs. Is that silly to you to? You reek of extreme stupidity. Also hypocrite, Komodo dragons, giant crocodiles, alligators, snakes, giant birds, elephants, rhinos, giant chimpanzees, apes which are much stronger than humans, countless poisonous animals both on the land and see, and giant squids, deadly plants and trees live alongside humans and they attack humans and yet humans flourish all over the world and could easily exterminate them. Are you going to start raving because of that too? Are you running around screaming over the countless massive amounts of deadly poisonous chemicals both artificial and natural, even being released carelessly into the ground, water and air? Seemingly difficult doesn't = silly you hypocrite except to arrogant, childish, immoral nearly knowledge-barren liars like you.

"From an evolutionary perspective they are. Isaiah mentions various feathered Theropod dinosaur descendents - such as eagles, sparrows, owls, ravens, and doves - that we know and enjoy today as birds."

Wrong again gullible deceiver:

"Prior to the publication of the article “Dinosaurs Take Wing” in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Sloan’s article takes the prejudice to an entirely new level and consists in large part of unverifiable or undocumented information that “makes” the news rather than reporting it. His bald statement that “we can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals” is not even suggested as reflecting the views of a particular scientist or group of scientists, so that it figures as little more than editorial propagandizing. This melodramatic assertion had already been disproven by recent studies of embryology and comparative morphology, which, of course, are never mentioned.

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.

The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

Sincerely,

Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Ph. 202-357-33212
FAX 1-202-633-8084
email: olson.storrs@nmnh.si.edu"

That snippet was information made easily available courtesy of answers in genesis, which you slandered.

It's interesting how you present as fact what your own atheist "scientist" evolutionists claim is not true.

"The Book of Job is offered as proof that Sauropod dinosaurs are also depicted."

Evil deceiver look up the words proof and evidence and learn the difference between the two. Hint: Just because it doesn't convince you evil deceiver doesn't mean 100+ million people you don't speak for aren't convinced.

"Job describes a large animal known as "Behemoth" which literally means "beast" or "dumb beast." Here is the key passage: "Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron (Job 40:16-17 KJV)."

"Here's a more accurate translation of the relevant text by Stephen Mitchell, who published a definitive translation of The Book of Job (available on amazon.com): "Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His p**** stiffens like a pine; his t******** bulge with vigor.'"

Wrong again easily deceived deciver:

zânâb
zaw-nawb'
From H2179 (in the original sense of flapping); the tail (literally or figuratively): - tail.

Not penis. Or do you think this is the correct translation?:

And Yahweh said unto Moses, "Put forth your hand, and take (the snake) by the penis."

Grabbed any snake penises lately Carl? Moving on:

"The KJV translation utilizes euphemism to avoid stating the obvious - this passage describes a large male mammal during rutting season. Ken Ham mistakes sexual antics for Sauropod dinosaurs!"

See above arrogant mocker.

"Next time check the supposedly inerrant autographs, if you can find them."

Arrogant mocking hypocrite that got refuted badly for his arrogant mocking hypocrisy says what? So much for your assuredness, so much for your mocking attitude. Isn't that called eating your own words or having your foot in your own mouth? How about punching yourself in the face and falling into the hole you dug?

See above.

"Another dinosaurian deception is the claim that red blood cells were found in a late Cretaceous T. rex (in Orwellian Ham-speak a 'missionary lizard') fossil some 70 million years old. Ham immediately declares victory over the non-existent yet necessary - for fund raising purposes anyway"

See above slanderer. You are ranting in hypocrisy, showing off your baseless opinions - for something as pathetic as shallow backpats from other lazy-minded truth haters like yourself anyways.

"- evil secular humanist and Darwinist conspiracy and declares his cretinous creationist timeline of some 6,000 years triumphant."

Since when does mere mocking sarcasm (especially after showing how massively stupid and gullible you are) count as scientific evidence? Moving on time-waster.

"Next time Ken read the primary literature - Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296 - before putting pen to paper. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil in question contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. 'The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur.' No red blood cells, only protein fragments."

1. You are still missing the point: THE FACT THAT THEY CONTAIN PROTEIN FRAGMENTS IS STILL AMAZING BEING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

2. THE CELLS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN RECENTLY LIVING FOR THEIR TO BE PROTEIN FRAGMENTS STILL THERE. GET A CLUE, GET A CLUE, GET A CLUE. You are living in fantasy land pretending that it is more likely that those proteins are millions of years old rather than from recently living cells. What world are you living in where it is more likely that millions of years old proteins survived millions of years rather than thousands? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Moving on:

3. Eat your words again, from DISCOVER MAGAZINE (the information you TOOK OUT OF CONTEXT):

"When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, 'Jack said, "Prove to me they're not red blood cells." That was what I got my Ph.D. doing. She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules.

"The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur," she wrote in a 1997 paper."

That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, SPARKED A SMALL FLURRY OF HEADLINES (EMPHASIS MINE.)."

Genius can you figure out why it would spark a small flurry of headlines? MOVING ON WITH THE ARTICLE GENIUS:

"...Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, 'most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, "I just don't believe it." She was having a hard time publishing in journals.'"

Genius, can you figure out why HER OPPONENTS LIKE YOU, WITH YOUR STUPID ARROGANT STUBBORN MIND AND HEART WOULD SAY "I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT AND WHY THUGS LIKE YOU WOULD GIVE HER A HARD TIME PUBLISHING WHAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE ARE FACTS? Genius, so what is the big deal that your skeptical friends give her such a hard time with her, as you imply "ordinary findings"? Hypocrite? Can you answer with a logical non-time-wasting answer? Moving on with the article hypocrite:

"Schweitzer was also stymied by her unconventional fusion of paleontology and molecular biology. 'Those are two disciplines we don't usually see in the same sentence,' says Lawrence Witmer, an Ohio University anatomy professor. Techniques that were routine in one discipline seemed odd when applied to the other. "If she was working with modern animals, there wouldn't be anything special about what she was doing," says Horner. But molecular paleontology was unheard-of. "It is a wide-open field that she invented," Horner says.

Soldiering on with minimal funding, Schweitzer continued to hunt for the retention of living tissue longer than scientific theory might predict. When a group of fossil hunters found a cluster of preserved bird eggs in a city dump in Neuquén, Argentina, they originally believed the shells contained nothing but sand. Schweitzer placed the remains under scanning electron and atomic force microscopes and concluded that the 70-million-year-old eggs still held embryos containing intact collagen."

Amazing isn't it genius? THAT "70-million-year-old eggs" would still contain intact collagen, LOL? Yeah, that's really realistic compared to 6000 years. Look everyone 70 million year old collagen and no evidence for it but sarcasm and fancy suits and degrees from like-minded skeptics! Moving on with the article:

"... Her lab was still stacked with unpacked cartons when she opened the cardboard box from the T. rex dig and pulled out the biggest fragment. Looking at it with the eyes of a biologist, she immediately saw it was more than a fossil. Time and history began to unwind. 'Oh, my gosh,' she said to her laboratory assistant, Jennifer Wittmeyer. 'It's a girl. And it's pregnant.'

What Schweitzer saw was medullary bone, a type of tissue that grows inside the long bones of female birds. Medullary bone is produced during ovulation as a way of storing the calcium needed for egg production; then it disappears. 'I looked at it under the dissecting scope,' Schweitzer says. 'There was nothing else it could be.' The medullary bone even contained gaps and mazelike fiber patterns resembling those of modern birds.

Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. 'Everything we've ever tried to do has been an utter guess,' Schweitzer says. For instance, researchers had tried to distinguish a male from a female based on the shape of a creature's body or the size of its head crest. Now they had a way to link gender with morphology and, drawing on parallels with living animals, even with behavior.

The second surprise hit in January 2004. While Schweitzer was attending a departmental taco party, Wittmeyer raced breathlessly into the room. 'You aren't going to believe what happened,' the lab assistant sputtered.

Wittmeyer had been pulling the late shift, analyzing pieces from the T. rex limb. She had just soaked a fragment of medullary bone in dilute acid to remove some calcium phosphate. This was an unusual procedure to carry out in a dinosaur lab. Scientists typically assume that a fossilized dinosaur consists of rock that would entirely dissolve in acid, but Schweitzer wanted to get a closer look at the fossil's fine structure and compare it with that of modern birds. That night Wittmeyer marveled at a small section of decalcified thighbone: 'When you wiggled it, it kind of floated in the breeze.'

Schweitzer and Wittmeyer pondered the meaning of the stretchy sample, feeling mystified and ecstatic. The remains seemed like soft tissue—specifically matrix, the organic part of bone, which consists primarily of collagen. Yet this seemed impossible, according to the prevailing understanding. 'Everyone knows how soft tissues degrade,' Schweitzer says. 'If you take a blood sample and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?'"

Yes genius, so why would there be anything left in dinosaurs? Tell us with your mocking arrogant ignoramus' attitude genius. Say it once again translation scholar who failed his own "be careful" test. Moving on with the article:

"Next Schweitzer examined a piece of the dinosaur's cortical bone. 'We stuck the bone in the same kind of solution,' she says. 'The bone mineral dissolved away, and it left these transparent blood vessels. I took one look, and I just said: 'Uh-uh. This isn't happening. This is just not happening.' She started applying the same treatment to bone fragments from another dinosaur that she had acquired for her dissertation. 'Sure enough,' she says, 'vessels all over the place.'"

BLOOD VESSELS ALL OVER THE PLACE? Genius Carl, explain how that's likely after millions and millions of years? Wow, so no cells, but entire blood vessels. Even better! Moving on with the article genius who loves to argue:

"Less than a month later, while Schweitzer was still collecting data on the soft tissue, came a third score. Wittmeyer walked into the lab looking anxious. 'I think maybe some of our stuff's gotten contaminated, because I see these things floating around, and they look like bugs,' she said. Worried that she would lose her dinosaur blood vessels before she could publish an article about them, Schweitzer rushed to rescue the sample. What she found startled her. Through the microscope she could see what looked like perfectly formed osteocytes, the cells inside bone."

OOOPS??????? HOW DID YOU MISS THAT PART GENIUS? You careless lying hypocrite. You deceived over 280 people according to your review stats. How's that feel being proved a gross, careless, hypocritical liar who was so sure of himself while slandering those who did not do him any wrong but informed him of the truth in order to save his life from an eternity of pain in Hell that he deserved? Or were you lying on purpose? Moving on virtual murderer:

"The past was roaring to life."

Wow Carl, so her no-big deal findings are "The past ... ROARING TO LIFE." Back to your hypocrisy:

"Here is the abstract on the PNAS paper authored by Schweitzer et al:

'Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues."

Wow, and you quoted that because? That really proved something! So immunizing rats with millions of years old biological material is evidence that dinosaurs didn't live alongside man HOW? You remind me of a confused, bitter, hypocritical, babbling, non-sensical "troll" from yahoo! answers (it's a breeding ground for such) who claimed that the universe wasn't designed by God because, because, lol, THE UNIVERSE HAS A MATHEMATIC STRUCTURE. OF COURSE! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT HIGHLY ORDERED UNIVERSES ARE NOT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE ORDERED BY ANYTHING WITH INTELLIGENCE? Yes, that's right everyone, order is not a sign of intelligence, just the opposite according to this bitter "biologist" novangelis. Moving on:

"The lead author of the PNAS paper, Mary Schweitzer, happens to be an evangelical Christian who notes that "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data."

And don't you know that saying that means that Ken Ham is automatically a liar? So far liar your scientific method, your scientific reasoning is turning out to be mere spin. That's childish don't you know? To repeat and say, "bad!" as if you merely saying "bad!" makes whatever it is you are talking about bad. That's non-Christian's kid-reasoning. Immature. Moving on.

"The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore he's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Because she said so. What she said is not in the Bible and not implied in the Bible. It's also common sense ignorance-lover that you can find evidence God exists through the scientific method being that it's a simple thought to think, "If the universe has no design then I should be able to observe with my eyes that it has none" and to then LOOK AT LEAST ONCE LET ALONE REPEATEDLY TO USE THOSE INSTRUMENTS YOUR EYES TO SEE IF THERE IS A DESIGN. You don't even need eyes to determine if you are designed. You can think: "If I am not designed I should not be able to think." and then see with your mind if you can think. It's not hard to determine if you are thinking is it?

And why are you being a hypocrite and quoting a Christian when you are attacking Christ, when you are attacking his people? You can't have it both ways hypocrite. Either Christ lied about Noah and the Flood being real events, or he was telling the truth. Which is it hypocrite? On with your rant:

"Creationists routinely accuse Schweitzer of collaboration, conspiracy, or worse: 'It rips my guts out,' she says. 'These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.' She told one zealot, 'You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run.'"

Don't you know all Christians who claim to be Christians really do have God on their side? Is that what you are saying? Hypocrite? To believe anyone? You are an arbitrary biased hypocrite who touts whatever agrees with your opinion. You are a parrot repeating what other parrots repeat. Haven't you ever heard the expression, "Think for yourself."? More ranting from you:

"Molecular paleontology - an exciting new branch of science - has been opened up by Schweitzer's insights and research; proof that workers of any religious tradition, or none at all, can be good scientists"

Wow, did you read that everyone? You are contradicting yourself again genius: "any religious tradition" NOT "any religious tradition EXCEPT THAT OF CREATIONISTS". So are you admitting that there are hateful, biased, illogical hypocrites practicing scientists who were discriminating against Christians? Finally after thousands of years lol, NOW THERE'S PROOF? So you are admitting that for thousands of years those on your side have been hateful hypocrites yet you think you have anything to teach the ones you've been persecuting after all that time? Wow, thanks for that admission. More ranting from you:

"since science is based on methodological naturalism"

Oh, so the hypocrites are the sole definers and controllers of what philosophy science must be bonded to? Science can't just be a field of knowledge and the testing and measurement of things to find out what they do and are? It has to be "naturalistic" aye? I suppose that belief is scientific in itself too, right? Any evidence for that? Nope. It's all: Because you said so. More of your ranting:

"- not the medieval demon-haunted supernatural religious conceits Ham learned on his daddy's lap."

Demons haunting wasn't an invention of medieval times historical ignoramuses. IT'S A TEACHING FROM THE FIRST KNOWN CIVILIZATIONS AND THAT INCLUDES THE ADVANCED CIVILIZATION OF SUMERIA WHICH YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COMING INTO IT'S ADVANCED STATE OF CIVILIZATION.

Furthermore hypocrites, last time I checked medieval demon-haunted religious Europe conquered the world. Those deluded religious people are advancing the world while atheists fault-find, "Oh look at those evil Christians giving their Bibles to the poor and starving" or "All these starving kids, therefore, 'opens a beer'. More of your rant:

"Chapter 13 (Hodge) explains away the inconvenient fact that human and dinosaur fossils are never found together in the same geologic context."

See above hypocrite. Have fun with all those inconvenient facts you, in your ignorance (or pretension) claimed don't exist. More ranting:

"After a futile attempt to determine the pre-deluge human population (from a few hundred thousand to 17 billion people!),"

Why are you shouting, "!"? If the Bible doesn't say then it doesn't say. Would you have God put every fact in the Bible for your personal convenience and so that it can't be lifted up or covers the entire planet thirty times over? Why are you proclaiming "fault!" because a Christian admits to not knowing something? You hypocrite, I thought Christians were arrogant for never admitting that they don't have an answer for everything or exact answer? See, that's the game of the deluded hypocrite: Damn Christians if they do and damn them if they don't. Massive hypocrite where are the billions of transitional dinosaur fossils that should be around? Did you forget that inconvenient problem you hypocrite? Hypocrite can you answer all of the problems, those dozens upon dozens of problems listed all over the internet that can easily be found? Are you going to start mocking and throwing firts because you can't answer them. Go on, start shouting and running around screaming while laughing. Moving on:

"Hodge regurgitates"

Hypocritical sarcastic parrot-immitator says what? Parrot-immitator are you using slanderous wording to achieve "proof"? Moving on you pretensious hypocrite:

"the tired trinity of hydrodynamic sorting, ecological zonation and differential escape - all of which utterly fail to explain the fossil record."

Because the gullible hypocrite that ate his words over and over along with the thousands of biased years on his side said so. More from the false teacher:

"Any 'new answers' Hodge provides should at least address the following old questions: Why didn't any dinosaurs make it to high ground along with modern mammals (many species were quick and agile enough to do so)?"

Why should they at least address the following old questions which have had the following old answers:

THE WHOLE PLANET WAS FLOODED GENIUS SO WHAT THE HELL WOULD IT MATTER IF DINOSAURS ESCAPE TO "HIGH GROUND". I THOUGHT YOU READ THE WHOLE BIBLE? WHAT'S WRONG? DID YOU GET LAZY, CARELESS, FELT LIKE-ASSUMING AND IMMITATING A SILLY PARROT? It's only the world's best-selling most written about book and has been for years. Why don't you show some respect? And besides my answer it has already been answered by other creationists:

"If the Flood were local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin. It boggles the mind to believe that, after all those centuries since creation, no one had migrated to other parts—or that people living on the periphery of such a local flood would not have moved to the adjoining high ground rather than be drowned. Jesus believed that the Flood killed everyone not on the Ark (Matt. 24:37–39)." - http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp

Incredibly your rant continues:

"Why don't flowering plants appear in Precambrian strata when stromatilites appear in Cretaceous deposits with flowering plants?"

See the above links hypocrite. Also hypocrite, did you know the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate by both hypocrite atheists and Christians? Hypocrite, could it be if that the Bible is repeatedly shown to be historically (and that includes prophetically) accurate, THAT IT IS THEN TRUSTWORTHY? My specific point is, just because you can't figure out a few things wouldn't mean that God or anyone who shows themselves trustworthy can't be trusted. Big duh there. Or would you like to argue that if you can't answer all my questions and do all the leg and mind-work for me, after repeatedly telling me the truth, that you don't qualify as trustworthy? How arrogant and stupid. Ranting:

"Why are some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, found in many geologic strata? "How were organisms (such as brachiopods), which are very similar hydrodynamically (nearly the same size, shape, and weight), still perfectly sorted?"

You're right, that totally shows the Bible to be wrong that mollusks are not found in one strata and labeled primitive and obsolete but continue to exist as "living fossils" along side man. Would you like to crack open a 100% alcholoic bottle of beer and be even more contradictory? But let's play your lazy game: Take a box, put some lumps of clay with crevices all over it, put in some plastic dinos and sand. Fill and shake it. Notice the sand is both on top of the clay and wherever and on the bottom? Should they only sink to the bottom or pile up top in the crevices? If so, why?

More ranting:

"Why don't pterosaurs (flying reptiles) appear alongside bats and modern birds?"

See above links hypocrite. Also hypocrite why do you assume the entire Earth has been completely examined? Don't you know new animals of all kinds are still being discovered? Furthermore do you know what hunting is? Do you know what disease is? Ugh, more ranting:

"How were coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long preserved intact with other fossils below them?"

BY MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TEMPERATURE CHANGES, EXPOSURE TO ELEMENTS RUBBING AGAINST THEM, AND EARTHQUAKES. YES, THAT IS SO MUCH MORE LIKELY THEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Are you ok? You are a very confused contradictory person. More ranting:

"How were fossil artifacts of living animals such as footprints and burrows also sorted?"

The hell are you talking about? Anyways see above links hypocrite. Wow, more laziness:

"Why are no human contrivances found except in the very uppermost strata?"

Supercrite, see above links (or instead of being lazy search the net, read books, watch videos, not just the ones that please your itching ears, that match your personal opinions based on your emotions and hastily gathered "facts"). Super wow, he is still talking:

"Any civilization capable of shipbuilding should have left behind tools or buildings intermingled with trilobite or dinosaur fossils! But then the entire ghastly Noachian global genocide is, thankfully, a myth."

SEE, ABOVE, LINKS. Oh, my, wow, still ranting:

"How about the age of the earth..."

How about it fake historian? More!:

"Chapter 9 (Riddle) attempts to cast doubt on the incontrovertible scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old."

No arrogant hypocrite who thinks he speaks for all Christians and everyone in the universe, he didn't just cast doubt he helped millions of Christians add to the evidence that people like you are lazy-minded liars. Yet more laziness:

"The most direct means of calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This technique measures three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or PB-204). A plot is then constructed of the resulting PB-206/PB-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204 ratios. If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point. Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in samples after they form since these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium (U-238 decays to Pb-206 and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a terrestrial rock or meteorite, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time. If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. From the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time (age) which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into discrete objects."

See Conflicting Ages of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood. Woah, you're still ranting:

"A 'Young Earth Creationist' (YEC), such as Riddle, would object to the assumptions noted above. However the test for these assumptions is a plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if these requirements have not been met, then there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line. Every time a credible researcher or lab runs these tests on valid samples and plots the results, the data points fall on a line. Not only is the age of the Earth determined, but the underlying assumption is validated - something creationists, including Riddle, never tell the reader. Scientific case closed. The Earth is old, immensely old, deep time old, 4.54 billion years old. Deal with it."

See above pdf and links hypocrite. Are you able to you pass your own hypocritical standards and answer every point we bring up with a refutation? Amazing, you're still ranting (which is notable because when I posted long "reviews" like yours amazon moderator and yahoo answers hypocrites would delete them repeatedly and right away):

"The remaining chapters are equally shallow and inane but this review is already pushing size limits. Note to AiG: include some reality-based (honest) answers in the next edition - and leave deconstructionism up to Derrida."

understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. AVOID SUCH PEOPLE. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for THEIR FOLLY WILL BE PLAIN, as was that of those two men. You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra--which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. - 2 Timothy 3:1-13, ESVB

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation." - Matthew 23:29-36, NIV

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37-39

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." - Proverbs 18:2

"A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against Yahweh." - Proverbs 19:3

"Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment" - Jesus.