God for london mayor...

[S4TAN]

Behold the utterly cretinous Blower and his moronic religion - show him the truth and he can't take it - he is simply too scared and stupid to see the facts staring him in his frightened looking face.

Yet again you FAIL so pitifully and dismally to respond to the points given - you really are the dumbest ape I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. Does your vicar/pastor (or whatever you call your charlatan church leader) write your utter drivel for you - it can't possibly be you - you simply don't have the brain power.

Poor poor Blower - running scared again - hiding in his ridiculous fairy stories so his under-powered brain doesn't collapse under the weight of the things he can't understand - and not-very-skillfully ignoring the points presented to him again - there there, your imaginary god will make it all better for you, don't worry ....

Your glaring and abject failure to answer the points I made about the cosmos show clearly that you haver NO answer - is the science I presented to you about the universe wrong? A simple yes or no answer will suffice - but I think you will studiously avoid that one won't you Blower - because you know if you say that the science is wrong everyone here will laugh at you and see you for the ignorant and deluded creature you so surely are.

You're an idiot god-boy. Can you even breathe and walk at the same time without difficulty?

[Turbo Joe]

This is the same case with the rest of the atheists that support you on here, Lifestyle Preservation

I'm one of those atheists, but I still don't know why a label is needed for someone who simply rejects a doctorine. I also choose to reject cigarettes, socks with sandals, package holidays and living outside the capital, but none of those come with epithets...

Anyhow, back to the point. How, Blower, do you know my lifestyle? Unless you're going to do another grammatical backtrack, the sentence implies that I as an atheist "have a lifestyle to maintain and the thought of a devine creator getting his foot in the door would seriously force you to consider how you are living out your life". I'm not going to give you any insight whatsoever into my family life, other than to say you've made yet another sweeping and wholly incorrect statement.

Ok Dom, let me ask you a question, lets just say for a second that the creation account is true, there is a God, he makes the rules, like no adultery(looking at a woman with lust is adultery in the heart by the way), no fornication, no pornography, no swearing, no blasphemy, no lying , no stealing, no desiring other people's things etc, as you stand currently, would you have to change you lifestyle any?

[Turbo Joe]

Facts, facts?? Let me just lay out some scientific facts for the antichrist's son:

Fact 1: Animals today only bring forth offspring after the same kind. We have never observed any different, never. Nobody has every seen an animal produce a fundamentally different kind of animal.

Fact 2: There is no such element as liquid granite as when granite is heated to high temperatures, it begins to crumble not liquify.

Fact 3: All the evidence for evolution has be proven to be fraudulent and none of it has stood the test of time. There is no evidence for evolution. I recommend some books to read since you're having such a hard time letting the theory go.

Darwin's black Box by Michael Behe.
Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells.
Evolution, A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton
Bones Of Contention by Marvin Lubenow
The Collaspe Of Evolution by Scott Huse

My head is far from in the sand sir.

[Turbo Joe]

You clearly are not looking at both sides of the coin, you are accepting the evidence that fits and rejecting the evidence that doesn't. I believed in evolution at one stage and was brought up on the theory as a youth until I started seeing some serious problems with the theory. I don't need to believe in the bible to reject evolution, I rejected evolution on its own demerits years before I even became a christian because there are so many errors, gaps, faults, assumptions, lies and ridiculous notions contain within it.

[Turbo Joe]

And you have shown us no reason to believe it either. You haven't made a strong case for yourself or your religion here Blower, as with all due respect some of the things you have said are utter rubbish and contain many contradictions, even if the Bible "doesn't".

Considering that some humanoid remains have been dated to be about 40,000years old I would say you might just be wrong about the whole 6000 year old earth. And I'm not even going to start spouting evidence of neanderthalic man dating back as far as 500,000 years ago, dinosaurs etc. They must just be a figmant of humankind's imagination - just like the content of the Bible I would hazzard.

I'm not an atheist I'm an agnostic, as I am neither blind nor ignorant; none of the theories of evolution (religious or otherwise) offer conclusive proof of being right so I'll just keep an open mind rather than being indoctrinated into believing any one of them. At least my "religion" doesn't kill people for having different beliefs.

Why on earth would you keep an open mind to the theory of evolution which has been proven wrong time and time again? Surely if a theory is proven wrong or shown to have systematic problems, ought it not to be rejected or at the very least questioned with higher scrutiny?

[S4TAN]

Respond to my points on the universe please. 3rd time I've asked now.

Do you refute them or not?

Oh, and by the way - granite is NOT an element (go look at the table of elements - you'll find granite is not on there) - granite is a crystalline structure made form several elements (as I've already told you) ... so please stop clutching at that very weak straw.

And, the theory of evolution has NOT been proved wrong - so you can stop saying that too. It does, on the other hand, have gaps - but that is a very different proposition to saying that it's been "proved wrong" - that is a lie on your behalf. Do you think that if you say it loudly enough times that it will gain credence? Can you back up the claims that it has been "proved wrong" - provide this proof please (and I do mean PROOF)

Evolution theory is the best we currently have at explaining the way life is - regardless of missing pieces it is still by far and away infinitely better than the fairy stories your religion promotes (Adam and Eve indeed! How bloody daft is that! 6,000 year old earth? So ridiculous it's funny!) - I've already shown you that the universe is far older than your backward church claims.

Now - I ask you Blower (for the last time) - respond to the science I have put forward to you on the age and nature of the universe; DO YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT? YES, or NO?

[Turbo Joe]

Also, since you believe that radio metric dating works, I will show you some clear examples where it doesn't and their sources.

The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY:

H.E Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze", Natural History Magazine Sept 1949, Page 300(How can 2 parts of the same animal be different ages?).


Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old(hello, they are still alive):

Science Magazine Vol 141, 1963 pages 634-637


A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago(They just killed it):

Antarctic Journal Vol 6 Sept-Oct 1971 page 211


Shell from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old:

Science Vol 224, 1984 pages 58-61


Professor Reiner Protsch Von Zieten lied about the age of Neanderthal skulls and other artifacts for 30 years. A university panel exposed his frauds and he resigned in Feb 2005.
Zieten had dated the "Bischof Speyer skeleton at 21, 300 years but testing at Oxford showed it to be 3,300 years old.
Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Zieten dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.

www.worldnetdaily.com Feb 19 2005.


One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000:

Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, page 30(U.S printing office 1975)



In the last 2 years an absolute date has been obtained for the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds(sediment rock layers). It has the very interesting value of 300,000 years PLUS OR MINUS 300,000 YEARS:

J.B BIRDSELL "HUMAN EVOLUTION" 1975 page 295


Living penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.


Materials from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old(so much for dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago):

R Daly "Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries", 1972 page 280


Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at under 30,000 years old.
Hugh Miller,Columbus OH had 4 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old:

Noah To Abram, The Turbulent Years by Erich Von Fange page 36

With samples of known ages radioisotope dating does not work. With samples of unknown ages, radioisotope dated is assumed to work. If you think potassium argon is any better, we can deal with that radio dating method too.

[S4TAN]

...One last point I forgot to address: saying that because we don't observe animals producing different forms to themselves is proof that evolution theory is "fraudulent" is just bollocks - of course a cow produces a cow, a cat produces a cat etc .... the changing of forms occurs over a very long period of time and is due to slight genetic mutations being either successful or not. It's called survival of the fittest - offspring with genetic anomolies that make them unfit to survive in their environment die off, and therefore do not procreate further - i.e. their genetic line disappears. On the other hand animals that are born with a mutation in their DNA code that gives them an advantage, however slight, are more likely to survive and be successful in their environment - these mutations are then passed on to their descendents .... this process is repeated through many hundreds and thousands of generations - very slowly, over time, animals look very different to their ancestors of tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago - a good example is the mastodon that existed tens of thousands of years ago - they don't exist now, but the forms they mutated into do! (they're called elephants by the way) - fortunately enough a few mastodons have been so well preserved that it has been possible to extract fragments of DNA from their remains - well do you know what? Take a guess Blower - yes, that's right; they share the same DNA base-pairs as the modern day elephant!!! There's evolution in action for you Blower - one form changing into another, over time, through genetic mutation - it's called Darwinian evolution!

The same goes for crocodiles, alligators, sharks, primates, insects, felines ... the list goes on Blower. The fossils of early forms of these creatures clearly show the original base body-plan - their modern day ancestors show similar, but changed, body plans (bigger body, smaller body, more teeth, less teeth etc) - these creatures have adapted over time, lots of time! (a hell of a lot more time than your patently erroneous 6000 year earth life-span!)

Humans have only been observing the creatures around them in a scientific sense for a few hundred years - so of course we don't observe creatures producing different forms in that time period! It takes a lot longer than that for forms to change. Your argument is specious (yet again) - you've been misled and tricked Blower - now I know that must be hard for you to take but you really should let go of the fairy stories and get with the real world.

If a human could live for 100,000 years that human would observe the process of evolution happening right before their eyes.

You're blind to evolution only because you want to be. It doesn't fit with your crackpot religion - so you dismiss it (even going as far as to loudly proclaim that it's lies - but unfortunately for you the louder you shout the more people realise you're wrong - not the other way around as you clearly hoped). I'm afraid it's your daft religion that has no basis in fact, no evidence for its reality, and is actually grossly fraudulent - it's promoters lie to vulnerable people like you (the easily duped) and you actually start believing in it!

Do yourself a big favour - get away from the fraudsters who pedal this bible nonsense. Run, run as fast as you can away from your church and the liars who prop it up.

Your god is a lie, your church is a fraud, your beliefs are nonsense.

[S4TAN]

Also, since you believe that radio metric dating works, I will show you some clear examples where it doesn't and their sources.

The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY:

H.E Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze", Natural History Magazine Sept 1949, Page 300(How can 2 parts of the same animal be different ages?).


Living mollusk shells were carbon dated as being 2300 years old(hello, they are still alive):

Science Magazine Vol 141, 1963 pages 634-637


A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago(They just killed it):

Antarctic Journal Vol 6 Sept-Oct 1971 page 211


Shell from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old:

Science Vol 224, 1984 pages 58-61


Professor Reiner Protsch Von Zieten lied about the age of Neanderthal skulls and other artifacts for 30 years. A university panel exposed his frauds and he resigned in Feb 2005.
Zieten had dated the "Bischof Speyer skeleton at 21, 300 years but testing at Oxford showed it to be 3,300 years old.
Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Zieten dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750.

www.worldnetdaily.com Feb 19 2005.


One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000:

Geological Survey Professional Paper 862, page 30(U.S printing office 1975)



In the last 2 years an absolute date has been obtained for the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds(sediment rock layers). It has the very interesting value of 300,000 years PLUS OR MINUS 300,000 YEARS:

J.B BIRDSELL "HUMAN EVOLUTION" 1975 page 295


Living penguins have been dated as being 8,000 years old.


Materials from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old(so much for dinosaurs dying out 65 million years ago):

R Daly "Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries", 1972 page 280


Russian scientists Kusnetsov and Ivanov carbon dated dinosaur bones at under 30,000 years old.
Hugh Miller,Columbus OH had 4 dinosaur bone samples carbon dated at 20,000 years old:

Noah To Abram, The Turbulent Years by Erich Von Fange page 36

With samples of known ages radioisotope dating does not work. With samples of unknown ages, radioisotope dated is assumed to work. If you think potassium argon is any better, we can deal with that radio dating method too.

Very weak Blower, very weak indeed! I can produce any number of articles or books that say that aliens have been found, that dinosaurs are still alive and well in Africa, that the Yeti exists (and the Loch Ness monster!) and so on and so forth - they will have authors names too amazingly enough, and will purport themselves to be serious scientists....

... but it doesn't mean to say they're right does it!!! Because of course they are not right - they're charlatans and fraudsters (a bit like popes, priests, vicars and pastors et al)

I have no idea how you got onto radiometric dating from my post about the cosmos - YET AGAIN you've avoided the scientific truths about our universe laid before you. As I guessed initially - you simply can't respond to them. I think deep down you know they're true and irrefutable - that must really burn! But it nicely explains why you've not responded. So thank you for that; you've just shown anyone reading this thread the failings in your stories, and your paper-thin arguments have blown away in the wind of scientific fact and truth.

You can't response to my universe post because you have no repsonse! That's why you consistently ignore it. But that is a flawed tactic - and very childlike: if you ignore truth it won't go away, or become false, just because you ignore it Blower - no, it remains true ... and it burns away your religions like a flame thrower.

Even your own post is at odds with your 6000 year old earth isn't it!? It must really suck to know you've been conned.

Condolonces, you've lost mate. But don't feel too embarrassed - you put up a reasonably decent effort (better than a lot of the other silly religious people I've dealt with), but not that good really. Never mind Sir.

[Turbo Joe]

Firstly I agree that the universe is expanding, though I would say that the evidence for what is causing the red shift is inconclusive at this present time. Several theories abound about the red shift, each with its strong and weak points. This however is not evidence for evolution as a star distance is just that, a distance, not a time. Thus concluding that until this red shift has been analysed with more scrutiny, it can't be trusted to measure distances accurately.

Secondly I am aware of the Doppler effect, but this doesn't automatically prove millions of years of expansion. This expansion could have taken place within a shorter period of time. Red shift does not conclusively prove anything and until we find out for certain what is causing the red shift, I'll leave that one on the shelf pending further research.

As for the age of the universe, the evolutionist can't seem to make up his mind. I have heard all kinds of figures from 20 billion, 18.6 billion, 16.5 billion, 14 billion, 13.7 billion(according to you and your sources) and the latest figure which is now 12 billion years old. Well which one is it? You expect me to take this seriously and you call this science? Sorry my mistake, according to Science News Sept 9 1995 on page 166, the universe appears to be 8.4 to 10.6 billion years old. So which one do we believe? If this was real science, the results would be constant and the margin of error would be so much smaller. 8.4 to 20, that's about a 150% error margin. Science? Give me a break.

As for the speed of light, Einstein was wrong, the speed of light is not a constant. I remember coming across several articles where scientists had conducted experiments in which the speed of light had been slowed down and speeded up at will. In 1 experiment, the speed of light was slowed down to 38 mph, in another it was brought down to 1 mph. Google that cause I know you don't believe it.

Intelligent civilisations concluded just from finding galaxies?????? They can't even view any other planets within our galaxies(if there are any present) but they can get out a calculator and extrapolate that an estimated "x" amount of civilisations exist??????? We can just about see Pluto and that needs an extremely powerful telescope. We have found galaxies that are observed, these so called intelligent civilisations are not observed and therefore not part of science, they are part of a religious belief.

Extra terrestrial activity, why would christians have a problem with that? I believe in extra terrestrial activity, that isn't a problem for me.

Have we been hit by a comet yet, have we collided into the asteroid belt yet, have we been sucked into a black hole yet? Who knows how they came about. The assumption on your part as usual is blame God and not expand your mind scope. Maybe there was some upheaval space as to why we now have comets, an asteroid belt and black holes(black holes haven't been observed, they are still in the theory stage, if you have a picture of an actual black hole, please show me). Upheaval in space by the way doesn't automatically point to a big bang.

You want to believe in trillions of other planets out there go ahead, but you have just left science and gone into religion. Im just going to stick with the observed stars and galaxies that we do see. All we observe are the planets in our solar system. If you want to believe that there are other planets out there(which there probably are), go ahead, but without a observation you are heading into religious belief territory.

[Turbo Joe]

By the way, the post with the carbon dating errors was not in response to you, that was for GardinerG, and yes I have responded to your post if you don't mind, so no, not very, very weak at all.

[Turbo Joe]

...One last point I forgot to address: saying that because we don't observe animals producing different forms to themselves is proof that evolution theory is "fraudulent" is just bollocks - of course a cow produces a cow, a cat produces a cat etc .... the changing of forms occurs over a very long period of time and is due to slight genetic mutations being either successful or not. It's called survival of the fittest - offspring with genetic anomolies that make them unfit to survive in their environment die off, and therefore do not procreate further - i.e. their genetic line disappears. On the other hand animals that are born with a mutation in their DNA code that gives them an advantage, however slight, are more likely to survive and be successful in their environment - these mutations are then passed on to their descendents .... this process is repeated through many hundreds and thousands of generations - very slowly, over time, animals look very different to their ancestors of tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago - a good example is the mastodon that existed tens of thousands of years ago - they don't exist now, but the forms they mutated into do! (they're called elephants by the way) - fortunately enough a few mastodons have been so well preserved that it has been possible to extract fragments of DNA from their remains - well do you know what? Take a guess Blower - yes, that's right; they share the same DNA base-pairs as the modern day elephant!!! There's evolution in action for you Blower - one form changing into another, over time, through genetic mutation - it's called Darwinian evolution!

The same goes for crocodiles, alligators, sharks, primates, insects, felines ... the list goes on Blower. The fossils of early forms of these creatures clearly show the original base body-plan - their modern day ancestors show similar, but changed, body plans (bigger body, smaller body, more teeth, less teeth etc) - these creatures have adapted over time, lots of time! (a hell of a lot more time than your patently erroneous 6000 year earth life-span!)

Humans have only been observing the creatures around them in a scientific sense for a few hundred years - so of course we don't observe creatures producing different forms in that time period! It takes a lot longer than that for forms to change. Your argument is specious (yet again) - you've been misled and tricked Blower - now I know that must be hard for you to take but you really should let go of the fairy stories and get with the real world.

If a human could live for 100,000 years that human would observe the process of evolution happening right before their eyes.

You're blind to evolution only because you want to be. It doesn't fit with your crackpot religion - so you dismiss it (even going as far as to loudly proclaim that it's lies - but unfortunately for you the louder you shout the more people realise you're wrong - not the other way around as you clearly hoped). I'm afraid it's your daft religion that has no basis in fact, no evidence for its reality, and is actually grossly fraudulent - it's promoters lie to vulnerable people like you (the easily duped) and you actually start believing in it!

Do yourself a big favour - get away from the fraudsters who pedal this bible nonsense. Run, run as fast as you can away from your church and the liars who prop it up.

Your god is a lie, your church is a fraud, your beliefs are nonsense.

First of all, if you find a bone in the dirt, all you know is it died, you don't know that it produce offspring and you certainly cannot prove that it had different kinds of offspring. You say my religion is crackpot, this is such a large hocus pokus step in the evolutionary theory if every I did see. The evolutionist always seems to hide things in millions of years. The OBSERVED SCIENCE is that animals bring forth after their kind. The RELIGIOUS VIEW is that somehow long ago and far away, these bones that we find in the dirt could produce something other than their kind.

By the way, if you think mutations are going to help you, then you are clutching onto some extremely thin sewing thread. Mutations do not cause any kind of evolution, evolutionists admit that. Also mutations are not the result of new information being added, they are the result of existing information being scrambled. I defy you to show me a case where a mutation has brought about new information.

You want to believe that long ago and far away animals could produce something other than their kind, go ahead, but right there, you have just left the observed science and entered into a religious belief. If it is not demonstrable, observed and testable, it is not science. You evo boys jump in and out of religion constantly and don't even recognise it. Long ago and far away, a fairly tale is coming up next folks.

[Turbo Joe]

As for your Mastodon and the elephant, it may be that they share the same DNA base because they have the same designer, the same guy built them.

Also your assumption is that because they share similar DNA is that one evolved from the other. They could have easily been 2 separate kinds to begin with.

VWs, Audis, Skodas and Seats have similar blueprints and have thousands of interchangeable parts. Did one evolve from the other or are they that way because they have the same designers building them? Similar DNA proves a common designer, not a common ancestor. Thats like saying that because the majority of cars today all have four wheels, that proves they all evolved from a skateboard 14 million years, ridiculous.

[GardinerG]

I rejected evolution on its own demerits years before I even became a christian because there are so many errors, gaps, faults, assumptions, lies and ridiculous notions contain within it.

Yep, just like the Bible then. Just because parts of something are "proven" wrong doesn't make it complete rubbish. And just because people believe in something doesn't make it right, it just makes them blind to the truth if that truth doesn't conform to what they believe.

none of the theories of evolution (religious or otherwise) offer conclusive proof of being right

You stated that you believe in Adam and Eve and that the world is 6000 years old, not me. "Proving" carbon dating to be inaccurate in no way alters the probability that the earth is significantly older than this. I just found myself laughing at it as you have no evidence to back it up so instead you try to tear down the other theories. Maybe some uber being clicked it's proverbial fingers and we just appeared 6000 years ago, but I think you will have a hard time proving it. But of course you don't have to prove anything, just like I don't have to prove anything to you. Honestly, for your sake I hope there is a God.

On a slightly different note, what makes your religion more "right" than (all) the others?

[S4TAN]

according to Science News Sept 9 1995 on page 166, the universe appears to be 8.4 to 10.6 billion years old.

Blower - that was written nearly 13 yrs ago, technology and the sensitivity of measuring instruments have advanced greatly since then. So 13 yrs ago the estimate was 8.4 to 10.6 ... 13 yrs later with much better technology we can now pick up feinter signals, so it's now 13.7. Of course the estimate will increase as our technology gets better! Very easy concept to understand. (think of an optical telescope of 200 years ago compared to an optical telescope of today - the newer one is far better than the older one. 13 yrs is a long time in modern technology terms)

This however is not evidence for evolution as a star distance is just that, a distance, not a time.

Wrong again: Distance and time are intrinsically related Blower - light has a finite and constant speed in a vacuum (c) so we know that if light from an object takes x time to reach us travelling through space we also then know how far away it is. Another easy concept to understand. This is why cosmologists and astronomers talk of distances as being measured in 'light years' - i.e. the distance travelled in a year by a photon travelling at velocity c - space is so vast that were distances to be measured in miles the numbers become huge and very unwieldy and you would constantly have to invoke exponential numbers to express them. (c is approximately 300,000km per second) That's why you'll hear terms such as "100,000 light years across" being used to describe the diameter of our galaxy.

As for the speed of light, Einstein was wrong, the speed of light is not a constant.

Oh dear! Wrong again - Einstein actually said that light was a constant and finite speed in a vacuum! Of course light can be slowed down - that happens in every fibre optic cable every day (photons through optic strands travel at ~2/3 of c) - light can travel slower, but never faster then c.

Have we been hit by a comet yet,

Yes, happened a lot in Earths early history.

(black holes haven't been observed, they are still in the theory stage, if you have a picture of an actual black hole, please show me).

An object that does not emit light, or reflect it will of course be 'black' to an observer! A photo of a black hole is therefore impossible and a nonsense challenge. However, the effects of black-holes can be observed (accretion discs, Hawking radiation, gravitational lensing, even the shape of spiral galaxies!)

I think you might need to go back to science school mate - you need to brush up on your basic stuff!

P.S. I don't think you actually wrote your last 3 replies yourself Blower - not your tone or style, doesn't match previous posts .... hmmmm.... I suspect someone else wrote those ....