www.iidb.org

VitalOne #fundie iidb.org

Well I'll tell you what I personally think, I don't really subscribe the implication of God or a designer, just an intelligent cause...this intelligent cause is the soul-mind. The DNA directly correlates to the soul-mind....the DNA changes are based chiefly on this energy....this is how evolution happened...I've been experimenting with this thought-energy for a while so I bet if I had a microscope and some equipment I could really prove it...but biology is not my major I'm not really that interested in biology as much as other things

Not_Registered #fundie iidb.org

You focus on the allowed beating of slaves. If slaves are lazy and insubordinate then they need some incentive to work (i.e. a beating). The bible doesn't tell masters they must beat their slaves. It says beating is allowed, being that it is necessary as an incentive to work. In fact, some slaves became slaves voluntarily, and thus were probably effecient workers for their masters. They probably never needed incentive to work because they knew what they were getting in to, thus beatings weren't necessary. Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free. Why? Were they sadist or masochist? No, I'm sure they had pleasant relationships with their masters because they did what was asked of them and needed no beatings as incentive.

Not_Registered #fundie iidb.org

If all slaves were treated appropiately and correctly... there would be no negative connotation applied to slaves or slavery. But, since many slaves were abused, killed, raped, maimed, etc., which was not in accordance with the bibles regulations, there has been a negative association applied to 'slavery' and 'slaves.'

Vanderzyden #fundie iidb.org

If the theistic evolutionist refuses to answer, or relegates God to the background (thinking him not worth the bother because he isn't empirically detectable), then it is clear that we are dealing not with a theist, but a Darwinist who happens to be agnostic. Again, it would seem that the theistic evolutionist attempts to reconcile what cannot possibly be joined together.

Uncle Davey #fundie iidb.org

(on his Rejection of Evolution)
I also rejected it because even at the age of 14, and having had evolution brainwashed into me in school and nothing about creation, I nevertheless had a nose for when I was being fed a line.

Douglas J. Bender #fundie iidb.org

As much as evolutionists are averse to changing their thinking, and as much as their biases inform their opinions in spite of all the facts, I still think they are capable, at times, of rational thought.

shivalinga #fundie iidb.org

the motivation of those who ignore all the science that creates problems for evolutionary theory is clearly based not on scientific reasoning... but instead on the negation principle i.e.- it's either evolution or creation, i don't accept creation,therefore evolution must be correct.

emotional #fundie iidb.org

If you say there is no reason to believe in theistic evolution, I will agree with you. I find theistic evolution the best way to keep my cherished beliefs without having to go to war against the facts. Theistic evolution is a compromise, certainly, but it's the only way to keep vital faith without resorting to creationism. If someone should convince me that theistic evolution is an untenable position, I will inevitably become a creationist, because full-fledged materialism is for me not an option.

WalkingWithFire #fundie iidb.org

Why is it so hard for you to accept that demons exist? Just because you don't comprehend their existence doesn't mean others can't. I guess it's easier for you to just attribute it to something else than accept that maybe it's real. Less responsibility that way.

Amos #fundie iidb.org

Evolution is the theory of dummies who actually think that nature has a mind to make selections. To be sure, "natural selection" implies the existence of intelligenge does it not? Please tell me where this mind of nature is. Adaptation requires intelligence because to adapt implies to change when needed. Mutations do not require intelligence. Random mutation is suppose to answer everything because it is random and does not require a mind. I would call that biology for dummies. I don't object to mutations but do not see that to be an acceptable answer to justify qualities and innate abilities.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

First. We do come from Africa much less a black origin.
The bible says babel is where men separated to fill the earth.

The black colour and other black attributes is a extreme reaction of the human body to a hostile envirorment. Likewise white is a extreme reaction.
The colours in between are more close to the original.
I suspect skin in the beginning was more adaptable but after all the adapting it shuts down doing any more.

The whitw skin and hair is for one purpose. To allow the benifits of sunlight to be absorbed by the body. The cloudier . over the year, it is the whiter you are. Along with this is also that women are faired because they historically would of covered more of thier body for decency and perhaps more sheltered.

The people in the more cloudy area, very north Europe, had such a cloudy issue that thier bodies reduced almost all pigmentation to red spots and hair. Red headed men, despite being related to the hairist men in the world, shave very little and likewise redheaded women have the lowest hair count of europeon women who have the most hair of any women.
I believe also blue eyes are the result of pimentation issues.

White skin was a extreme reaction to problems met by the first settlers. Finns are white and yet a very asian people (by language) I believe.

The asian skin doesn't need protection from the sun but also didn't have lack of sun issues. Thier hair betrays this
The Asian head is made to deal with a strong dangerous wind. So the eyes, upper cheeks, and uncurling hair are all to withstand the forces of wind.

They were not in a wet world so little hair is needed and pigmentation loss was not needed. They bummped into the ice age about 1800 B.C and so God provided thier bodies with an ability to adapt quickly. Not by natural selection.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

The support to our ideas is our general model based on scripture and practical evidence in the field. We do no more or less speculation then your team in actual analysis.
Oil being fluid makes it more likely to have been made quickly like in a juicer because of analagy to other elements in nature.
I guess its nature as crushed life makes it more common sensical that it was created instantly then long processes.

winner #fundie iidb.org

Christmas Star

The Star of Bethlehem was likely the mobile throne of God in Eze 1, the famous sapphire throne. The Father looking down on the birth of His son. That is why the star charts likely won't have a record of it.

The Star of Bethlehem has long been a mystery. Science has not found any star that fits the bill, of the time, and place that it was supposed to shine.

I propose that the star was a flying saucer, based on some evidence from the bible. That would explain why it was not seen far away, and not a 'star' in the modern sense of the word.

I call the vessel, the 'Sceptre'

Gen 49:10 - The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Ps 45:6 - Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

What about it??

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

I am a creationist but I think its unlikely asteroids were propelled up into space. I believe the bible says a third of the stars fell to earth during a cosmic fight between satan the angle Michael. This would be soon after the fall. This explains, if accurate, where the choas we finf in space now comes from. Plus where all the great crators here and on other space bodies come from. The movement during the flood would of destroyed many craters or hidden them. Perhaps many meteors did not actually touch the earth but were destroyed as they entered.
I might speculate that all the devastating meteors is what turned much of the planet into a inhospitalable place and so particular kinds of animals did better then others. Dinos, lizards etc.
Just thought I throw my two sense in.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

You are the Professer. In your knowledge of the hand/biology/medicine what is a specific gain from an evolutionary premise that has progressed the hand medicine.
Of coarse I think there has been nothing and evolution has just hitched a ride on actual biologists achievments.

afdave #fundie iidb.org

I think the idea that coal and oil formed gradually is without any support whatsoever ... Totally implausible to me. I think it is much more likely that it was all formed in a single catastrophe ... The Global Flood.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

I don't like the word evolve but rather adapt.
Yes I think adaptation takes place instantly. Dolphins would of gone from land to sea in say five years after the flood.
The evidence that creatures change from one state to another is excellent. Only the mechanism and time is a problem.
I believe that marsupials are just the same creatures as elsewhere on the planet. So important, if minor, change can take place quickly. As long as a creature stays within its kind. Whatever that is.
The verse in the bible is correctly interpretated as giants of the deep and not whales.

AfDave #fundie iidb.org

Again I ask ... Where is the actual hard evidence that there is any water on any other planets?

No speculation allowed here. If I allow you to speculate, then we might as well say not only is there water on other planets, but also little green men and such.

If you don't have any real evidence for it, then it is most reasonable to say that water in asteroids probably came from earth.

afdave #fundie iidb.org

(This posting speaks for itself)

[Wow! Now this is some serious creo-denial going on!
If the evidence for water on Mars, Europa, etc. is questionable, (!?) What makes you think the evidence for water on asteroids is beyond question???]

Yes, yes, I realize there is a little water ice in these places, but it's very small compared to what's on earth. And we have a mechanism for getting some of earth's massive water supply out into space ... so ... the most logical idea is ... the water came from earth.

afdave #fundie iidb.org

(afdave is a Real Scientist)

The universe appears to be rather full of water? Please. You don't even have any hard evidence for very much water on any other planets in our solar system, much less in the entire universe. The best evidence for water in places OTHER than earth says that there is some in comets and asteroids. Not oceans on Europa and elsewhere.

cutegecko3 #fundie iidb.org

[Right...so, if all current types of terrestrial life on earth came from the ark, why didn't the more efficient placentals beat marsupials from Mt. Ararat to Australia and why did marsupials make it at all?]

Did it occur to anyone that cats hate water.And perhaps marsupials could have easily made the swim from Papua New Guinea to Austrailia.

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

There is no such thing as "fish" gene, or a "bird" chromosome, or a "primate" chromosome. There is no such thing as an "inverted", or an "inside out" chromosome. DNA and Genes simply are whole long strands, of many smaller parts which fit together acording to I Ching principles of Yin and Yang. They can fit together in the same way magnets can be attracted, and just how magnets can be repelled some genes cannot fit. That's all. You have superimposed, and force-fitted human and chimp chromosomes to match, and claimed that proves relation when it does not To say "primate" genes is dishonest. There is no genetic mechanism for evolution, or gene change. It can't happen

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

[Better known as Jake S from his Richard Dawkins forums days, he's changed one letter of his username, but hasn't changed anything else - he's still spamming boards with his I Ching and Atlantis woo ...]

It's an uneccessary theory, and the phenomena is proven to be possible without the theory evolutionists invented to explain it.

It also is not likely to ever be possible without damaging the cells and destroying them

As for why things would have different genomes? Likely their origin is from different dimensions and different vibrational levels of existence

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

[responding to "For a project I'm working on I need to present recent evidence in support of Neanderthals being our distant cousins OR are they a direct ancestor?"]

I am a creationist.
The first thing that should be done is to determine if neander females had pain at childbirth. If so then they must be our relatives as only human females have pain. Not animals (including apes).

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

[You'll all love this ... he's done it again!]

You might believe that science has something to do with all this foreign technolgy which is not of the earth's nature and that has been introduced in the last 100 years. It doesn't.

There hasn't been this kind of technology since 10,500 BC, and then all of a sudden it appears and is introduced in the last 100 years?

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

I'm surprised at how you feel you need to cling to the idea that all female animals (or some or any) have pain at birthing.
Very interesting
Well
Perhaps you guys never knew this very pregnany aspect of human reproduction . Not even suspected it.

I insist that only female people have pain at childbirth.
Not apes or elephants.
If I'm wrong then a few references from the science sources you all tell me you haunt should PROVE ME WRONG.
All chips in boys.

The hyaena makes my case. If this is all you got then there must be a fundamental difference between our women and allll the kinds of animals that give live birth. (Unles you saying chickens egg laying isn't as fun as it seems).
I also insist the hyaena is not suffering pain giving birth in any way similiar in its process to the womenfolk. There may be a 2 second yelp for a first birth rip. This doesn't count and shows desperation on your part to say this is birth pains too.

Again I say all my knowledge on human birthpain exclusity is from evolutionist premised literature.
They explain away it by saying upright walking changed this and that. Not about a bigger head but thats a good point too I guess. Though I'd take a baby head over a rhino butt anyday.
Did I hit a embarrassing nerve??

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

DNA ideas are still just speculation in regards to relationships as Dr Watson
betrays to all.
Neaders are just Celts and kraults who first settled Europe etc and just show that a rigorus adaptation was needed.Then the edges were soften to the present glory.
The better idea is that researchers get their hands dirty in digging for more info on neanders lives. Perhaps one day a neader burial will have a Sumerian jewelly in it and end all this jazz about neaders in time and family tree.

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

I don't need to know everything about science to know that when it contradicts what is proven to be true that it is wrong in that specific point it contradicts.

Jake M #fundie #dunning-kruger iidb.org

In the case of humans being supposedly related to animals, that's impossible and I know it isn't true. I know it isn't true more than an ordinary person can know anything with their human mind's.

The computers in front of our faces might just be an illusion, we don't know, I can't say for sure if this computer is real........but garunteed I know evolution is wrong through direct experience and revelation

boneyard bill #fundie iidb.org

[FSTDT Climate Science Award?]

Look, the law of gravity isn't so terribly important because it tells us that things fall to the ground. We already know that. What is important is that things fall to the ground at the rate of 32 ft./sec/sec. It is the quantitative precision of the law that makes it important.

Likewise, the greenhouse gas theory of little use to us if all it does is tell us that CO2 has a warming effect. We already know that. Just blow on your hands on cold day and you will see. Without any agreed quantifiable figure, the greenhouse gas theory is of no value. Yes, it will have a warming effect. But how much? Estimates vary from .02-03 degrees C. all the way up to 6 C. for a doubling of CO2.

This is pretty basic science. Why do you need it explained to you?

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

[[If not a monkey than what was the "common ancestor of both chimps and humans"?]

It was an ape.]

yeah, and apes came from monkeys, animals, and eventually you even believe they came from bacteria

So my argument is not wrong

Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

Of coarse evolution and all historical sciences can't be testable in most or all aspects. This should be self evident.
Yes the past is open to deduction from clues like a crime scene however the scientific method can not be applied to the big conclusions.
All one needs to pay attention to is whether the scientific method can and is applied.

This is why it seems every graduating class turns over some previously solid idea in evolution . Like PE.
Its easy when the original ideas had no tests to back themselves up.
Origin subjects are always about interpretation and then accumulation of data.
Just read carefully the posts here in this thread and you will see all the tests are based on premises themselves. Like fossil sequence and DNA stuff.
In the end origin subjects unlike laws of gravity can not be directly, repeatably tested. Origin subjects are like crime scenes. Here you will find the evolutionists are intel;igent, hard working Scotland Yard detectives. The creationists are Sherlock Holmes. Correcting and correct.

Robert Byers #fundie iidb.org

What? The bible tells the whole story of why.
We can put together that if humans were originally to live forever and so quickly fill up the planet and have nothing to stop our intellectual pursuits then we can conclude something.
The universe is for mankind to have settled and manupulated our own planets and creatures from earth to make each family have their own spaceplace.
We are wayyy behind.
The universe is big for the reason it is. To allow development.

hzcummi #fundie iidb.org

A Scientific Prediction from Genesis:

Besides myself, all other people that try to tell us what Genesis is saying do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.

...

I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis is true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

And then there was a bunch of nonsense that assumes Gallieo was the first to invent the telescope......

Neptune was known for thousands of years by many cultures

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

Well, some people claim you have "ape" DNA in you, it's not true. DNA corresponds to high level principles such as YHVH and the I Ching much more than it does to the contrived and man made theory of evolution.

Blood of our Savior #fundie iidb.org

Its so hypocritical too. you atheists want church and state seperation but you still want your dogmatic and faith based "evolution" to be forced down the troats of our youth.

~ Hell awaits those who go against the LORD!!!!!!

Dust #fundie iidb.org

Many of the atheists today are a result of the very thing Bobinius claims of religion. The Big Bang 'Theory' and the 'Theory' of Evolution, for example, are taught to our children in schools all across the globe, and are passed on as fact. When in fact, there is NO 'evidence' to support such theories. Don’t get me wrong, I love science. It is mankind’s search for truth. But I will not stand for someone to pass off theories as fact.

worldview #fundie iidb.org

[If you were out walking and on the ground somewhere you found a flat, roundish sort of thing with hard shiny skin and a large bit of hard, transparent skin on one side and behind the transparent skin you saw two in-axis flagella turning about the center of the transparent skin at different but clearly related rates and regularly crossing over some markings in a roughly circular pattern on the tissue backing the transparent skin and on one side of the transparent skin there was another shorter flagellum spinning quite quickly in a stuttering motion and the thing was making a regular clucking sound, what would you conclude?]

I'd probably conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent designer.

ex_libres #fundie iidb.org

Evolutionists are expert tapdancers, as is obvious here in this forum. Think about all the people who dedicated there careers to proving evolution. Are they so willing to walk away from it? What would it take?

Gemma Therese #fundie iidb.org

How is it that there are so many happy, joyous, and fufilled nuns in the world? These women have given up freedom, possessions, children, and marraige, and yet, they are joyful... Does this speak to any athiests in support of the existence of God? If not, to what do you attribute their happiness?

Jim Larmore #fundie iidb.org

[Just a few minutes later, after many dissenting scholars are quoted]I have studied a lot over the years on the 'scholarly' interpretations of the ancient scripts. They are so messed up they can't tell heads or tails of much of anything. One scholar will contridict another etc.

Old Man #fundie iidb.org

The most ludicrous proposition that modern legal systems have put forward of late (apart from the suggestion that a wife can be 'raped' by her husband - which is so antithetial to biblical morality that it is suprising the proponents of that law were not struck down by thunderbolts), is the concept that a prostitute can be raped, even after she has entered into a contract for services.

samurai #fundie iidb.org

1. The term "Natural Selection" was not appropriate term in science for the changes that are being observed. Nature cannot select for herself. She is not human, she is blind, she has no mind, no will, no reason, no purpose. The best term that Darwin should be using was Species Interrelation.

By using that term NATURAL SELECTION, Darwin had made nature as it was the same with living things like dogs or cats that has the will to survive, therefore has will to select for themselves.

NATURE SELECTION is one of the worst term that he had used, Worst because he did not even think that it denotes supernatural meaning. Why? He had animated nature, like Aessop's who animated many animals in his fable story books.

So Darwin's science was a fable.

2. I also believed that Darwin was thinking like this when he wrote that book.

Species A had become Species B, then, become Species C...then so on. This is supernatural. This is what he meant NATURAL SELECTION.

The fact is that, Species A had become Species A001, then had become Species A00112, and had become Species A200, and had become Species A2111 in the long course oftime. This Species A did not become Species B!This is what I meant by INTERRELATION.

tek #fundie iidb.org

First evolution points nowhere, How does evolution provide facts that god don't exist, It is just saying we all came from apes. who created the apes ? And also how come there arent any apes changing into men now ? I heard even Darwin in his death bed admitted that it was bull he regreted he ever said that.