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.

More Historical Facts Atheists Avoid Like the Plague

100 Famous
Bible-Believing Scientists

http://unmaskingevolution.com/29-100_scientists.htm

Yet Another Hysterical Anti-Christian Displays His Massive Stupidy for Us

While reading the reviews for a book called The Historical Jesus I came across a typical anti-Christian rant in need of a smack down. In quotes are sections of the rant by "A Customer" and I've replied to them:

The title of his review:

"Please! Faith and historical research don't mix well."

Bcuz! You Said! So! So is that your atheist science lesson for the day? Why then do so many evolutionists believe faith that evolution is true mixes with historical research? Do you even know what faith means? Hint: It doesn't mean "belief without evidence" which you clearly think it means from reading your stupid rant.

"By A Customer"

What's wrong, didn't you have time enough to tell us who you were? Aren't you proud of your scholarly scientific review?

"If this is the 'factual' basis for the historicity of Jesus, then Christianity is in trouble."

Bcuz u said so, and whatever the atheist says is true is true. Not very scientific are you?

"What a joke."

Bcuz u said so, and whatever the atheist says is true is true. Not very scientific are you? Hint: Evidence doesn't mean, "Whatever you feel is true." Use a dictionary and stop being lazy.

"The 'evidence' -- ?"

That's your "evidence" so far --? Atheists, always wasting time with their stupidity and pretension.

"Well, it isn't there."

Am I the only one who feels like there a fly buzzing in my ear, or is it just me?

"I was very excited to read this book;"

Because you had new material to find imaginary faults in.

"it was recommended to me by thoughtful, intelligent Christians who I greatly respect."

I smell self-serving flattery.

"But the book was a real shock -- "

Holy mother of mothers! Really! Shocking!

"the author contradicts himself all the time,"

Bcuz ye said so, and whatever ye say is true is true bcuz ye said it.

"the author uses the New Testament primarily to 'prove' the truth of the New Testament -- Hm..."

Hmmmm, he's trying to "prove"? So because it didn't convince your illogical self it wasn't proof to anyone else lol? Did you forget the meaning of proof too? Damn you're an arrogant babbler aren't ya?

Can you shut up already or come up with evidence? You're wasting my time.

"That's some fishy logic, no?"

No, whatever you say is not true bcuz u you posted a rhetorical question. Furthermore, questions do not equal evidence in and of themselves, sarcasm does not equal evidence in and of itself. You are really dying to end up in Hell aren't you? Tell us all wise one where he says, "The NT is true bcuz it says it is true". Show us. Oh, you can't, bcuz you're a careless liar.

"I strongly suggest that those who are earnestly interested in the history of Christianity and its beliefs concerning Jesus -- "

And we saved Christians forgiven of our since care what an opinion-bashing ranter strongly suggests bcuz?

"who are not biased a priori by their 'faith'"

Insane one why did you put "faith" in quotes? Are you stupid? So you don't truly believe that they have faith, LOL? Well what do you think it is then, logical belief? Is that it Mr. Confused?

Mr. A Priori do you think you are smart because you said "a priori" rather than "because" like a non-vain person who truly cares about making sense and helping others (rather than being a show off) would have said? It makes you look stupid and vain to me and the millions of Christians on my side.

And what is your evidence that the author is biased? Do you wan't us to just have, lol, "faith" that you're right because you have "faith" that you're right?

Contradictory one did you notice you are biased because you have faith that the Bible isn't true? Blind much? Again, look up the meaning of the word faith before spitting all over everyone. Furthermore contradictory one, are you really that stupid as to think 100+ million Christians cannot think logically because they trust that God's word is true based on the logical things it states? You're seriously that stupid? Then you who have faith God and Jesus do not exist can never be logical either.

"which immediately necessitates certain conclusions --"

Trust "immediately" (the hell?) necessitates certain conclusions? Genius, did you mean, trusting in something means you conclude that something is true? Was that so hard to say Mr. Word Salad Master?

And why are you telling us that it's immediate? Hey, I've got some useless information to waste your time with while I'm pretending to be smart too: If you say something you've immediately said something! Neato huh?

Now, your point that trust means you have concluded certain things, IS? So if an evolutionist trusts that evolution is true based on his reading of books endorsing evolution means he is biased? Huh? Can we say, "contradiction" or how about "I'm ranting and have made no point"?

"then check out the work by [blah, blah blah, blah blah], and [blah bleah]."

No thanks, clearly if they have as careless garbage research skills and moral logical as you aren't worth reading.

"The bottom line: the authors of the New Testament simply used Old Testament, Pagan, and Greek sources to construct their jesus tales."

Bottom line: saying "bottom line" with the feeling that you are oh so wise doesn't cut it. Bottom line: Bcuz u said so does not equal evidence. Bottom line: Parroted tales like yours does not equal evidence. Bottom line: Fancy word salad does not equal evidence, let alone nonsensical word salad. Bottom line: You've wasted out time again. Bottom line: You are still sinning against God and pretending he doesn't exist despite the clear evidence the universe has been designed and that Jesus was a good and truthful man. Bottom line: You need to learn the definitions of the words you use before acting like you know what you are talking about.

"It is all there -- for anyone willing to look for the truth."

It is all there -- for anyone willing to look for the truth. Woah, I can say that to you too! That must make me right!

Wikihypocrisy - Darwinists Protect Their False god Darwin

Well did they bury my edits? A very openly gay moderator who instantly erased my edits based on his "doesn't appear to be constructive" feelings did so repeatedly, he even went so far as to delete my rebukes on his talk page. You can tell that this "moderator" (Allstarecho) is trolling because he literally will delete any condemning info about Darwin if he catches a change within seconds. No one is going to tell me this guy is making careful judgments with reasonless personal attacks like that. Ironically I was banned for supposedly attacking him by pointing out his hypocrisy and trolling. That's Darwin-worshipping pleasure-addicts for you. On top of that there was a blatant self-admitted troll who got rid of the criticism on the Origin of Species page. Did any Darwinists undo his dirty work? Nope, they sanction him. It's just like Yahoo Answers where the top moderators use stalkers and harassers to do their dirty work.

I Wonder If the Atheist Evolutionists Will Allow This Relevant Info

I decided to add some important information to the wikipedia pages on evolutionist "Eiseley" and "Origin of the Species" concerning Darwin's credit thievery. I wonder if they've buried it already.

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

Pirate Bay and Mininova, Self-Defeating, Anti-Christain, Money-Loving Hypocrites

While posting various comments and links to my sites on piratebay, in order to be able to afford to safely upload to it without the authorities being able to pester me, some hypocrite or hypocrites decided to report me. Why hypocritical?

1. I was posting critical information that the world needed to know but is suffering and dying from not knowing: That the teaching of micro-evolution is a destructive life-threatening teaching, and that Darwin's very theft of his idea of natural selection from a Christian Creation Scientist was clear evidence that atheists could not be trusted to tell the whole truth let alone give credit to whom it belongs.

2. On piratebay exists massive amounts of space-wasting banter totally unrelated to the torrents uploaded. Often the comments or chatting is very foul. But who is reporting them for spreading hateful filthy comments that kids can easily see? No one.

3. Furthermore, you can find a huge amount of links promoting sites other than piratebay and using porn to do it.

4. Furthermore, some of my posts were relevant need-to-know comments, far more relevant than "seed plz" or mere opinions like "christians are stupid" or "great vid".

5. As can be seen from one of my blog entries, I not only defended the likes of piratebay, but I directly defended them on youtube. Some appreciate huh? But since they have played the part of Nebal; attacked the one who defended them.

6. I joined their suprnova forum to ask why I wasn't able to post urls and a moderator named Dr. something or other insulted me for asking and said basically, "You can!" and spammed his personal site which was totally unrelated to my post. Another member then posted a reply and severely insulted me for asking and excused his insult by saying that my post would be trashed anyways. I rebuked the moderator and told him that merely saying, "You can" was not evidence that I could post urls and that he was spamming. For that he banned me and his reason was "Idiot". He banned me again when I signed up a few minutes afterwards and again his reason was "Idiot" despite me not having posted anything. This is his typical behavior I found out. A few minutes later I discovered why piratebay was giving me error messages when I tried t post, it turned out that snipurl.com was banned from being posted. That sure makes me an idiot doesn't it?

7. I also learned that on that forum foul language reigns supreme as well as making jokes about abusing children, and that includes raping, molesting and murdering them.

It was days later that I then began my hours long campaign of "spamming" myself, but of course, good spam is an abomination to the wicked, and so I was banned.

And how about mininova? Is that a good site? No way. I had uploaded a book I wrote showing how all anti-Christian arguments used against Christians failed. On one attempt however I accidentally mistyped something and so unseeded the torrent. For that alone I was banned. Nope, no bigotry there. I made another account later, and one of the forum moderators got anally upset out on me when I asked for the keys to various programs. Why? He implied I was lazy and that they could be found despite the fact that I looked everywhere and could not find them which was why I was posting my request in the first place, and despite the fact that unlike so many I had carefully typed out the program names and version numbers and their location and said I was disabled. He also had to say that he didn't think anyone would help me. Isn't that just so helpful? Who cares about his stupid ignorant opinions? But this moderator banned me for pointing out he was being stupid. On top of that, for no logical reason, the word "eternian" is designated as a swear word on mininova. Imagine that, a Christian denomination name is a swear word, but not the ones of proven murderous groups: Islam, Muslim, Catholic, Mormon and atheist.

I also signed up again to use mininova's forums about two days ago. It was stupid. There was no explanation as to why you couldn't edit your forum profile, and no link or button to go directly to the forum posts. When I clicked the link to see the newest posts I got an error message. I got a few more error messages when I tried to do other things there. It was a big waste of time.

In conclusion, the owners and keepers of piratebay and mininova are clearly anti-christian bigots.

That's atheists and evolutionists for you, self-defeating, greedy, reasonless brutes.

You know who is better than piratebay and better than mininova?: Torrentreactor. They don't engage in truth-hiding and it's a lot more useful. I like Btjunkie better too.

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.

The Evolutionary Advantage of Christianity

I'm in the middle of reading an article titled Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins by Madeleine Bunting of The Guardian news magazine and have come across various statements in it:

"Dennett cites those who argue that faith improves cooperation within groups (though not between them). This argument raises the crucial question of whether, in an era of globalisation and limited resources, religion has outrun its evolutionary advantage."

Christians successfully persuade people of hostile life-destroying groups such as the atheist group to be cooperative all the time, and help millions from various anti-Christian groups (to varying degrees) each year to become saved Christians or for a while, outwardly peaceful Christians. Since when have atheists spontaneously decided to become Christians? Since when as any non-Christian? They don't, they become Christians because of either the Bible, penned by Christians under God's control, and / or because of recorded or in person persuasions made by Christians after the Bible was written. It is false to claim Christians only improve cooperation between their groups. Furthermore Christians helped invent or nearly entirely some historians believe the modern scientific methods. And many Christians are scientists or inventors who have helped improve living standards for people all over the world. Some are doctors and nurses who help non Christians and often free of charge. So none of that improves cooperation outside of Christians? Wow. Now that is major historical ignorance and ignorance of the common place things that happen around you. Talk about opinion-obsessed and bigotry.

Also from the article:

"No one argues that it's a useful project for year 10s to research flat-earth theories, so why intelligent design?"

Why doesn't the deliberate history and science ignorant find out instead of asking a question that has been repeatedly answered by the Bible for 6000 years? Why doesn't he read the scientific evidence from anti-creationists and creationists which has been put out for the past 100 years or 6000? And is the type of ignoramus who thinks asking a sarcastic question = scientific evidence? And is the type of bigot who believes only "scientific evidence" counts as evidence? There is no scientific evidence for micro evolution. He would know that if the ranter bothered to read more than his own ancient parroted myths of walking fish with toes interested in sex and eating popping out of magical puddles from an imaginary billions of years old magical bomb from no where.

Also from the article:

"All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat. It's a point that escapes Dawkins."

It's a point that escapes you too Miss Bunting.