A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda

Downloaded twice, and also attempted to fix the .rar archive. Can you please re-post a working version?

Este librito es una mierda fascistoide; la ciencia y la evolución humana no necesitan a ningún dios; necesitamos darle de comer a todo el mundo, resolver el problema del hambre, las enfermedades y la miseria y el materialismo dialectico de la mano de Marx, Engels y Lenin han hecho más por todo eso que todas las religiones juntas en toda la evolución humana. Dios tiene que dar muchas explicaciones...

Another bullshit about good God and bad Darwin! ha-ha

Exposing the lie that is creationism.

This is a link to a site that easily refutes every single criticism that creationists have against evolution.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Here is a direct link to refute the above assertation of evolution being materialistic and against god.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html

"Response:

1. This is simply a lie. There are numerous scientists who embrace both evolution and God. They believe not only that God created a universe in which evolution occurs naturally but that God works constantly in their and other people's lives. The claim otherwise by Johnson, Dembski, and others is an overt rejection of other people's religious beliefs.

2. This claim applies not only to evolution; it logically should apply to people who believe in materialism or methodological naturalism in any science or any aspect of life. All people who believe that God does not intervene to keep planets rotating, cause winds, or make sodas fizz, according to this claim, must be atheists. It is obvious that they are not. Many famous scientists were and are devout Christians who use, in their work, exactly the same sort of naturalism that evolutionary science uses.

3. From a practical point of view, the people who make this claim are denying more than advocating a role for God. They say that theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution because it does not show God acting directly. For them, a God that does not act supernaturally is equivalent to no god at all. But nothing supernatural is happening around me right now; in fact, I have never seen anything supernatural occur. Does that mean God is not around? According to Johnson and others who believe his claim, God is irrelevant for almost all of our lives."


"YOU WILL FIND THIS BOOK EXTREMELY RATIONAL, LOGICAL & IRREFUTABLE UNLESS YOU ARE BIASED."

This is called the fallacy of poisoning the well. [rolls eyes] Like the other cretinism "book" on here this is nothing more than pseudo-science at its worse.

Didn't you know, Lilianitalil? There is no working information on creationism, its all just religion.

Have any of you ever noticed that there are hardly any, or even no books at all except for their religious myths, that explain how creationism works? Like this one they mainly try to discredit evolution instead. This shows that they actually don't have anything at all to back up their religious beliefs so they have to attack that which they mistakenly believe contradicts these believes. So-called "social-Darwinism" has absolutely NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution at all. It is a red herring, nothing more.

Also, by some of the replies, from creationists, prove that concepts like democracy, with freedom of speech and belief, are not really theistic traditions either. In that they won't allow their beliefs to be questioned to closely. Science is all about questioning, and that which can't stand up to it, like creationism, is discarded. Evolution stands up to any real, and serious study, and it is an outright lie to claim otherwise. As I've stated before, and will always continue to state is that creationists are intellectually dishonest.

God is an internal problem. You choose to believe or not, and it should be OK either choice.
I am afraid evolution is a matter of objective truth. I don't know whether or not God exists, but if He (She?) exists, He could very well let the world evolve in the way Darwin discovered.

With their stupid arguments, creationists provide a huge de-service to religion.
I agree with Foub: a true intellectual thinks with his own brain and will never let himself caught in such BS as the book presented above.

The real deal of such books is undermining democracy and its "by-products" such as freedom of speech or plainly and simply freedom. You cannot easily manipulate people that think and people that are free.

By reading the above, about this "book", I get the impression that creationists are confusing social Darwinism with evolution. The facts are that SD has absolutely NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution since much of it actually pre-dates Darwin's theory. Just as stellar evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

What creationists don't know about science could fill the Grand Canyon..... And than some.... One has to feel sorry for their willful ignorance.

There is something of practical atheism at the bottom of all sin" (note on Psalm 14:1). We sometimes think that there was never such a time of unbelief in God as ours. But we are wrong to think that. The Scriptures, and the pages of history, show us that the great masses of humanity have always rejected God. And those who follow the Godless, Christless, churchless masses are called "fools" by the Bible.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 53:1).


Heavens Declare, Inc.
http://www.heavensdeclare.org

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19:1)

Did you know that there are currently around 152 DIFFERENT creation myths in the world. What evidence do you have that yours is the "true" one?

I don't have to give any evidence to give proof.

Look into the mirror and ask yourself where do you come from.

If you want to believe you evolved from a species of monkeys it's up to you. But then, which species? African baboon, the Asian baboon, chimpanzee, gibbon, the orangutan...?

cool_breeze:

Yes, you do have to give evidence as your proof. Otherwise you are only speculating.

Belief is not evidence, nor is it proof of anything real.

I don't have to look in a mirror to know where I came from. I came from my parents. Do you ever look in the mirror and ask where your god came from?

You still have the wrong idea of what evolution is. It doesn't say at all that we come from monkeys. It does say that we SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH THE OTHER PRIMATES. The last of which was the chimps, we also share around 99% of the same genetic code as well with them, they went one way and we went the other around 7 million years ago. That common ancestor shared one with monkeys around 25 to 50 million years ago

BTW, you really should study this site so you won't continue to use so many fallacies as your arguments.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

ANGEL375:

Yet another fallacy exposed. There is an insult here and you're the one who is committing it. BTW, what field are you a scientist in? It certainly isn't biology. You wouldn't have been able to graduate from any accredited university while not knowing what evolution is because it is the entire basis of modern biology. What is it with creationists and their incorrect belief that if one is a scientist, and an expert in one field, that this makes them an expert in all fields, even those that are completely unrelated? You don't ask a mathematician about evolution, you ask a biologist instead. Someone who is an expert in that field. Asking a mathematician about biology is just plain silly. This is commonly referred to as the fallacy of Appealing to Authority.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

"Claim CA612:
Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 4.


Response:

1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay."

Here is a link to a creationist's site that warns other creationists not to use certain arguments against evolution since they have been so throughly discredited that to continue to use them would only show the creationist to be a fool.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

Doux dingues d'allumés fanatiques : comme moi, vous êtes des primates !
Mais, dans votre cas, il semblerait que l'évolution ait subie des accidents /
Du bonobo (pan pariscus) vous n'avez -pas même - l'intelligence.
Non, votre image est trop médiocre pour que votre dieu en ait l'image !

Foub

Of course you came from your parents, and where do your parents came from?...oh ok, I was referring to your ancestors. You said "we share a common ancestor with other primates" So you agree that you descended from an ancestries of primates and your ancestor was chimpanzee. As for me I share a COMMON ANCESTOR ADAM AND EVE first man and woman GOD created.

I don't have to look in the mirror and ask where GOD came from. I look in the mirror and praise the Creator my GOD for creating me. My belief in GOD does not rest on logical proof or tangible evidence. If I know where GOD came from I would have or share the same attributes my GOD have.

Evolutionists do not believe in GOD. Their belief is evolutionism a form of religion. A religion of common set beliefs, doctrines and practices codified with evolutionistic laws. Your god is Evolutionism.


Easily refuting the Evolutionists.

How did life begin?

ORIGIN OF LIFE * PALEONTOLOGY * EVOLUTION * AGE OF EARTH

http://anointed-one.net/begin.html


The Predicament of Evolution

http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/index.htm


Easily demolish arguments of all evolutionists.

Intelligent Design Facts

http://www.y-origins.com/?gclid=COW5m8qt4I0CFQPrYgodJHF0mA

Evolution: Facts, Fallacies and Implications

http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.html?gclid=CJjL9deq4I0CFR1kYQodUwWjeQ

You still got it wrong. I DIDN'T say any such thing. I guess that you just don't understand what common descent actually means. [rolls eyes]

As for your Adam and Eve comment.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution.html

"Evolutionists do not believe in GOD."

Even theistic evolutionists? [smiles]

"Their belief is evolutionism a form of religion. A religion of common set beliefs, doctrines and practices codified with evolutionistic laws. Your god is Evolutionism."

You're making it way too easy to expose your fallacies. Admit it, you have nothing. You're just getting so much wrong about evolution, that like I had said before, that you're either doing it on purpose, or you're really just that ignorant about it.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html


"How did life begin?

ORIGIN OF LIFE * PALEONTOLOGY * EVOLUTION * AGE OF EARTH

http://anointed-one.net/begin.html"

Evolution ISN'T about the origin of life at all, it is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. So, the "question" posed by your site about first answering about the origin of life is totally irrelevant.

BTW, if you didn't know is that design, intelligent or otherwise, is still an evolutionary process. Ask any engineer what they go through when they design something. Ask them about the revisions, and the tweaking and how later some may even add "improvements" to it. If it just "pops" into existence whole and complete than it isn't design. Anyways so-called "intelligent" design is nothing more than creationism dressed up like a cheap whore trying to look respectable.

Did you know that many high end universities are no longer accepting applications for the sciences from students who went to religious schools? It turns out that they had to also teach them the very basics of science since they never learned anything true about science in their old schools. You're more than proof that this new policy is correct. No wonder America is ranked so low in education while countries, that share the same educational system, rank so much higher. America is turning into an anti-science theocracy. I fear for its future.

How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this ignorant of even the basic tenants of science? You're asking mathematicians about biology. [rolls eyes]

You're still confusing so-called social Darwinism with biological evolution. Also, if you want to talk implications of a belief you just have to look at the history of any theistic religion to see the great evil done with it. After all, religion IS what Man uses to create god in his own image.

Also, you're sites are like going to the KKK and asking what they believe of other races or even about the Holocaust. [rolls eyes yet again.]

Many of these sites have been more than discredited and even the advocates as well, I.E. "dr." Behe was even exposed, under oath, in a court of law and had to admit that he didn't have any real evidence that so-called "intelligent" design was real. That he was making it up.

I can now say that without ANY shadow of a doubt that I can, and have many times already, countered ANY and ALL lies that you can assert against evolution. You are still repeating the same lies that I had earlier exposed so this proves that in fact you know absolutely NOTHING about evolution. You are really making a big fool of yourself by expressing your ignorance so openly. It makes me wonder if you aren't a little "slow" as well. I feel sorry for you. No wonder you need an invisible skydaady to give your life any meaning. Luckily I don't suffer from your inferiority complex.

<<You still got it wrong. I DIDN'T say any such thing. I guess that you just don't understand what common descent actually means. [rolls eyes]>>

I understand alright, what you asserted, that we "SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH THE OTHER PRIMATES" Your common descent means that you share a linage with other primates i.e.
species of apes, monkeys, chimps. And your forefathers, if I may say so was a species of ape and at some point turned into man. Since you don't believe in GOD, therefore you don't believe that we share a common ancestor Adam and Eve the first man and woman GOD created.

<<"Evolutionists do not believe in GOD."

Even theistic evolutionists? [smiles]>>

This discussion is on the topic of Evolutionist not theistic evolutionist. Are you having mental block?

Since you brought up the topic of "theistic evolutionists"

Theistic Evolution says one of two things:

That, while there is a God, He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

Or, that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path which it took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

Theistic Evolution is vague fraud with dishonesty.

<<so-called "intelligent" design is nothing more than creationism dressed up like a cheap whore trying to look respectable.>>

Either you are sarcastic or plain stupid. Your knowledge of evolution display vagueness. Lacking definite shape, form, or character, just play of words and blowing 'hot air'.

Every intelligent design has a intelligent designer. A designer devises a design, a plan, a blue print. From the blue print the designer built.

I am an engineer by profession. I know what is revisions, tweaking and making improvement to a machine. When you send your car to a car mechanic to tune and make improvement to the engine, does that tantamount to evolutionary process? A lame argument and too simplistic.
A Ford cannot turn into a Cadillac.

Your arguments is like asserting: Put the parts of a timepiece in a can and shake it for a thousand years and by the thousand years and in the process the shake would caused the parts to be put together by chance and accidentally caused the timepiece to start ticking.

Your arguments are mostly sweeping statements,i.e. <<How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this ignorant of even the basic tenants of science? You're asking mathematicians about biology. [rolls eyes]>> BTW *tenants should be tenets!

<<Also, you're sites are like going to the KKK and asking what they believe of other races or even about the Holocaust. [rolls eyes yet again.]>>

Again making irresponsible dishonest statement.

<<Many of these sites have been more than discredited and even the advocates as well, I.E. "dr." Behe was even exposed, under oath, in a court of law and had to admit that he didn't have any real evidence that so-called "intelligent" design was real. That he was making it up.>>

I have not quoted Dr Behe works.

Anyway, pls substantiate, give link.

F A Q

A wide variety of questions are sent in each week.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

F A Q

A wide variety of questions are sent in each week.

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

Why is it that those who don't believe in evolution are also the LEAST evolved of our species?

"I understand alright, what you asserted, that we "SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH THE OTHER PRIMATES" Your common descent means that you share a linage with other primates i.e.
species of apes, monkeys, chimps.

And your forefathers, if I may say so was a species of ape and at some point turned into man."

We ARE a species of ape.

"Since you don't believe in GOD, therefore you don't believe that we share a common ancestor Adam and Eve the first man and woman GOD created."

Who said that I didn't believe in God? I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god. I'm waiting for real evidence. So far all I've seen is those who use their religions to make their god in their own image.

"This discussion is on the topic of Evolutionist not theistic evolutionist. Are you having mental block?"

No, but clearly you do.

"Since you brought up the topic of "theistic evolutionists"

Theistic Evolution says one of two things:

That, while there is a God, He wasn’t directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to Atheistic Evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

Or, that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were multitudinous. He led life step by step down a path which it took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree of Life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to Special Creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

Theistic Evolution is vague fraud with dishonesty."

Funny thats what creationism is exactly. A fraud. The only reason I brought up theistic evolutists is to refute your claim that evolutionists all don't belief in a god. You relly should have a look at the links to the site I provided in regards to creationist's claims against evolution, and of course the link to the creationist's site that warns, those like you, to not use certain arguments because they have been so throughly discredited. Not to do so just proves just how much of a fool you truly are.

"Either you are sarcastic or plain stupid. Your knowledge of evolution display vagueness. Lacking definite shape, form, or character, just play of words and blowing 'hot air'."

I've already more than shown just how intellectually dishonest creationists truly are, you are only prove it more so.

"Every intelligent design has a intelligent designer. A designer devises a design, a plan, a blue print. From the blue print the designer built."

Who designed god? That is why design is still an evolutionary process.

"I am an engineer by profession. I know what is revisions, tweaking and making improvement to a machine. When you send your car to a car mechanic to tune and make improvement to the engine, does that tantamount to evolutionary process? A lame argument and too simplistic.
A Ford cannot turn into a Cadillac."

And neither does evolution say anything about a cat turning into a dog either. An organism can evolve into a NEW species though. I've already brought that fact up beforehand and thus negates any and all claims you make otherwise. Look at flight. It has evolverd in insects, reptiles/birds, mammals, and maybe even in some fish. You wouldn't call them all birds, even though the bible does say that they are.

"Your arguments is like asserting: Put the parts of a timepiece in a can and shake it for a thousand years and by the thousand years and in the process the shake would caused the parts to be put together by chance and accidentally caused the timepiece to start ticking."

Hardly. That isn't what evolution is about. It is about natural selection and that isn't random in the manner you are mis-interpreting it to be.

"Your arguments are mostly sweeping statements,i.e. <<How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who is this ignorant of even the basic tenants of science? You're asking mathematicians about biology. [rolls eyes]>> BTW *tenants should be tenets!"

Well, you have more than proven just how irrelevant you truly are. I made the effort to learn about creationionism, you could at least learn about evolution from a creditable source because it is quite clear that you in fact know absolutely NOTHING about it. You're adding things to it that have nothing at all to do with it.

"Again making irresponsible dishonest statement."

Yes, you certainly are.

"I have not quoted Dr Behe works."

Maybe not, but he is a leading "expert" in the field and one of many who have already been openly discredited as the frauds they truly are. That is how peer review works, to weed out the nutcases like Behe and makes sure that scientists remain honest. This is also how they weed out hoaxes as well. They are self-correcting, unlike creationism which will accept belief alone as evidence.

"Anyway, pls substantiate, give link."

I have been providing links all along.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301953_pf.html

I love it when creationists misuse stats in order to try and refute evolution. Do you know that the odds against you existing as you are right now are far more astronomical than even those against evolution? They are so high, that it is a fair assumption to make that in fact you don't exist at all since the numbers "prove" it and since you put such store in these numbers you have no choice other than to stop existing because to continue on would mean that you are contradicting your own beliefs. [BIG smile]

As to that creationism.org site you posted. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh. I almost forgot to address that quote mining that creationists try to use to disprove evolution as well. Yet another of their dishonest tactics. This gives certain quote that creationist love to use to show that even evolutionists, or famous scientists don't belief in evolution and then puts the quote in full to show that in fact they do believe in it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

@Foub Date: 06 Aug 2007 15:10

<<I can now say that without ANY shadow of a doubt that I can, and have many times already,
countered ANY and ALL lies that you can assert against evolution. You are still repeating
the same lies that I had earlier exposed so this proves that in fact you know absolutely NOTHING about evolution. You are really making a big fool of yourself by expressing your
ignorance so openly.>>.

You are cocksure your assertions are true and mine are lies?
Your arrogant remarks portrays your egoistic mentality but with limited knowledge.
An academic who is knowledgeable will not display such disgusting arrogant attitude by
making such remarks. Resorting to name calling and insults when your dogmatic argument
cannot "hold water" and and in the final analysis crumble
When evolutionists are being cornered and exposed for their fallacies,
they dismissed the well documented statistics and arguments from scientists
and academics with credentials in their respective field of expertise as lies.

When creationists arguments and statistics demolish evolutionists arguments, the
evolutionists accuses the creationists of intellectually dishonest.

So Convenient, why? because they have no substance, they are wrong, took the wrong boat to
never-never land.[SMILE]

<<It makes me wonder if you aren't a little "slow" as well. I feel sorry for you. No wonder
you need an invisible skydaady to give your life any meaning. Luckily I don't suffer from
your inferiority complex.>>

Makes me wonder if you aren't a dip-shit with your half baked knowledge but fail to impress
and try to force your belief into "peoples throat" Peoples have a mind of their own, you know?
I have cause for doing something worthwhile then to spend inordinate times at the PC trying
to impress with my argument. What makes you think that I suffer from inferiority complex?
Your resorting to name calling and insults that without any shadow of a doubt is a
reflection of your inferiority complex! I am the one should be feeling sorry for you.[SMILE]


@Foub Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:24

<<We ARE a species of ape>

Thats your opinion, your belief.

<<Who said that I didn't believe in God? I'm not an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I neither
believe nor disbelieve in a god. I'm waiting for real evidence>>

when you add a positive zero and add a negative zero = zero. You are zero = Neither here nor there.
An agnostic is even more pathetic than an atheist An atheist firmly believe in the non
existence of GOD. The agnostic is neither here nor there. Like saying he exist and yet not
exist. Probably always looking up the sky for sightings and the appearance of ET.[SMILE]

<<No, but clearly you do.>>

Trying to throw what I said about you back to me, no way.
You clearly have a mental block, not me. Scroll up and refresh your memory and see the
posted ebook: A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda.

"EVOLUTIONIST Propaganda" Not THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST Propaganda!

You live in denial. Denial, the evolutionists distinctive mark.

<<So far all I've seen is those who use their religions to make their god in their own
image>>

Scoffers always use such argument. Not exactly true,

<<Who designed god?>>

Scoffers fond of asking such question. Knowing science cannot prove GOD.

My only logical answer is that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite GOD.

<<That is why design is still an evolutionary process>>

To the creationists this is an illogical question, to some extend a silly question.
If design is still an evolutionary process you will be evolving into something like an
alien being with big slanted eyes, earless, hairless, with very high cheekbone, very small
nose and mouth, sharp elongated chin and long thin legs that are depicted in movies, or a
bushbaby like creature.[SMILE]

If you are not having mental block, earlier I asked you to look in the mirror and ask
yourself where do you come from?

This time I advice you to look closely in the mirror daily and see if you are in a state
of evolutionary process.[SMILE]

<<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/23/AR2005122301953_pf.html>>

Dr Behe claims was refuted by the science community. Needless to say the Judge was bias and
probably an atheist made judgement against the school board of Dover, Pa. and bar them from
implementing teaching "intelligent design" in local schools.

When science cannot prove "intelligent design" and evidence of God's existence. Science say
God doesn't exist.

This is the only argument the evolutionist score point.
All other evolutionists arguments and statistics can be easily demolish.

The evolutionist have eyes but see not. They can't see that behind an intricate design
there is the designer. I call them fools, educated fools.[SMILE]

Psalm 14 :1

1 The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Footnotes:

Psalm 14:1 The Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.


The evolutionists god is their ego, evolutionists worship their egos. When an evolutionist faces a crisis, or found themselves in "deep shit" they probably cry out to their egos to
save them. Generally even those with no religion when they find themselves in a life and death situation will cry out to GOD. Evolutionists deny the existence of GOD. They
probably cry out to their egos when in that kind of situation (Can their ego save them?)[BIG SMILE] I expect them to face that situation stoically. Hypocrites, if they cried
out to GOD.

Christians put their faith in their GOD JEHOVAh. Evolutionists put their faiths in their
god call ego.

Creationists common ancestor was Adam and Eve first man and woman GOD created.

Genesis 1

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living
creature that moves on the ground."

The Evolutionists says they evolve from lower life to higher. They say their ancestral linage common to a species of apes and probably a chimp. I say their forefathers were apes.[SMILE]

Evolutionists have eyes and yet see not.

Evolutionists can't see the beauty of GOD'S created earth, the beauty of GOD'S creation. They deny GOD the designer and creator of the universe who gave life. Evolutionists are the
most pathetic creatures on planet earth.

The Evolutionist life must be very dull. They probably lack the ability to appreciate beauty because they "deny" that behind a beautiful design is the designer. Behind a beautiful painting is the painter. They are probably incapable of appreciating music, a symphony, behind a piece of music is the composer. It's an insult to their intelligence.

Evolutionists are similar to con artist and magicians. Magicians use sleight of hands
tricks. The evolutionists use "sleight of words"

*I love it when evolutionists dismissed stats in order to try and refute creationist. Do you
know that the odds against you existing as you are right now are far more astronomical than
even those against creation? They are so high, that it is a fair assumption to make that in
fact you don't exist at all since the numbers "prove" it and since you don't put such store
in these numbers you have no choice other than to stop existing because to continue on
would mean that you are just existing in a state of denial in your beliefs.[BIG smile]


@Foub Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:26


<<As to that creationism.org site you posted.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>


All your ridiculous remarks are nothing more than an itch. I am not intimidated neither am I perturb.
Your HAHAHAHAHAHAHA displayed your immaturity and bad education, if you are indeed
educated. You are morally deficient. To think you made fun at me it turns out you made a
fool of yourself instead.[BIG SMILE]


@Foub Date: 06 Aug 2007 19:41

<<Oh. I almost forgot to address that quote mining that creationists try to use to disprove evolution as well. Yet another of their dishonest tactics. This gives certain quote that
creationist love to use to show that even evolutionists, or famous scientists don't belief
in evolution and then puts the quote in full to show that in fact they do believe in it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html>>

Evolutionists also use quote mining (which they say dishonest tactics) to disprove creationists.[SMILE]

So what if famous scientist believe or don't believe in evolution.

There are many famous scientists who don't belief in evolution but believe in "intelligent
design" and GOD is the Designer and Creator.

Evolutionists say creationists arguments are lies

I say evolutionists arguments are also lies. No big deal![BIG SMILE]

All evolutionists arguments and statistics are pseudo scientific data and can be easily demolish by creationists argument and statistics. In fact have been demolished (Search
internet for statistics)

You think you won the argument. So what if you win, nay you didn't win, not at all.[SMILE]
The proponents of your kind will probably worship you.

These end my discourse. I have cause for doing something worthwhile then to spend
inordinate time on my PC.


When I look in the mirror I praise my GOD JEHOVA who created me.

For I was wonderfully and fearfully made.

"You are cocksure your assertions are true and mine are lies?"

Without ANY shadow of a doubt since what I'm presenting aren't assertions. You have no credible facts to speak of.

"Your arrogant remarks portrays your egoistic mentality but with limited knowledge."

Actually you are confusing confidence with arrogance. Saying GODDIDIT! is nothing more than ignorance.

"Thats your opinion, your belief."

No, its a fact.

"when you add a positive zero and add a negative zero = zero. You are zero = Neither here nor there.
An agnostic is even more pathetic than an atheist An atheist firmly believe in the non
existence of GOD. The agnostic is neither here nor there. Like saying he exist and yet not
exist. Probably always looking up the sky for sightings and the appearance of ET.[SMILE]"

Ok. Prove the existence of your god. I'm not going to hold my breathe waiting, though.

"Trying to throw what I said about you back to me, no way."

Why not. You're the best evidence against creationism.

"EVOLUTIONIST Propaganda" Not THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST Propaganda!"

Irrelevant. They're still evolutionists.

"Scoffers always use such argument. Not exactly true,"

Please, one just has to study the history of any theistic religion to see this truth. There are, after all, currently OVER 3000 different sects and denominations in Christianity alone.

"Scoffers fond of asking such question. Knowing science cannot prove GOD."

Of course, you can't prove a negative.

"My only logical answer is that a finite mind cannot fathom the Infinite GOD."

If so than how can you think of one in the first place? It should be way beyond you even conceiving of one if your mind is so limited.

"To the creationists this is an illogical question, to some extend a silly question."

Of course, since like everything else to do with science, they don't have one clue.

"If design is still an evolutionary process you will be evolving into something like an
alien being with big slanted eyes, earless, hairless, with very high cheekbone, very small
nose and mouth, sharp elongated chin and long thin legs that are depicted in movies, or a
bushbaby like creature.[SMILE]"

Your ignorance still amazes me. Admit it, you don't have one clue what evolution actually is, do you?

"If you are not having mental block, earlier I asked you to look in the mirror and ask
yourself where do you come from?"

I already answered that, I come from my parents.

"This time I advice you to look closely in the mirror daily and see if you are in a state
of evolutionary process.[SMILE]"

You really should learn what evolution actually is before you make such an absolute fool of yourself yet again.

"Dr Behe claims was refuted by the science community. Needless to say the Judge was bias and
probably an atheist made judgement against the school board of Dover, Pa. and bar them from
implementing teaching "intelligent design" in local schools."

Actually, the judge was a devout Christian. Yet another of your fallacies refuted. I guess that he actually follows the commandment against bearing false witness, unlike those like you.

"When science cannot prove "intelligent design" and evidence of God's existence. Science say
God doesn't exist."

Actually, no. If there were credible evidence than science would accept the existence of a god, but since you're so ignorant of what science is you just can't understand this.

"This is the only argument the evolutionist score point.
All other evolutionists arguments and statistics can be easily demolish."

You are misusing stats in an area where they actually don't belong. And here is a little fact that you missed. Stats are NOT an absolute indicator either.

"The evolutionist have eyes but see not. They can't see that behind an intricate design
there is the designer. I call them fools, educated fools.[SMILE]"

Who designed the designer?

"Psalm 14 :1"

Quoting the buybull is just another show of ignorance.

"The evolutionists god is their ego, evolutionists worship their egos. When an evolutionist faces a crisis, or found themselves in "deep shit" they probably cry out to their egos to save them. Generally even those with no religion when they find themselves in a life and death situation will cry out to GOD. Evolutionists deny the existence of GOD. They probably cry out to their egos when in that kind of situation (Can their ego save them?)[BIG SMILE] I expect them to face that situation stoically. Hypocrites, if they cried out to GOD."

You're still clueless, many scientists, who also believe in evolution, are Christians as well.

"Christians put their faith in their GOD JEHOVAh. Evolutionists put their faiths in their
god call ego."

Same difference. You create your god in your own image.

"Creationists common ancestor was Adam and Eve first man and woman GOD created."

Man, you know nothing about genetics at all either. The natural form of life is female. During the first part of a pregnancy we're ALL female. It is only later that we stay female or not occurs. If there were an Adam and an Eve it would have been Eve first. Place, do you know the name of Adam's first wife? Its Lilith. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/ When they were editing the bible they didn't like the original story so they changed it.

"Genesis 1"

More buybull crap.

"The Evolutionists says they evolve from lower life to higher. They say their ancestral linage common to a species of apes and probably a chimp. I say their forefathers were apes.[SMILE]"

Nope, they don't. You got it wrong YET again.

"Evolutionists have eyes and yet see not."

While a creationists will poke out their eyes so they wouldn't see anything at all. Its what is called blind faith and this gets people to blow themselves up and crash airplanes into buildings and build death camps.

"Evolutionists can't see the beauty of GOD'S created earth, the beauty of GOD'S creation. They deny GOD the designer and creator of the universe who gave life. Evolutionists are the most pathetic creatures on planet earth."

What proof do you have that it is your god. It could very well have been Zeus.

"The Evolutionist life must be very dull. They probably lack the ability to appreciate beauty because they "deny" that behind a beautiful design is the designer. Behind a beautiful painting is the painter. They are probably incapable of appreciating music, a symphony, behind a piece of music is the composer. It's an insult to their intelligence."

That is one of the most retarded things you've said yet.

"All your ridiculous remarks are nothing more than an itch. I am not intimidated neither am I perturb."

That is because you don't know enough to realize just how stupid you actually are.

"Your HAHAHAHAHAHAHA displayed your immaturity and bad education, if you are indeed
educated. You are morally deficient. To think you made fun at me it turns out you made a
fool of yourself instead.[BIG SMILE]"

I feel sorry for you.

"Evolutionists also use quote mining (which they say dishonest tactics) to disprove creationists.[SMILE]"

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

"So what if famous scientist believe or don't believe in evolution."

Actually they do, they're just being quoted out of context.

"Evolutionists say creationists arguments are lies"

Of course they are.

"I say evolutionists arguments are also lies. No big deal![BIG SMILE]"

Well, the difference is that you're wrong. There are literally mountians worth of evidence in favor of evolution being real. There is only blind faith for creationism.

"All evolutionists arguments and statistics are pseudo scientific data and can be easily demolish by creationists argument and statistics. In fact have been demolished (Search internet for statistics)"

Actually, no. You just don't even know what evolution is.

"You think you won the argument. So what if you win, nay you didn't win, not at all.[SMILE]
The proponents of your kind will probably worship you."

Oh, I won long before I came on here. Only an egomaniac wants to be worshiped. Thats right up your god's alley.

"These end my discourse. I have cause for doing something worthwhile then to spend inordinate time on my PC."

You did nothing since all you did was make a fool out of yourself. You used all of the classic refuted creationist's tactics thus proving just how much of a fool you truly are.

"When I look in the mirror I praise my GOD JEHOVA who created me."

You spend an awful lot of time in front of that mirror. Isn't that the mortal sin of conceit?

"For I was wonderfully and fearfully made."

That's another difference. You fear your god. I don't live in fear for my existence. I pity you greatly. You call this fear love, and that is just plain sick.

After all of what you have said above you still haven't gotten what evolution actually is and that in fact it doesn't neccessarily exclude a god.

I repeat:

"I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone." -- Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.

He was a devout Christian until the day he died and he still believed in evolution.

You really don't have a valid argument against evolution because what you are arguing against isn't actually evolution. If you had done your homework you would have realized your massive error. Thus, you are nothing more than a pathetic fool who can only parrot back what another says. You don't ask a mathematician about biology, you ask a biologist. Evolution IS the basis for modern biology.

I see that you are still contradicting your mush love numbers and still existing. This goes to show just how much of a hypocrite you actually are. The numbers don't lie, according to you, and they say that you shouldn't exist.

Have you ever read a book, besides the buybull that is, called "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America"? It tells of how, those like you, misuse these numbers to try and deceive people into your cause.

BTW, this also refutes your misuse of stats to try and disprove evolution as well. Creationists really should be ashamed of themselves for such blatant lies. Even when you do it in your god's name it is still a serious sin. I challenge you to actually read this. If you don't than you're also nothing more than a coward as well. Unlike you, I have studied BOTH sides of the issue beforehand and also, unlike you, I actually do know what I'm talking about. Is it any wonder that I'm sitting here laughing at your blatant ignorance. That is as I'm also feeling so sorry for that very same ignorance you love so much. I don't need some invisible skydaddy to give my life any real meaning. I give it my own meaning. Your's is the life of a slave to superstition and ignorance.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Oh, this book was just posted on here and you really should read it since it show just how much you are ignorant of how such numbers are used.

http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/science_books/math/innumeracy_mathematical_illiteracy.html

Evolution Hall of Shame

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Questions to Ask Evolutionists



Try asking these questions in class and then after each answer, ask for the evidence to back up the answer. Insist on evidence not just explanation.



General Theory of Evolution

What is the best evidence that shows that the general theory of evolution is actually a fact? (insist on evidence showing change beyond simple variation within a population)

If science is about reasoning and debate, why do evolutionists censor controversies, fraud, and weaknesses of the evolution theory from textbooks?

Science is supposed to be objective and unbiased. So, what justifies an atheistic (naturalistic) bias in science over an agnostic approach that allows for the possibility of natural or supernatural origin?

Origin of the Universe

What specific evidence supports the claim of a natural origin of the universe?

Explain how something can come from nothing in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics.

The universe is experiencing heat death as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. So how do evolutionists justify proposing that energy always existed and had no beginning?

What is the evidence that the universe increased in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

Origin of Life

What specific evidence supports the claim of a natural origin of life? (life from non-life in contradiction to the law of biogenesis)

What is the scientific justification to study abiogenesis in contradiction to the law of biogenesis?

If life could spontaneously exist by chance, then why have scientists not been able to create life in the laboratory with controlled experiments? Likewise, if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory, then what evidence is there that life could create itself by chance?

What evidence justifies the evolution proposal that life spontaneously arose from non-living material in spite of the calculations showing that such occurrence is astronomically improbable.

By what means did the code of life and the enzymes necessary to make the code originate? Which came first: the code to make the enzymes or the enzymes to make the code?

Origin of Species

What fossil evidence exists showing the evolution of one major kind of organism into another? (to avoid examples of simple variations, ask for an example of one taxon "order" becoming another)

If cars and non-related organisms can show similarity, what is the basis for inferring that homologous phenotypes represent phylogeny?

What evidence is there that mutation can or has produced unique, new structures rather than modified features?

What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information?

What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits?

What evidence shows a transitional form with partially developed, nonfunctional features (such as 10% of a wing)?

Why have new body plans not developed since the Cambrian explosion?

Why is Haeckel's "law of biogenesis" that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still used as evidence for evolution after being exposed as a fraudulent claim?

If fifty years of intensive research on mutant fruit flies has produced nothing but more fruit flies, why is it thought that other organisms can evolve into something else?

Intelligent Design

Why does Venus rotate backward, while Uranus rotates at a 98 degree angle to its vertical plane?

Why do 11 (almost 1/3) of the moons of various planets rotate backward?

Why aren't most of the planets composed of hydrogen and helium like the sun?


http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm

Evolution Fraud

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

A Response to Richard Dawkins’
The Blind Watchmaker

There are glaring deficiencies in logic in Dawkins’ arguments. It fools laymen who know little of the complexities of living things, but it should not fool anyone who is scientifically literate. Many of those who cite Dawkins’ book to put down creationists know that it is a large dose of bluff. Dawkins is a rabid atheist and his mission in life is to use every tactic, fair or foul, to destroy Biblical Christianity. This can be easily documented. His books are self-confessed attempts at indoctrination.

Note that, for natural selection to work, you have to have a self-reproducing entity. What is the simplest conceivable such unit? It is incredibly complex and full of information. This whole functioning unit has to come into being all at once, before Dawkins’ mutations and natural selection can function (assuming that they then can function at all as Dawkins claims!).

Fred Hoyle did some calculations on the likelihood of a hypothetical minimum self-reproducing cell coming together, given all the ingredients (this is impossible anyway, by natural, non-enzymatic processes). Hoyle hypothesised a cell of only 400 enzymes/proteins; a real world bacterium has about 2,000! For this hypothetical minimum cell, Hoyle calculated a probability of it forming by natural processes of 1 in 1040,000.

To put this in context, there are about 1080 atomic particles in the universe. If the universe actually were 15 billion years old, as Dawkins believes, this would give about 1018 seconds. If every second and every atomic particle were an experiment in a soup of all the ingredients necessary for the cell to form, this would amount to 1098 experiments. This is a long way short of any chance of getting our ‘cell’. Let’s make every microsecond an experiment. This gives 10104 experiments. This is not getting us anywhere. Let’s make every atomic particle in our universe a universe like our own with every atomic particle in those universes and every microsecond an experiment. We now have 10204 experiments. Hey, we’re still a long way short of 1040,000 necessary for a reasonable chance of succeeding. The chances of getting our cell are zero!

Furthermore, if you mixed all the ingredients together necessary for a living cell to form, many of those ingredients would react together to prevent anything from happening!

Dawkins’ computer morphs have as much relevance to the origin of the information in living things as sand has to the origin of information in a computer memory (the memory chips are made of silicon extracted from sand). Dawkins’ selects things that look like something recognisable and then he claims that what he gets is the result of blind selection (The Blind Watchmaker). How illogical!

There is no evolutionary answer to the origin of information in living things.

Another answer
1. Over-simplification. Let’s assume a self-replicating molecule is possible. Various origin-of-life proponents have been trying in recent years to get a self-replicating RNA-based enzyme—a ribozyme; but without success. Dawkins proposes a protein-based molecule but in some mysterious, unexplained manner ends up with DNA-based genes. How does he go from one to the other?

Anyway, for the sake of the argument, how many amino acids would have to be strung together in the proper sequence to get this hypothetical replicator? There are few functional enzymes less than 100 amino acids; most have hundreds. Let’s be kind to Dawkins and assume it is possible to get such with just 100 amino acids. What is the probability of this happening, assuming all the amino acids are present?

This protein is going to be one incredible protein, because not only has it to catalyse the joining together of the amino acids in a copy of itself, but it has to make them line up in the correct order as well. No such thing is known to exist—amino acids have no affinity for other amino acids of the same type and nor is there any complementary attraction like with the nucleotides of DNA/RNA)! Functional enzymes have a 3-dimensional structure, so this enzyme will have to unravel itself to allow amino acids to line up along it in the correct order (which they won’t /don’t) and at the same time act as a catalyst for their polymerisation (while it is unfolded!) Come on Dawkins, you can’t be serious!?

However, ignoring all such problems, and many others that could be detailed, what is the probability of getting just 100 amino acids lined up in a functional manner? Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10-130. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 1080 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10103 experiments. We are still 1027 experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE! How can it be spelt out any more clearly to Dawkins and his like? Dawkins knows this, but persists in his nonsense because it fools laymen and is effective in his proselytising for atheism (he is an avowed anti-Christian cum atheist and takes every opportunity to ridicule the Bible—jibes about copying errors in the New Testament and the virgin birth, for example).

It’s actually far worse than this. More than the 20 amino acids found in living things have been produced in ‘origin of life’ experiments. It is impossible without enzymes to produce them with the correct chirality—there are left- and right-handed forms of amino acids and typically only left-handed forms are used in living things (though there are some rare exceptions). The non-enzymic processes available in the pre-biotic soup (only living cells produce enzymes) could only produce equal quantities of both types. In other words there could have been more than 50 amino acids to choose the 20 from. This makes the probability (1/50)100 or 10-170!

Dr Aw Swee-Eng and other creationists are absolutely correct about the necessity of the cell. Without the cellular environment, spontaneous chemical reactions would destroy proteins quicker than they could form. One of the assumptions under-pinning the origin of life scenarios is the absence of oxygen on the early earth, but such an absence of oxygen would also mean an absence of ozone and so UV radiation would destroy complex chemicals such as proteins or nucleic acids (DNA/RNA). Cells have all sorts of mechanisms for protecting the cellular machinery (enzymes, membranes, DNA, RNA, etc.) from oxidative processes. Without these mechanisms, it is impossible to conceive how ‘life’ could form itself.

By the way, it is impossible that the earth could have been devoid of oxygen for very long (assuming that it could have been at all!) because UV penetrating to the earth in the absence of an ozone layer would split water molecules to produce oxygen. There is no evidence that the earth was ever free of oxygen, and so even the abiotic origin of the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars is impossible. Even with no oxygen, ribose and uracil, critical components of RNA, are extremely difficult to produce and are very unstable in a cell-free environment, so are unlikely to have formed.

2. Illogical analogy. Dawkins is a master at this. With regard to Dawkins’ argument that given enough time the improbable becomes certain (the lottery analogy, for example), see the article ‘Cheating with Chance’, p. 14 in the March/May 1995 Creation magazine (or see online version).

The condensation reaction in which amino acids are polymerised to produce a peptide (protein) is reversible so that all that more time will do is ensure equilibrium conditions, or very little polymerisation! Dr Harold F. Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 2nd edition, Princeton Uni Press, N.J. said that ‘increased time spans in biological systems will merely increase the probability of equilibrium being set up, and not the probability of improbable reaction products being formed.’

DNA cannot replicate by itself without enzymes (contrary to Dawkins). You may have heard of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This is the process used to copy DNA pieces, or amplify them to large enough quantities to do research on. It is called this because a very complex enzyme called DNA polymerase is necessary for it to happen. Other specified conditions are also necessary, such as pH, absence of substances which would spoil the reaction, osmolality control (salt concentration), temperature, etc. In the cell, a whole suite of enzymes are necessary, including ones such as the helicases, which unravel the double strand to allow copying.

For a very thorough treatment of chemical and thermodynamic objections to evolutionary origin-of-life theories, see Thaxton, C. B., Bradley, W. L. & Olsen, R. L., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Copyright 1984, Foundation for thought and Ethics, published by Lewis & Stanley, Dallas, TX. An excellent and up-to-date summary is Aw, S.E., ‘The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models’, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 10(3):300-314, 1996. Theories of RNA life, self-reproducing peptides and complexity theory are critiqued in Sarfati, J.D., ‘Self-Replicating Enzymes?’, CEN Tech. J. 11(1):4-6, 1997 (see online version). See also the book excerpts by Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith on Technical/In-depth [Creationist] Papers.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/264.asp

Admittedly the debates are more entertaining than the book posted here could ever be but that book does provide something of value to us all.
It is hilarious!
Sorry but I wish idiots would take their pseudo-science and post it somewhere where there are enough fellow idiots to lap it up.
This kind of shit is just backward.

Cheers,
Fa

Wow, what a scientific work. The above blurb talks about the evil materialistic atheistic blah
blah blah and end with a something or other booga booga booga. Funny stuff. It's so bad I can't
tell if the guy is being sarcastic or serious.

Hey jhbbunch the monkey man, it's you that booga booga and
wooga wooga monkey see monkey do.

A monkey has you beat zlizer, because at least a monkey has a chance of evolving into
something more than a poop-flinger.

Anyway, creationism predicts that all fossil beds should have a mixture of fossil reamins. Cows, lions, rhinos, elephants, horses mixed in with dinsaurs and all kinds of other creatures, Show me the fossil bed that creationism predicts, or admit you are wrong, then go crawl under a rock and die of shame.

A note to all readers, please refer to wikipedia first to do a background-check on the writer of the book.

Why does anyone bother to quote Psalms ? Harun Yahya uses the Quran as literal truth, another uses the Old Testaments. It's better that those who use "sacred books" as arguments for scientific subject should include : The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://www.venganza.org