As for the issue of Satan running the evolution propaganda, I happen to believe that this is true when you get to the top of the conspirital ladder. If indeed there is a devil(which I believe there is) who's aim it is to deceive mankind and convince him that the earth and all in it came about from an explosion 8.4 to 20 billion years ago and that all humans, plants and animals all evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years, then he has done an excellent job on you guys, he has some masterpieces, some works of art in the making.
Countless people claim to see or claim to have seen spirits or ghosts. Are they all looney simply because YOU do not believe in the spirit realm?
Reading through the articles, there is a lot of waffle and hot air to wade through. I tend to find that evolutionists will write out long articles with absolutely nothing to say. Teachers often say the same things about a student answering questions for an assignment, "the more they say, often it means the less they know". Here I see the main traits of this in this so called debunking material.
As for all scientists being in a conspiracy with the devil spreading the evo propaganda, for starters,not all scientist believe in evolution. The last poll I saw stated that around 55% of scientists believe in Darwinian evolution with no God involved. The 55% that do believe in evolution most probably believe in it for a number of reasons. Some have only been taught evolution and don't know the creation side, some hold onto evolution to preserve the lifestyle, some hope there is no God to answer to, others don't rock the boat in order to keep the pay check coming in. So I would say that yes, they are helping Satan's conspiracy spread, but not all are doing it with a conscious mind.
As for Stephen Spielberg, he pulls no punches and openly talks about his hatred for Jesus. Him and Lucas has stated that how it is so easy to sway a people toward their philosophies of life and they marvel at how dumb people are , just swallowing what they put in their films. Spielberg always has a dig at Christ where possible in his films. So no, it is not a rumour that Spielberg is part of the Satanic movement, him openly declaring his hatred for Christ makes him obviously an antichrist.
So yes there is a conspiracy to silence the truth about creation, some are knowingly involved, some are unknowingly involved. If folks do not want to believe in the spirit realm then that is there business, however just because they have their opinion on it, it doesn't automatically make people that do believe nuts.
Genesis Debunking:
What a load of rubbish. Many of the so called contradictions the article writer pointed out, I have answered already. Boiled down, all the article writer was doing was either replacing an interpretation of a word with his own so then the word would automatically become a fault, replacing the creation account with the evolution account or trying to show the so called contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2(which I already dealt with and rubbished). Is this the best of somebody else's armour you could pull out of the hat?
I couldn't believe it when the article writer referred to Quantum mechanics as proof for evolution. The fact is the article has no points, it proved nothing, there is nothing in that article that I couldn't answer, nothing, it would just take too long to go through and deal with such a simpleton's attack. I actually thought that this article was going to bring some serious fire my way, I was so wrong. Flaws in the Genesis account.....cobblers mate. Try again. No doubt the rest of the articles are going to be of the same manner coming from the same "kind" but no matter, got to make the evolutionist feel like he has the upper hand or he might throw his toys out of the pram and slam himself to the ground in an infant style tantrum.
The "Kind" Saga:
The creationists do not even attempt to make a pretense of science here, but refer openly to their religious preconceptions that all organisms are part of these "baramins" which were originally created by God.
How one earth are you expected to explain the supernatural creation of animals scientifically? It is outside the realm of science, it is a religion, we admit that. We can however state from the observed science that animals can only bring forth the same kind of animal. I still have yet to see the evolutionist explain how a being with 46 chromosomes came from a mineral substance which has 0.
And what is the biological mechanism which the creationists propose for producing all of these "variations" within the original "created kinds"? Surprisingly enough, it is evolution. As Morris puts it: "Modern creationists recognize and accept all the observed biological changes which evolutionists offer as proof of evolution. New varieties of plants and animals can be developed rather quickly by selection techniques, but creationists point out that no new basic kind has ever been developed by such processes." (Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1977, p. 16) Richard Bliss of the ICR echoes, "We accept change one hundred percent. We accept the same change that the evolutionist is accepting, only he's calling it micro-evolution and we're calling it variation." (Conway and Siegelman, 1984, p. 152)
Thus, the basic creationist hypothesis has been, in effect, that "evolution happens, but only a little bit". In an effort to sound scientific, they refer to this process as "micro-evolution", and assert that, while evolutionary mechanisms may produce micro-evolution, or changes within the basic kinds, evolution cannot produce "macro-evolution", or changes from one kind to another.
I don't even use the term micro evolution because it is number one a crap turn and number two, it gives the evolutionists a foot in the door to bring in the rest of their crap. Variations is a good enough term for me. As for macro evolution, this has never been observed and therefore is not part of science.
According to the modern theory of genetics (which the creationists say they accept), evolution takes place through the natural selection of variations brought about by genetic mutations
This is a straw man set up so the author can knock it down and claim that he has won the argument. Natural selection does not produce any kind of evolution, all it does is keeps the kinds strong. Evolutionists have been admitting this for years. This writer obviously has his head in the sand.
They cannot even give a basic estimate of how many "kinds" of organisms exist.
Is this guy clutching at straws or what? What is the point? Its like him asking how many meals you had last year, you saying I'm not too sure, then him saying, well then you couldn't have had any meals last year because you cannot remember the amount. Not being able to put a specific figure on the created kinds at the time of the creation bears no significance toward the topic.
It is not surprising that Frair was unable to tell us how many "kinds" of turtles there are, since no creationist has ever produced a workable and consistent definition of what constitutes a "kind"
I gave a definition earlier on,those that were originally able to interbreed and bring forth offspring. This so called "problem" to define a kind is not a proble at all for me. My foot is looking great so far mate, no gun shot wound or gangrene yet.
As stated by creationists, this definition of a "kind"--a group of organisms which interbreeds with each other but does not interbreed with those outside the group under normal circumstances--is identical with the biological definition of a species.
No, the definition of the word species(singular) according to the evo circle is "an interbreeding population". The evo boys have the problem here as different species(plural) can interbreed with each other and produce offspring. This is why the word "kind" is much more sensible to use and covers a broader spectrum of animals.
If this definition of a "kind" were to be accepted....
This would be assuming that the definition of the word "kind" is the same as the definition of the word "species" which it is not. Another strawman set up.
The definition we have seen of a created "kind" is, moreover, unworkable in its own terms. A horse and a donkey are universally held by creationists to be one "kind", but a horse and a donkey cannot produce fertile offspring. They can breed and produce young, but this progeny, a mule, is completely sterile and cannot reproduce after its "kind". By the logic of their definition, the creationists would seem to be forced to conclude that horses and donkeys are separate "kinds". But, since horses and donkeys are so obviously related by evolutionary descent, the creationists cannot have this either, since it would establish "evolution between kinds", which is precisely what they are trying to avoid. (Remember that the creationists accept the existence of evolutionary descent as a mechanism for producing "variation within a kind".)
Another strawman, most of the time the offspring are not fertile. I already dealt with this so called problem. Even if the offspring were infertile 100% of the time, you still could look at the mule and see that it clearly is in the horse kind, regardless of its reproductive potential, present or not. the fact that it may be infertile bears nothing on the obvious physical resemblance to the horse and the donkey. Obviously there are variations within a particular kind, where this guy is going is anyone's guess. Foot is still looking good.
Even more confusingly, Gish classifies "dinosaurs", a huge group of reptiles which differed profoundly from each other (they ranged from the chicken-sized predator Compsognathus to the fifty-ton plant eater Seismosaurus; some dinosaurs walked on two legs, some on four; some, such as Stegosaurus, had absurdly small brains, while some, like Troodon, had relatively large brains for their body size), as one "kind", but separates chimps and gorillas (who look almost identical and who share over 95% of their genetic codes) as being "different kinds".
The old shape Passat is the new shape Skoda Octavia. They probably share thousands of similar parts. AS I stated before in one of my earlier posts, do we conclude that because of this that the Octavia evolved from the Passat or do we logically conclude that they are similar because the have the same DESIGNER/S making them? Some people obviously cannot do the math.
Mr Plank sorry Flank has made no points here whatsoever. A sure fire way to tell different kinds apart is to breed them and see if you get a result. If they are able to interbreed then obviously you have the same kind,if not then obviously you have a different kind. I personally think that most animals can be easily sorted into one kind bracket or another. However, there are a few that would be tricky to classify. That would be a good place to conduct some real science.
