‘God’s Word Is True’: Geologist Says Unusual Discovery in Antarctica Confirms Biblical Flood Account

Photo Credit: Twitter

A Christian geologist with a leading creation science organization says the recent discovery of fossilized tree stumps in Antarctica confirms the Bible’s account of the Great Flood in Genesis.

Writing on the Institute for Creation Research’s (ICR) website, Dr. Tim Clarey describes the recent discovery of of the well-preserved stumps.

“The trees were found in Antarctica’s Transantarctic Mountains and include a mix of evergreens, deciduous trees, and gingkoes,” he says. “This discovery should be no surprise to those who take Genesis as literal history.”

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee geologists Erik Gulbranson and John Isbell found the fossilized trees while conducting research on the ice-covered continent. In total, they collected fragments from 13 trees.

“People have known about the fossils in Antarctica since the 1910-12 Robert Falcon Scott expedition,” Gulbranson said. “However, most of Antarctica is still unexplored. Sometimes, you might be the first person to ever climb a particular mountain.”

Gulbranson and Isbell believe the ancient trees lived 260 million years ago, before a massive extinction event killed them off.

“This forest is a glimpse of life before the extinction, which can help us understand what caused the event,” Gulbranson said.

  • Connect with Christian News

“The Permian Period ended 251 million years ago in history’s greatest mass extinction, as the Earth rapidly shifted from icehouse to greenhouse conditions,” explains a University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee report. “More than 90 percent of species on Earth disappeared, including the polar forests.”

Secular scientists are not sure what triggered the extinction event at the end of the Permian Period, but many think a series of catastrophic volcanic eruptions were to blame.

Clarey, however, believes the calamity that killed and buried the trees in Antarctica was the Great Flood described in Genesis.

“The Bible clearly describes a global Flood that affected all land masses—why should Antarctica be an exception?” he writes.

Because trees cannot survive in Antarctica’s bitterly cold climate today, the discovery of the tree fossils indicates that the continent’s weather conditions were significantly warmer and more humid in the past. This evidence lines up with a popular young-earth creation view that earth’s climate was warmer and milder before the Great Flood.

“The greenhouse effect would have meant that the earth was uniformly warm and mild [prior to the Flood],” said Dr. Henry Morris, co-founder of ICR, in a 1968 seminar talk. “The latitudinal differences in temperature would have been minimal.”

The condition of the fossilized trees—exquisitely preserved with traces of proteins and amino acids still intact—also makes sense if the trees were suddenly killed by the Great Flood only a few thousand years ago, says Clarey.

“How could proteins and original amino acids survive for millions of years?” he says. “The secular science community has no viable answers to explain remarkable finds like these.”

Although Gulbranson and Isbell believe the recently-discovered trees are millions of years old, Clarey says the fossils “tell a different and a far more recent story—one that fits the biblical account of a global Flood just thousands of years ago.”

“These trees were buried rapidly during the global Flood described in Genesis,” he argues. “Temperate and tropical plants and animals were caught up and quickly buried in the ash, mud, and sand that engulfed them in this cataclysmic event. These fossils remind us that God’s Word is true.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • ZappaSaid88

    Creation science? That’s like saying a bald hairstyle. What a junk article.

    • Michael Link

      so you choose to believe undirected randomness as a more feasible answer to the question how could the universe be created with such an infinitely delicate balance as to be perfectly attuned to the creation of life on earth?

      isn’t that like building a house by piling a bunch of wood, nails, glass, and scrap metal in a heap and blowing it up with a couple of sticks of dynamite?

      because the odds of that happening are far more likely than what it took to create the universe from nothing to what it is today…

      • ZappaSaid88

        If you take the physical state of the universe currently and use math to travel backwards in time you come to a big bang moment. That’s where the math leads so that is the main scientific theory and phenomena such as the cosmic background radiation are further evidence of it’s validity.

        I don’t believe some super agency existing outside of time and space snapped their fingers and poofed the universe into existence (from nothing). There is exactly zero evidence of that.

        If you want to make a case for creation go ahead but it can’t be done by attempting to disprove big bang cosmology.

        • Michael Link

          why when I disprove the big bang when it aligns perfectly with Genesis 1…

          • DrIndica

            Genesis 1 as allegory, metaphor or myth, what ever suits your world view.

          • Michael Link

            how is it an allegory when it supports the modern cosmological view of the universe?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Because if you read it literally, it completely contradicts science.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Well, sure, if your definition of science is “whatever scripture affirms”, then SURE, scripture will always affirm science. That is nothing but pure circular reasoning.

          • Michael Link

            I guess using the word ‘random’ is a better choice of answers

            how did the universe develop is such an intricate way that the odds of it happening are 1 to the power of 120? Random dude!!!

            How did the human brain, the most complicated organic structure that collapses the quantum world of probability into a concrete reality through an undefinable consciousness? Random dude!!!

            How does evolution create a seemingly infinite amount of life forms that live intricately balanced together that irreducible complexity by undirected mutations – when the type of undirected mutations we see in the world today is cancer which is 100% destructive? Random dude!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I think that’s a faulty line of reasoning you’re implying, that it’s either “God did it” or “it was just completely random”. Evolution is done by natural selection. That is not random, and need not be directed by some outside entity.

            As for the universe…..well, that’s just the old “fine-tuning argument”. Who’s to say the universe couldn’t have turned out some other way? Maybe if it did, we wouldn’t be around, but then in that case, we wouldn’t be around to wonder if was “fine-tuned”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if it is not affirmed then it is not science ….. it is made up fantasy ……… and NO …. not circular …. STRAIGHT FORWARD thinking that you deny ….. but cannot explain …….. the SCIENCE …. the accepted SCIENCE disproves any such idea of a “big bang” ….. THAT is the “misconception” that you want to foist ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Scientific observations such as the observed expansion of the universe and the cosmic background radiation consistently support the Big Bang theory. (that’s why it’s a theory)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. WHAT IS THE CAUSE …. in SCIENCE ….. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROXIMAL CAUSE ….. but you rely on ….. “it is okay to not know” ……. LAUGHABLE ….. what a joke ………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why is that so “laughable”? Why do you think you have to know the cause of something to know it happened? Haven’t you, at one time or another, seen or experienced something where you didn’t know how or why it happened? Did that make you not believe that it happened?

          • LynnRH

            Why do you think you have to see something to know its real? Like a Heavenly God?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t say I have to see something to know it’s real; there are all sorts of things that we can’t see that nobody doubts the existence of. I have to have some evidence of something, in one form or another, though. I just don’t think there’s enough evidence to prove that any god exists, or even to disprove it, for that matter. You disagree, I assume, but I can live with that. That wasn’t the point of my post that you were responding to, anyway.

          • LynnRH

            Have you tried to read/study the King James Holy Bible? You might (as soooo many have) come to realize God is real.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I thought I said to you before, I wasn’t an atheist all of my life. I used to be a Christian once upon a time. So, it’s not like I’ve never opened a Bible or been to a church or anything like that. Heck, I’ve probably read more of the Bible as an atheist than when I was actually a Christian. It didn’t change my mind yet.

          • LynnRH

            Well I will continually be praying that your blinders will be removed and that Satan will be put behind you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            because the answer is in front of your very face ….. but you want to play games and fudge it and continue to STEAL from a christian worldview …..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What answer? Why don’t you answer my question? Do you have to know why something happened to know that it happened? Because that’s what you were saying.

            And what do you think I’m “stealing”? If someone is not a Christian, does that mean they should not think ANY of the same thing a Christian does? (whatever that is)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if you cannot tell us HOW it happened ….. no one asked WHY ….. we are asking HOW it happened ….. and your answer is ….. “it is okay if we do not know” …… you argue from IGNORANCE ….. but somehow YOU think that gives your answers some kind of authority …. and i gotta tell you …. “i do not know” ….. IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE …………. and what you are STEALING from christianity ….. is AUTHORITY ……….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            no one asked WHY

            You asked me “what is the cause”…that’s the same thing as asking why. But, whatever, my point is still the same. Haven’t you, at least one time, known that something happened without knowing HOW it happened? I’ll use a weird hypothetical example: You wake up one day to find, on your kitchen table, an envelope with your name on it, in it is a check, made out to you, for a million dollars. You don’t know how or why it got there. But, guess what? You can’t cash it. By your logic, it doesn’t exist.

            but somehow YOU think that gives your answers some kind of authority

            No, I don’t. I just said, you don’t have to know how or why something happened to know that it happened. I never said that not knowing how or why gives me some kind of authority.

            and what you are STEALING from christianity ….. is AUTHORITY

            Now you’re telling me Christians are the only ones that have any kind of authority…..on any subject?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “what is the cause of the event” is HOW it happened ….. and NO … it is NOT the same as asking “why” …. WHAT WAS THE PROXIMAL CAUSE …. because if you are going to claim science …. then a PROXIMAL CAUSE is CENTRAL to it ……… and by SCIENCE …. it has to be a force equal to or greater than …. and you do not have that (HAWKING does not have that)……….. so guess what ….. NOT SCIENCE …… fantasy and wishful thinking is all you have ……… also it is not testable and it is not repeatable …..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, OK, that IS what you’re saying….if you don’t know what the cause of something is, you don’t know that it happened….despite whatever evidence there is for it. So, in my hypothetical example from earlier, you wouldn’t cash that check….since despite the fact that you saw it (evidence), you don’t think it exists, since you don’t know how it got there. If that makes sense to you, fine, but it sure doesn’t to me.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the evidence is not in question ….. we both have the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE …… what that evidence MEANS ….. THAT IS THE ISSUE ……….. and YOU begin from a position that DENIES part of the evidence …. so ANY conclusions you draw from the evidence …. is ERROR ……..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            what that evidence MEANS ….. THAT IS THE ISSUE

            Now you’re just changing the subject. I thought the issue was that I can’t know anything without knowing the cause of it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. you DENY Gods part in creation ….. and your denial of THAT EVIDENCE significantly ALTERS your perception of the REST of the evidence ……. and you begin in ERROR ….. and so you END in ERROR ………. and IF you could acknowledge the evidence of God ….. you would KNOW THE CAUSE of His creation …… hint ….. it was not an explosion or a “bang” or any other such thing …………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Or, in other words, if you believe in a religion, it alters your perception of everything else, even things that other people in your religion see as compatible with it. Gotcha.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. you are trying to equate “religion” with christianity (false conflation and category ERROR)….. AGAIN ….. IGNORING the evidence ….. but that is typical of your thought (or lack of thought) processes ….. you begin in error …. ignoring the evidence of God and His creation ….. and you end in error ….. and you feign authority when you have none ……….. and you feign KNOWLEDGE ….. WHEN YOU HAVE NONE ………… you argue from ignorance …. IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ….. and then you expect to have your personal opinion taken seriously ….. and pass it off by saying “it okay to not know” ……. when your entire position, THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR POSITION …… is “I do not know” as a SUPPOSED “agnostic atheist” or whatever that nonsense you spewed was called ……… GOT THAT ……

          • TheKingOfRhye

            you are trying to equate “religion” with christianity

            How is it not a religion? Let’s go at it this way: Define “religion” for me, then.

            OK, though, so Christianity’s not a religion? Know what that would mean? The First Amendment doesn’t apply to it. Christian churches have to marry LGBT couples, Christian-owned businesses can’t use the Constitution as a reason not to serve LGBT people, so on and so forth….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            religion is mans idea of seeking god …… christianity is God seeking man ….. religion is dependent on man ….. christianity is all dependent on God and God does the seeking, not men …… religion is the POLAR OPPOSITE of christianity ….. religion is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to christianity …………

            “Christian churches have to marry LGBT couples, Christian-owned businesses can’t use the Constitution as a reason not to serve LGBT people”

            FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION says we do not ………

            Freedom of association encompasses both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members. Freedom of Association, The Essentials of Human Rights describes the right as coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of Association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, okay……I should have known, I guess, you’re making up your own definition of religion, that I’ve never seen anywhere else, and only makes sense if you’re a Christian. Figures.

            And I looked up that thing about freedom of association that you copied from….the interesting thing about that is, while I don’t deny we have that, do you know where that comes from? A Supreme Court ruling that interpreted freedom of association as part of the freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Hmm….I thought you didn’t like that sort of thing. Guess it’s OK when it helps your point, though?

            But that’s like other rights though, it’s not some kind of absolute right that takes precedence over everything else. If it was, some racist could use that to justify racial discrimination, just for one example.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Nope … that is the BIBLICAL DEFINITION ….. it is not “made up” …… it is what SCRIPTURE SAYS it is ….. it DOES NOT come from me ….. it comes from OUTSIDE OF ME …..

            “I thought you didn’t like that sort of thing.”

            SCOTUS makes opinions …… sometimes those opinions are right and sometimes not …. SO WHAT ….. your opinion of their opinion is not always the same …. OR DO YOU AGREE WITH THE DRED SCOTT decision …………… OR WHAT …………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’m not even talking about my opinion. You’re the one happy to cite a Supreme Court ruling when it suits your point, but when it doesn’t, you’ll accuse them of “making laws”. Whatever my opinion of the Dred Scott decision, it was their decision, and it would have even set precedent….but of course it was nullified not that much later, by constitutional amendments.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            actually it is not about a SCOTUS decision ….. FYI ….. it is SPELLED OUT ….. including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights.

            cut and pasted for your edification …. SO WHAT ………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Spelled out in the Bill of Rights? No, it’s not. That’s why the SC had to make that ruling (that interpretation) that freedom of association was part of freedom of speech.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … it was always understood to be an essential freedom ….. you cannot be forced to associate with those you do not want to associate with …… that is the base freedom the others grew out of ….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But you said before, it was “spelled out.” Now it was “always understood”?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the other individual rights under the first amendment combine to make a freedom of association …… and as was pointed out ….. numerous other documents do also ……. it was acknowledged as common knowledge in the Bill of Rights ….. that was for them SPELLING IT OUT ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            BTW …. do you practice the celebration of christmas ….. thanks for your participation in RELIGION ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You cannot steal from what Christianity never owned in the first place.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God owns EVERYTHING in His creation ….. including you sweet pea ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Disagree, but not relevant because I said Christianity. Guess what Amos, morality predates Christianity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no it does not predate GOD ….. and it does NOT PREDATE TRUTH ….. which you deny …….. God owns EVERYTHING in His creation ….. including you sweet pea ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Read your own words above, sweet pea. You said Christianity. Then you changed it to “God”. Human morality is older than Christianity. So no one stole from it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. christianity COMES FROM GOD ….. they are not separate ….. they are the samething ….. there is no God BUT the God of christianity ….. and all of creation comes from Him …. and as i said ….. EVEN YOU SWEET PEA …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Nope yourself, sweet pea. Your Bible, which is the only place your God’s “morality” was ever written down, has only been around less than 2000 years. Where dd all the people get their morality before that?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. try 7000 years ………. and to answer your question ….. THEY GOT IT FROM THE GOD WHO CREATED THEM ALL ………….. it did not have to be written down for them …….. it was made part of their being …. to a certain extent ………. it is called having a CONSCIENCE …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Nope, little snowflake, you’re wrong. How is anyone going to get any direction from God without a holy book? There’s NO WORDS before the Bible, Amos. You like to pretend your Bible has been around forever, but it hasn’t, and people with perfectly acceptable morals lives BEFORE that time.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ummmm ….. Because ….. GOD SPOKE TO THEM …… and not as some voice in their heads ….. but out loud for all the assembled to HEAR ….. and they did not like what they heard ….. FYI ….. CONSCIENCE ….. Trumps “empathy” ….. every day of the week ….. and TWICE on SUNDAY …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            So you are asking me to believe that this morality that comes from God, which you say atheists steal from God, despite the fact that atheists DO have consciences without REQUIRING a God, can only be known by having it SPOKEN to those lucky few by God? Have I got this right?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God gave ALL MEN a conscience …… and it is not the result of evolution or any other thing but the CREATOR of ALL MEN …….. A-theist, pagan or otherwise ….. that is why when you do commit a crime ….you KNOW IT IS A CRIME ….. and you seek to cover it up ……. and not one person had to tell you to do that ….. a TWO YEAR OLD DOES IT ….. it is innate … no one had to explain it ….. as God placed a conscience in ALL MEN ……….

            BUT …. God did speak in an audible voice at Sinai ………… and ALL OF ISRAEL was assembled and heard it ….. and they did not like it ………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I never said we DON’T have a conscience. You are saying that atheists steal from Christianity/God when they claim morality. I am asking you how on earth that’s possible when there was a time in history when there WAS no Christianity and yet people managed to be perfectly moral.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I never said we DON’T have a conscience.”

            GOOD …. so now we are down to WHERE did it come from ………. and since YOU DEMAND science ….. then …. SHOW ITS ORIGIN BY SCIENCE …………. ummmm …. you CANNOT …..

            “yet people managed to be perfectly moral.”

            that is a NULL SET ………. does not exist ………. NEVER DID …. NEVER WILL ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Where did our conscience come from? It is determined genetically, and learned as part of a culture – our parents instill in us a morality as we grow.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            fine …. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE MR. SCIENCE …………. what EVIDENCE is there of it being “genetic” ….. where on the DNA, on what set of alleles does it rest ….. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE ………… what if your parents are Kim Jong Un and some anonymous female you never met ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Seriously, the guy who says God talks to him is requesting evidence from someone else? Why don’t you go first?

            I suppose after you do that, you could look into the writings of Michel Glautier who said it is instinctive and one of the things that drives people to form societies. He postulates that groups of humans without this kind of drive or in inadequate amounts cannot form societies and do not reproduce their kind as successfully as those who do.

            If your parents are Kim Jong Un, your morals are likely to be lacking in several respects. What’s that got to do with God.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            EXCUSE ME …. YOU are the one CLAIMING THE NEED for evidence ….. you are being asked to PROVIDE what YOU DEMAND ….. be CONSISTENT …. QUIT DEFLECTING and ANSWER THE QUESTION ………… where is YOUR PEER REVIEWED STUDY to back up YOUR ASSERTION ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I never said I wouldn’t provide evidence, it’s just a strange request coming from someone who when pressed for evidence himself says “God told me so”.

            Also, I didn’t deflect at all, I gave you a very good answer. Go read it again. And because it’s a subject that is still being studied, sometimes “we don’t know enough yet” will have to suffice. Science isn’t perfect.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. God OWNS science ….. and He OWNS YOU ….. and i never said anything about denying evidence …. NEVER SAID A WORD ….. i DEFY you to prove it otherwise …. we both have the EXACT same evidence ….. the difference is what that evidence MEANS ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            “God owns science” is a statement of your opinion, it’s not a statement of fact. Any statement involving God in fact is just based on faith. So you’re not providing any evidence when you say things like that.

            I am giving you very good scientific principles and you’re rejecting them because you don’t like them, and it’s very difficult to have a serious conversation with you when you do things like that. It doesn’t matter to me how strong your opinion is, it’s just an opinion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. not an opinion …. GOD CREATED EVERYTHING ….. and that INCLUDES science ….. and it INCLUDES you ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Strongly-held opinion, nothing more, and worthless in a reasoned debate.

            If we had proof of God, there would be no atheists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are not here for “reasoned debate” ….. you have DENIAL ….. DENIAL defeats any “proof” ….. and you should know ….. you deny the proof ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Evidence, truth, proof – all things you do not have, and never provide.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            all things you deny …. in your DENIAL ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You say God talks to you and you try to submit that as evidence. If you tried that in a courtroom you would be laughed out of it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God speaks to those whom He chooses …. If you want to hear Gods voice, read the Bible ….. If you want to hear His voice audibly, read the Bible out loud ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I read the Bible for years and heard no voices. Maybe they’re in your head.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            or maybe …. He does not speak to you for a reason ……… maybe He leaves you in your unregenerate state ….. as i have said …. you are deaf and dumb to the scriptures …… they do not speak to you as you are not one of His ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I think if you have voices speaking to you, you should probably go speak to a health practitioner.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i think …. AGAIN …. If you want to hear Gods voice, read the Bible ……. If you want to hear His voice audibly, read the Bible out loud ……. do you know what Christ says to those who do not believe in Him ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The Bible is a bunch of words written by human beings. I read them out loud and I hear my own voice reading them. No one else’s.

          • Nick Halflinger

            “God speaks to those whom He chooses”

            But, again, how can you tell? Did God speak to LaShuan Harris? She certainly believes so.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sorry … do not know this person ……. again ….. If you want to hear Gods voice, read the Bible ……. If you want to hear His voice audibly, read the Bible out loud …….

          • LynnRH

            And God will have the last laugh (so to speak). He won’t really be laughing though. Our God is a loving, patient but Just God. He doesn’t want anyone to perish (go to Hell). But He will not allow sin to enter into Heaven. Otherwise Heaven would not be any better than the world we are living in right now. Therefore only those who have accepted Jesus as their Savior (their sins covered in His blood) will enter Heaven. He gave us the right to choose so it is your right to choose.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Yeah, and I find that belief appalling which is why I cannot in all good conscience be a Christian.

          • LynnRH

            I’m so sorry you find that belief appalling. Not so sure why. The thought of Heaven instead of Hell sounds wonderful to me. But as I said He does give you that choice. Just remember when you are face to face with the Lord when you die that you have been warned.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “If we had proof of God, there would be no atheists”

            people with cancer and are dying OFTEN DENY the evidence of their cancer and impending death …….. SO WHAT ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            So we have evidence of their cancer.
            We have no evidence of God.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they deny their cancer …. you deny God ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            They can deny their cancer all they like, it’s still there and we know it’s there.
            No one can prove God. No one.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION ……………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, doctors can detect cancer. They don’t treat what they simply have “opinions” about. Cancer is observable.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            all of creation is the evidence of God …. open your eyes … DETECTED ….. you reject the “detection” of your own senses ….. so that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION ……………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I don’t reject anything my senses tell me, but it’s not proof of the existence of God.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you reject God … you reject any proof of God …..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I don’t reject God. I simply cannot know if God exists. It isn’t possible. And it’s probably not meant to be.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i see ….. so more lies …. can you prove love exists …. or anger …. or even a murder ….. is that possible …. or not ….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            What comparison are you hoping to draw here? I never know what you think it is you’re trying to prove. We experience emotions, so yes. People fall in love. People get angry. When a man shoots another man in the head and he dies, that’s murder, and a person who watches it happen and videotapes it has pretty solid proof.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “We experience emotions, so yes” “What comparison are you hoping to draw here”

            you have brought DOUBT upon the TESTIMONY of the scriptures …. and by extension …. DOUBT on the ENTIRE JUDICIAL system of the ENTIRE PLANET ……… and you are asking ME what the point is …………. REALLY ……

            “People fall in love. People get angry”

            AGAIN ….. YOUR FEELS are not proof of ANYTHING …….. that is NOT SCIENCE …… and do you see what you are now FALLING BACK ON …… your TESTIMONY that your FEELS exist …….

            THAT IS THE POINT ………………………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            This is getting very silly. People getting angry and falling in love are not just feelings, we know they exist. The fact we experience them proves it, but if that’s not good enough for you there is science to prove it, and you can just look that up for yourself.

            I’m doubting your scriptures not from their historical information which I don’t dispute. What is in dispute is the part you can’t prove, which is that God wrote it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure ….. PROVE IT ……. where is the SCIENCE ….. not your FEELS ….. SCIENCE ….. your EXPERIENCE is not relevant ……… it is NOT SCIENCE ………. LOOK ….. i am not doubting that emotions exist ….. NOT THE POINT ….. YOUR assertion is that TESTIMONY is not valid ….. the ONLY WAY for any knowledge to be transferred is TESTIMONY either in written or oral form ….. but YOU are saying IT IS NOT VALID ……… and YOUR POSITION IS BANKRUPT from it beginning ….. keep spouting nonsense and this is where your nonsense leads ….. open mouth and YOU INSERTED YOUR OWN FOOT ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You’re typing on the proof and the science. Now all you need to do is learn how to use Google, and then you’ll be golden. Try “psychology of love” as a search, that might bring up something interesting. It will tell you all about human emotions and why we feel them, and all the receptors to the brain that stimulate our emotions. Fascinating stuff really. Not in any way related to the fact that you have no evidence for God existing, but still fascinating.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “You’re typing on the proof and the science”

            so now you want to change the topic ….. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE AND PROOF OF EMOTIONS EXISTENCE ……………. you have none …… “psychology of love” IS NOT SCIENCE …. it is not evidence based …… show me PROOF as in SCIENCE of the EXISTENCE OF EMOTIONS ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It’s there, Amos. Right in front of your nose. Type it into Google and you will find it, but I REFUSE to do it for you.

            If this is the level of ridiculousness this conversation has reached, where you are denying the existence of anger and emotion, what is the point in talking to you?
            You want proof of emotion? Look how frustrated you are right now. There. There’s your proof.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no, no, no, no no, …………. that is TESTIMONY ….. and you said TESTIMONY IS NOT VALID ….. YOU REFUSE to accept TESTIMONY ……… BUT NOW you want to point to TESTIMONY ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It’s not testimony, it’s consulting a source for information. Are you telling me any time you Google something all you’re going to get is someone’s opinion? Do you know what Google is? Have you used it before?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “it’s consulting a source for information.”

            NOPE …. it is consulting a source of TESTIMONY about information ….. AND YOU SAID ….

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. ”

            you are making an appeal to TESTIMONY ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            NOPE
            It isn’t called THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY for no reason.
            Not everything you call up on the internet is testimony. For example I can call up dictionary dot com and look up a word definition, that’s not a testimony, it’s a cold hard fact. And you can do this to find that emotions are facts, but you are refusing to.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are making APPEALS TO TESTIMONY ………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            There is no such thing. You might be meaning Appeal to Authority, but when you are dealing in facts, it’s not authority you’re appealing to. It’s consulting factual sources.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are the one who made statements about TESTIMONY …… now you get to LIVE WITH IT …….. and all you are doing is making appeal to other peoples TESTIMONY about things ….. and you said ….. “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence” …. and all you are doing is saying go to this TESTIMONY because that is evidence ….. WHEN YOU SAID IT IS NOT ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Talk to me about testimony again when you understand what it means. You don’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            back at cha sport ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Well, I understand that a fact obtained using Google isn’t a testimony. You have yet to figure that one out.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is TESTIMONY ….. and ACCORDING TO YOU …..

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact.”

            “a fact obtained using Google”

            and so not valid ….. FYI …. “Google” ….. does not make it a “fact” ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            That depends on what you are referencing on Google.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            all that you can point to as fact, HAS TO BE TESTIFIED TO ….. and you said TESTIMONY was not valid ….. so everything you point to is invalid …… your conundrum … not mine …. i am just hold your feet to the fire you built ……..

            NOW ….. if you want to RETRACT THAT STUPEFYING statement and get yourself out of that hole ….. be my guest ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Look, speaking of stupefying statements, the internet is NOT just a large repository of “testimonies”. You can link to some testimonies, sure. But you can also link to iron-clad facts, like if you were to look up the answer to a math problem or a word definition.

            You are incorrectly using the word “testimony”. It makes no sense in this context. Either statements are statements of fact or they aren’t. All a “testimony” is is a person’s personal feeling about something.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            facts are not facts without TESTIMONY …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No one needs to testify for something to be true.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            testimony
            noun [ C or U ] UK ​ /ˈtes.tɪ.mən.i/ US ​ /ˈtes.tə.moʊ.ni/ formal

            (an example of)SPOKEN OR WRITTEN statements that something is true, especially those given in a law court:

            Some doubts have been expressed about his testimony.
            be (a) testimony to sth

            to be clear proof of something:

            The reports are testimony to the many hours of research completed by this committee.

            all you are linking to IS TESTIMONY but you say “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t. Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. ”

            evidence means NOTHING UNLESS IT IS TESTIFIED TO …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Your problem is that you can call up a word using Google to find out its definition, and find it, but to you that is only “testimony”. No it ISN’T. It’s using the internet to get a DEFINITIVE, CLEAR DEFINITION of what a word means. No opinions, no testimonies.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            just your “strong” OPINION” ……… and it IS TESTIMONY ….. facts are not facts UNLESS SOMEONE TESTIFIES …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You are not using that word correctly.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
            Princess Bride

            YUP …. IT DOES ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No. Facts are not testimonies.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a fact is not a fact without TESTIMONY ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            There are innumerable truths in the universe we don’t even know about. Meaning, no one has “testified” to them. But they are still true facts.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i have not denied the EXISTENCE of emotion ….. YOU CANNOT PROVE THEY EXIST ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Yes I can. Google it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            that is TESTIMONY ….. and YOU SAID …..

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. ”

            and “Google” is an appeal to TESTIMONY ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Googling something is not testimony.
            It’s very difficult to have a conversation with you when you don’t understand what certain words mean.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Googling something is not testimony.” ……. right ….. googling it AND THEN RELYING ON IT is ….. because what google links you to is TESTIMONY …………

            “It’s very difficult to have a conversation with you when you don’t understand what certain words mean.” ….. it is very difficult when your statements are STUPIFYINGLY STUPID and they keep getting in your way as YOU MADE THEM ….. you are the one who made statements about TESTIMONY …… now you get to LIVE WITH IT …….. and all you are doing is making appeal to other peoples TESTIMONY about things ….. and you said ….. “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence” …. and all you are doing is saying go to this TESTIMONY because that is evidence ….. WHEN YOU SAID IT IS NOT ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It depends on what you Google. It’s very simple to Google that emotions are factual. I can do it in two minutes, the science is there and it’s solid. What I refuse to do is use Google for you and spoon feed you. I refuse, Amos. The answer is no. You can do it just like any other person can do it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it DOES NOT MATTER what you “google” …… you are just linking to others TESTIMONY …… you are the one who made statements about TESTIMONY …… now you get to LIVE WITH IT …….. and all you are doing is making appeal to other peoples TESTIMONY about things ….. and you said ….. “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence” …. and all you are doing is saying go to this TESTIMONY because that is evidence ….. WHEN YOU SAID IT IS NOT ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, Amos. I can link directly to scientific websites with authoritative answers on just about every subject known to man. That’s not testimony. You would do well to look up the word, because you obviously don’t know what it means.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yep … and ALL THAT IS IS …………… TESTIMONY ….. and AGAIN ……….. YOU are the one who made statements about TESTIMONY …… now you get to LIVE WITH IT …….. and all you are doing is making appeal to other peoples TESTIMONY about things ….. and you said ….. “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence” …. and all you are doing is saying go to this TESTIMONY because that is evidence ….. WHEN YOU SAID IT IS NOT ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Example 2. I need to know the value of Pi up to 7 decimal places. I call it up using Google and find that the answer is 3.1415926.

            That is NOT a testimony. That is a FACT.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Nope ….. That is TESTIMONY … and ACCORDING TO YOU …. YOUR STATEMENT ……

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact.”

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Why do you believe that everything you look up on Google is “testimony”?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i said everything you are trying to point to IS TESTIMONY ….. and …. you said TESTIMONY was not valid …… so by YOUR OWN DEFINITION ….. what you are trying to point to “as fact”, which has to be TESTIFIED TO TO BE A FACT ….. is not VALID BY YOUR DEFINITION ……

            YOU dug the hole ….. now you want to whine and cry that you are stuck in it …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            There is no “hole” and you can’t cornered me with some brilliant piece of logic. “Everything you are trying to point to is testimony”. WRONG. The internet contains every kind of statement possible. You are trying to sell me a bridge here, saying that just because you can call it up on the internet it’s “testimony” and that’s simply false. Google E=MC squared. Is that testimony?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a fact is not a fact without TESTIMONY …………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Yes it is. Things can be true without people “testifying” to them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” E=MC squared”

            was TESTIFIED to when it was published …… Einstein ….

            a fact is not a fact without TESTIMONY ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Irrelevant, it’s a factual statement, and when people call it up online they aren’t looking for it as a “testimony”, they are looking for it as a scientific fact.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” E=MC squared”

            FYI ….. Quantum Entanglement would seem to bring doubt on the “C” in that equation ….. as the speed of light now appears to NOT be a constant …… and it makes your “fact” LESS of a fact ….. googled or not …. and that has also been TESTIFIED to being a fact ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            So now you are arguing that Einstein’s equation is wrong?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. SCIENCE says it is in error ….. and Einstein had his doubts when he was alive ….. got it ….. Einstein ………… and actually …. all i said was ….. it is not a fact until someone TESTIFIES ….. and SCIENCE has TESTIFIED that “C” is not a constant speed …… nor is it the “fastest” speed …… Quantum Entanglement says this …. not me ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I’d like to see a link to that online.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            hmmmm … ummm ……. spoon feed your own google ………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It does not exist on Google.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT does not exist on google …… hmmm ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, there is as yet nobody who has disproved E=MC2.

            It doesn’t matter, you’ve managed to completely sidetrack the original conversation which is that calling something up online doesn’t mean you’re going to be calling up someone’s opinion. You can Google cold, hard facts too.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i did not say it was “disproved” ….. i said it was in question as a “fact” as “C” is not a constant ……….. do you normally have so much trouble PARSING what was said ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Irrelevant.
            At issue is your calling all information obtained online “testimony” when it is not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is not “information” …. if it is not PUBLISHED … and when it is PUBLISHED ….. on google or any other media …….. that is TESTIMONY …… and according to YOU ….. not valid ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The definition of “house” – according to the dictionary, “a building for human habitation, especially one that is lived in by a family or small group of people.” At what point what this statement of fact someone’s “testimony”?

            The sum 2 + 2 = 4. At what point was this statement of fact someone’s “testimony”?

            The sky is blue. At what point was this statement of fact someone’s “testimony”?

            A square has four equal sides. At what point was this statement of fact someone’s “testimony”?

            Amos, how WRONG can you be?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you dug the hole …. now you cant get out …. stuck by your own definition ……. may as well fold up your tent and go home ………. epic FAIL ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Tell me again why it’s en epic fail when I corner you with logic? How I am the one stuck in the hole because you don’t understand the meaning of the word testimony? Did you even READ my response?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            AGAIN ……. you dug the hole …. now you cant get out …. stuck by your own definition ……. may as well fold up your tent and go home ………. because you don’t understand the meaning of the word testimony …………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            All right, Amos, then just explain to me how the four examples I gave you (house, 2 plus 2, the sky and a square, just given to you a short time ago) are “testimony” and not simple facts. Either do that or admit you haven’t got a leg to stand on, and we will soon establish which of us is stuck in a logic hole.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            anything you write is TESTIMONY …… anything you declare is TESTIMONY …… and all of your statements are TESTIMONY …..

            and the really IRONIC thing is …… all of your statements recorded here are TESTIMONY that you do not accept TESTIMONY so that anyone can only conclude that ALL of YOUR TESTIMONY is not worth anything that requires response to …….. as it is ALL TESTIMONY …..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            And to prove you wrong, I gave your four very good examples of factual non-testimony which you continue to ignore because you fail. Thanks for playing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            blah, blah, woof, woof …… just more TESTIMONY of no value ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            And you continue to ignore my four examples. Well, here’s four more then. Dodge these ones too if you dare.

            The sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            Binary code involves only ones and zeroes. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg in 1756. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            The longest river in the world by volume is the Amazon, at 6992 km. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your TESTIMONY is of no value … according to you ……. remember …

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. “

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I haven’t given you testimony. I’ve given you four, no excuse me, EIGHT examples of things you can obtain from the internet that are rock solid facts and not testimony at all, and you continue to ignore all eight. That’s rather sad.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Arthur then congratulates the Black Knight and offers him a place at Arthur’s court at the Round Table, but the Black Knight only stands still, holding his sword vertically, and makes no response until Arthur moves to cross the bridge. The Black Knight moves slightly to block Arthur and declares “None shall pass”. King Arthur, in a conciliatory manner, asserts his right to cross, but the Black Knight says Arthur will die. Arthur orders the Black Knight to move but he says, “I move, for no man”. Reluctantly, King Arthur fights the Black Knight and, after a short battle, the Knight’s left arm is severed, which squirts out copious amounts of blood.

            Even at this the Knight refuses to stand aside, insisting “Tis but a scratch” and that he has “had worse”, and fights on while holding his sword with his other arm. Next his right arm is cut off, but the Knight still does not concede. As the Knight is literally disarmed, Arthur assumes the fight is over and kneels to offer a prayer to God. The Black Knight interrupts Arthur’s prayer of thanks by kicking him in the side of the head and accusing him of cowardice. When Arthur points out the Black Knight’s injuries, the Knight insists “It’s just a flesh wound!”. In response to the continued kicks and insults, Arthur chops off the Black Knight’s right leg. At this point, the Knight still will not admit to defeat, saying, “Right, I’ll do you for that”, and attempts to ram his body into Arthur’s, by hopping on his left leg. Arthur is annoyed at the Black Knight’s persistence, and sarcastically asks the Black Knight if he is going to bleed on him to win. The Black Knight replies by saying “I’m invincible!” to which Arthur retorts “You’re a loony.” With an air of resignation, Arthur finally cuts off the left leg as well and sheathes his sword. With the Black Knight now reduced to a mere stump of a man, he says, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” Arthur then summons Patsy and “rides” away, using coconuts to simulate the sound of a horse galloping, leaving the Black Knight’s limbless torso screaming threats at him (“Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to ya! I’ll bite your legs off!”).

            You are the Black Knight ……….. what are ya gonna do … bleed on me to death …….. bite my legs off ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            What a huge production you’re making just because you can’t accept a dictionary definition and ignore eight separate examples over and over.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            still bleeding ….. FYI …. it was cut and pasted ….. but so what ……. you are done here …..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Sure. Just answer to the eight examples I gave you of non-testimony sourced online and we are happily done. Or do you need four more which you can ignore?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I

            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.

            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact.”

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Which you haven’t.
            Is this a fun game for you?

            Here’s 8 questions you continue to ignore. All are statements of fact and none contains any “testimony”, and all may be called up on Google.

            The definition of “house” – according to the dictionary, “a building
            for human habitation, especially one that is lived in by a family or
            small group of people.” Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            The sum 2 + 2 = 4. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            The sky is blue. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            A square has four equal sides. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            The sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            Binary code involves only ones and zeroes. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg in 1756. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?
            The longest river in the world by volume is the Amazon, at 6992 km. Testimony, or demonstrable fact, Amos?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “google” is testimony ….. and you are referring to testimony that you say is not valid ….. i do not respond to NULL SETS …….. nothing there …. according to you ………

            you are cute when you beg though ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Having the last word means nothing when you were wrong from the outset and continue to be wrong. Google is not testimony. It is a search engine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. whatever ……… ummmm …. why do you think it was in “” …..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The Universe Shouldn’t Exist, CERN Scientists Announce
            December 21, 2017 by PHILIP PERRY

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            “anything you write is TESTIMONY …… anything you declare is TESTIMONY …… and all of your statements are TESTIMONY …..”

            1) wrong
            2) wrong
            3) wrong

            This isn’t getting any better for you, Amos. You need to learn not to stretch or re-imagine word definitions. This word isn’t the one you are after because you clearly don’t know what it means.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes … you are very WRONG ……….. pack up your troubles in your old kit bag ………. hit the road jack and dont ya come back no more ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Not going to happen until you learn to speak truthfully.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yawn …. you still here …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Well, be truthful in your words and stop weaseling.

          • LynnRH

            and then one could look in the Holy Bible instead of any search engine to see what God says about emotions. Genesis 1:26: on the last day of creation God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” God made those human emotions and receptors to the brain, etc. Yep…….it is pretty fascinating stuff!

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I would rather use factual and authoritative sources that are not in dispute.

          • LynnRH

            We Christians don’t doubt the scientific evidence of hormones. But we do see that as just more evidence of an Awesome Creator God. We don’t attribute it to something that happened due to a “big bang” or an evolution thing. But go ahead and keep your blinders on if you want to. It is your choice.

          • LynnRH

            But remember Amos, God says “every knee shall bow and every mouth shall confess that He is Lord.” So just relax and wait on the Lord God’s timing. But I pray the Lord will bless your heart for feeling the desperation to reach the lost by sharing the Gospel. That’s what we (Christians) are suppose to be doing. 🙂

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Yeah … not sure what that means or what that has to do with this conversation or this person …… your scripture … while true … is out of context ….. and when that “knee bows” ….. that is well past the salvation point ……

          • LynnRH

            Well Amos I felt what I said was in the context of what you all were talking about. You were saying this other person rejected God and rejected any proof of God. And I was just saying in response to that he will be seeing and acknowledging proof of God one day.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ok ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            As he lovingly throws me in a lake of fire to burn for all eternity because I wasn’t given enough evidence of his existence, right?

          • LynnRH

            A person has to believe through faith first of all. Even Satan believes in God. then you must accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord of your life. There is no other pathway to Salvation. Acts 4:12– Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

            You’ve been given as much evidence to believe in God as anyone else has. It’s all in the Holy Bible. You can take it or leave it. Those of us who are saved, as well as God, hope you will take it and believe and accept Jesus’ gift of salvation before your death.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            A reasonable God would understand the lack of faith people have due to lack of evidence. Demanding someone believe with absolutely nothing to back it up – well, let’s just say there are a lot of people who would find that unreasonable.

          • Nick Halflinger

            “all of creation is the evidence of God “

            Possibly, but how do we know which god? This claim has been made for many deities. And how do we know to exclude deists?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there is only one God … and you know which one ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The bible IS the evidence …. YOU REJECT IT …. SO WHAT …. we already know this ……..

            YOU HAVE YET to provide any evidence of your assertion of CONSCIENCE being GENETICALLY TRANSMITTED ….. where is your PEER REVIEWED STUDY ….. or is it BLIND FAITH ….. that is what it is any way …. you have no evidence that it is transmitted genetically ….. NONE WHATSOEVER ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The Bible was written by human beings. In what sense is that proof of God? Do you not understand what EVIDENCE means?

            Science does not yet fully understand everything about conscience. But I can tell you this much, I would far sooner listen to what someone who has taken the time to study it has to say about it than someone who insists it comes from God with no study at all and just a strong opinion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. it was written by men given those words BY GOD …… “than someone who insists it comes from God with no study at all and just a strong opinion.” ….. and that is JUST YOUR OPINION ………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            NOPE. It was written by men. That much is fact. That much is in evidence. But it ends there, because you keep demanding that your supernatural opinions about it are fact and evidence and they are NOT.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION …………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Provide evidence to the contrary then. Where is your evidence that it was dictated by God?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you reject the evidence ……… the evidence is the testimony of scripture ….. so …. that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION ……………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t. Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. You seem to think it means God speaking to you or some supernatural event.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Testimony is hearsay”

            so i guess we can shut down and tear down EVERY courthouse in this nation …. as EVERY COURT CASE is based on TESTIMONY …… EVEN THE EVIDENCE has to have a person TESTIFY as to what it is …….. and we can burn every science book as that TESTIMONY is JUST HEARSAY ….. WOW ………..do you not think about what you say ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Courtroom testimonies aren’t proof either, they just present the best possible explanation of the sequence of events, and sometimes that’s all there is to go by. If there was a photograph of a robbery taking place, then that would be pretty damning evidence.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so we can start tearing them all down …. and if something should happen to you …. a robbery or an assault …. well we can just forget it ….. as any “testimony” would just be …. how did you put it ….. “best possible explanation of the sequence of events” which i guess means it has no meaning …. GOOD TO KNOW ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Testimonies are valuable even though they aren’t perfect. If justice needs to be served they do what you don’t ever seem to think is acceptable – they look for the best answer in the circumstances. They don’t just say GODDIDIT and stop exploring every other option.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “look into the writings of Michel Glautier ”

            and what makes his “writings” “authoritative” …. hint …. NOTHING ….

            Does Atheistic Morality Make Sense? – Jeff Durbin – Utube available

            The A-theist has a VERY LIMITED number of options for morality. The A-theist has his foundations.He believes he comes from “fish to philosopher, from goo to you”. That is their view of origins. So now they have to “create” a complex ethical system as a bag of biological stuff. So they have very limited options.

            So what they are limited to is, they can ultimately say “Well I “FEEL” like that is wrong” so here is their ethical system, “PREFERENCE”. So their “preference” is they feel like “you should not murder another human being” or “you should not steal from another person”, so their preference is “i do not like to do that”.

            HERE IS THE PROBLEM. The A-theist is not in charge of the guy who does like to kill people, who does like to rape, and who does like steal from people. The A-theist is not an AUTHORITY in his life. YOUR “preference” has no power and authority in his life. You cannot create an ethical system out of mere “preferences”. People have different preferences, that is why we have JAILS. They have preferences THEY prefer over yours.

            OR the A-theist can say “Our ethical system is based upon “societal convention”, so “society” determines what is right and what is wrong and what is immoral. So they are limited to what “society” determines. So if we grant that presupposition, that “society” determines those things, then that means Hitler was not wrong or immoral. Germany was not wrong because their society DETERMINED, BY DEMOCRATIC VOTE, that
            Hitler was in charge, and that “that is not a person, i know that looks like a person, but it is NOT A PERSON, it is a JEW”, and it is okay and MORAL to kill it.

            That also means that ANYONE who fought against slavery in the United States was IMMORAL.Because “SOCIETY” had determined it was okay to capture people as slaves, and to enslave them and to use them as human property. What that means for the whole of society is, that ANY “society” that has a person within it fighting for transformation within that “society”, ON ANY LEVEL, is IMMORAL PERSON. Why? Because “society” has determined what is moral and if anyone is against that for any reason and if that person is for ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER, they are IMMORAL.

            Now there is one more A-thist arguement. “I have a basis for “ETHICS”. It is what works to keep us alive. We have determined that if you murder others, we are not going to flourish, that if you steal from others, we are not going to flourish, that if you rape others, we are not going to flourish”. What is the STOLEN CAPITAL from christianity there? Human value and dignity.

            Are we star dust, are we bags of biological goo, are we only the product of “evolution” from some lower form? The A-Theist will undobtedly say “yes, we are”. On what basis do you come to a conclusion that star dust or goo or any lower life form “must flourish”? Why are you saying that this bit of star dust or goo is deserving of flourishing over that bit?

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            So some random YouTube video is instant proof? Try again.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            did not say it was proof of ANYTHING …. did not ask you to watch it ….. i was giving CREDIT to where it came from …….. BUT …. we can all see your INABILITY to deal with the truth of it …. THNX …………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            All right then. It was intellectually -insulting garbage.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. it is words that YOU CANNOT REFUTE ….. but those words REFUTE EVERY ARGUMENT YOU HAVE …………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            All he has is what you have. An opinion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so a non-denial denial ….. YUP …… just YOUR OPINION ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I am free to deny opinions all I want to.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION ………….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Don’t expect me to confirm anything as fact unless you present evidence, I don’t know how much simpler I can make this for you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            all of creation is the evidence of God …. open your eyes … DETECTED ….. you reject the “detection” of your own senses ….. so that is JUST YOUR “STRONG” OPINION ……………. SIMPLE ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            My senses tell me what is. They don’t tell me who created what I perceive.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so which sense tells you about love or anger ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The closest one would be feeling, why?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so how do you know “feelings” are real ……… on what basis ……… and HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ……..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            We experience them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so where is your SCIENTIFIC PROOF ………. show it ….. PROVE it ………. does not matter if you FEEL it …. your FEELS are not science ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Look it up. It’s there. Not my job to spoon feed you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you cant … YOU AINT GOT NO SPOON ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The internet is the spoon. You don’t need me to spoon feed you from it

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you still aint got no spoon ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            The internet is your spoon, my spoon, everyone’s spoon. But I repeat, I’m not spoon feeding you. Find the information yourself. And you still have no evidence for God.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i have all the evidence of God … you reject God AND THE EVIDENCE ………. and you have no spoon ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            You have no evidence, you have presented no evidence (the Bible is not evidence of God), and I still refuse to spoon feed you information that is readily available online.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            open your eyes …. EVERYTHING you see testifies of Gods existence …. DONE ……….. FYI …. INCLUDING SCIENCE ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            “Open your eyes” isn’t evidence either.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so your eyes are liars …..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, it’s just that telling me to open my eyes is in no way evidence of God. That’s called the Argument from Incredulity fallacy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so your eyes are liars ………. please tell us how YOU perceive the “evidence” ….. WITHOUT YOUR EYES ….. your statements just keep getting more stupifyingly stupid ………..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Is that right, stupifyingly stupid?
            Tell me why there are so many atheists then. You claim you have evidence for your God. If you did there would be ZERO atheists.

          • LynnRH

            There are so many atheists because those people like their sins and don’t want to believe therefore they don’t feel accountable to anyone. And God says to believe by faith. So those of us that truly do believe by faith know that He is real because we feel Him in our souls.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            because ….. ummmm … God has not chosen them …….. the A-theist has a choice ….. the A-theist does not like the choice ….. as that is their nature ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, the reason there are so many atheists is because there is no evidence. Ask ANY atheist and they will tell you that.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … God has chosen those who belong to Him ….. and unless and until God moves in the life of the A-theist or the pagan …… OR ANYBODY …… they will not choose God …. that choice is abhorrent to the nature of man …. you can put a bunny in a room with a pile of carrots and a pile of decayed meat ….. the bunny will choose according to its nature …. put a vulture in the same room and the vulture will only choose according to ITS nature …..

            put an unregenerate man in a room with a Holy God and the mans own sins ….. and the man will choose his sin every time …….. and as i said ….. UNLESS AND UNTIL God changes that nature ….. that will not change ….. that change REQUIRES GOD ….. man has no capacity to do it on his own even though the CHOICE is available to him ….. you choose according to your nature ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Nope, you are speaking on behalf of a God you have only learned about from a book. And sin is a religious construct and as such means nothing to an atheist.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and so it is just as i said above … thanx for the confirmation ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I did not confirm anything.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … you did …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, a testimony is not a fact. A fact is a fact.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a fact is not a fact without TESTIMONY ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Incorrect.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have no proof to “spoon feed” ……… you are a liar ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            If you refuse to use the sources everyone else on earth uses, I’m not sure what you’re accomplishing apart from burying your head in the sand.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” use the sources everyone else on earth uses”

            SCRIPTURE is one of those sources ……… BUT ……..

            YOU SAID …….

            “Testimony is hearsay and is not evidence. Herein is our problem, I
            suggested you don’t know what evidence means, and you clearly don’t.
            Evidence means proof that we can show beyond any doubt is a fact. ”

            you are making an appeal to TESTIMONY ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Scripture is only authoritative to those who choose to believe it. It’s not EVIDENCE. Evidence would be something that we can prove beyond any doubt.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right …. SO …. WHAT ….. it is evidence ….. just NOT TO YOU ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            If it were evidence, there would be ZERO atheists. You seem to need to have this repeated to you over and over. Atheists number in the billions, why do you think that is? It’s because you haven’t got EVIDENCE, only FAITH.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. THERE IS EVIDENCE …. and there are STILL those who deny the evidence ….. as you do ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            And the reason it’s denied is because it’s NOT EVIDENCE. It’s just somoene’s claim. God coming back to earth and talking to us? That would be pretty good evidence.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the reason is if you accept it as evidence … it would require YOU TO CHANGE ….. and you have no interest to change as it is against your nature ………

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            No, anyone can look at the wonder of the universe and marvel at it, but you do NOT have to attribute it to God. And if I did, I certainly wouldn’t attribute it to YOUR God, the Abrahamic God of the Bible. You do not and CANNOT know who, if anyone/thing, created the universe.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. just as i said …….. thanx for the confirmation ……

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I confirmed nothing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … you really did …….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Facts are not testimonies. They are facts.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a fact is not a fact without TESTIMONY ……….

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            It is. Truth is truth whether anyone makes a statement about it.

          • LynnRH

            Just be patient a little longer…….you’ll have just that very thing for evidence. . God will be coming back and He will be talking to ya. And if you are not saved by then you aren’t likely to like what he has to say.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Absurd religious threats have never scared me.

          • LynnRH

            You’ve been warned. Take it or leave it. It’s your choice.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I do not believe you are in any position to warn of such a thing.

          • LynnRH

            Sure I do. God gave all born-again Christians the position to tell of God’s love, forgiveness, and offer of eternal life. The alternative is Hell. Take it or leave it.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I disagree with your entire premise. So obviously I leave it.

          • p78

            .A

          • Michael Link

            which version do we read literally? the english version or the original language that used the word ‘yom’ instead of the english word ‘day’?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Hey, I’m no expert. I’ve heard plenty of Christians say some English translation or another is the literal truth, and so on and so forth. Maybe your argument should be with them, not me. Just from a quick google search of “yom”, though, it looks like it could refer to ANY length of time. So which is it, and how do you know?

            And just in the few first verses of Genesis, it runs into problems, anyway. God supposedly created the Earth before the Sun. Science says otherwise. If it’s all an allegory or something, I can understand that well enough. If it really means something else that should be taken literally, what is it then?

          • Michael Link

            that’s the point. the original meaning of ‘yom’ references 24hrs, 12hrs, or an epoch (undetermined period of time).

            young earth creationists hold on to the 24hr definition and reference the scripture that says a day is like a 1000yrs as a specific time so that the universe is therefore 6000yrs old. They have to completely reject all views of cosmology, dating techniques, and geographical and archaeological evidence to build their case – including that the dinosaurs have to be on the ark to align with their dogma.

            when ‘yom’ is taken as a period of time with no defined period, then Gen 1 unfolds in a way that is supported by our modern cosmological understanding.

            If the Bible is true, then it should be supported by independent non-Christian avenues of study…

            which it does, quite eloquently…

          • Michael Link

            Or it’s the Truth…

          • DrIndica

            Your subjective truth. You’d find more truth in nihilism

          • Michael Link

            ahh, so you just assumed I am a dumb mindless Christian my whole life and couldn’t possibly understand the empty faith of an atheist?

            well, I was a rabid atheist for 42yrs and attained a degree in astrophysics. i used all the standard lines and believed that nothing is everything I needed to live…

          • TheKingOfRhye

            ‘Rabid atheist’? Don’t they have a vaccine for that? lol

          • DrIndica

            No such assumptions on my part. You just assumed I am an atheist as, although, I don’t know it is scientifically possible to prove something does not exist. However, agnostic would be a more accurate assumption on your part.

          • Nick Halflinger

            The problem with calling Genesis myth is that it is lacking in the rich detail of all those other stories of creation.

          • Terri Horn

            remember this when you are before Christ being judged and realize you are the ONLY one responsible for your status and no one else is responsible four your status except you. It was said the generation who is alive to see Israel become a nation again will be the ones who will see Christ return for the 2nd time Remember Damascus Syria will be destroyed by Nuke NO ONE including the animals will ever live there again. When this happens maybe then you will believe (probably not) as most will refuse to believe out of pride 500 hundred prophecies in Bible and more than 250 fulfilled with 100%accuracy. Sad that so many refuse to see the truth and will exist horrifically for eternity just because they are to prideful to do the most minimal amount of due diligence. First century historians wrote about Jesus and NOT Christian as well and not mentioned in the Bible. Sad. please excuse any typos I did not find so are not corrected.

          • DrIndica

            That’s the best you have? Threats related to consciousness after death.

          • ZappaSaid88

            No it doesn’t align. In Genesis the order is Earth, light, Sun, stars. That isn’t the order in the big bang.

          • Michael Link

            so you’re taking the translated english words and assuming that’s what the original hebrew/aramic language meant?

          • ZappaSaid88

            Don’t blame me, it’s your book. I got that info from a Christian website.

          • Michael Link

            so you have no opinion of your own, but just found a site that panders to your disbelief and then uses it as your evidence? and that’s what qualifies you to feel like authoritative on the subject?

          • ZappaSaid88

            So a Christian website pandered to my disbelief? That’s interesting. Tell you what, why don’t you go ahead and prove how Genesis supports the modern cosmological view of the universe.

          • Michael Link

            Proof of a creator or lack thereof is unattainable through the scientific method – only when the preponderance of the evidence lies with one side or the other, is scientific knowledge recognized as supportive.

            I can’t prove God exist just as much as you can prove He doesn’t. So then the question becomes: “Does the preponderance of the evidence show the presence of a Creator or show the non-existence of a creator.

            For instance:
            Gen 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
            Big Bang: There was the absence of anything and in an instant an explosion created time (beginning), space (heavens), and matter (earth).

            The first line of the Bible fully lines up with the modern view of the big bang…

            I can use the universe’s violation of the law of entropy as evidence of God

            I can use the universe’s existence as violation of the law of conservation of energy and matter which is evidence of God.

            I can use the unimaginable improbability (1 to the power of -120 of the intricate complexity and balance of the universe as evidence of God.

            what you can’t do is show any evidence that directly speaks of a non-existence of God. And you can’t provide evidence that the 1st line of the Bible is not true as it is known by modern cosmology…

          • ZappaSaid88

            The laws of physics and the universe don’t require a creator. And it isn’t my job to disprove a god. You are making the assertion it exists, you need to prove it. And not just a supposed alignment of words in your holy book with cosmology. Many religions of the world have/had the same type of creation myth. It doesn’t prove anything for them any more than it does for you. The universe does not violate any law of entropy or conservation. Those creationist points have been debunked for a long time. You have nothing at all going for you argument and I’m done here.

          • Terri Horn

            Edison believed in a creator God Andy he was one of the smartest people. scientists who study creation if Universe SATs the Genesis account is more likely than evolution. For instance creating something from nothing thus violating 1st rule of science

          • james blue

            For instance creating something from nothing thus violating 1st rule of science

            As we don’t have any “nothing” it’s not a theory/rule that can be tested

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe formed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The laws of Physics HAVE TO BE OBEYED ….. and in your idea of how things came to be ….. you conveniently over look that …….. in order for the Big Bang Theory to work ….. you are required to have an EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE to cause the “bang” ….. SO WHAT WAS IT …

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Why can’t people say they don’t know what that “equal or greater force” was? The Big Bang theory does not say what it was.

            “A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The big bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all.”

            —Brian Green, The Fabric of the Cosmos (emphasis mine)

            That’s why, for instance, you can have people that believe a god created the Big Bang….and it doesn’t contradict anything the theory says.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            wellll …. because …. that is part of the theory …. and if you cannot follow the SCIENCE and be CONSISTENT in your view ….. then the theory is a lie …… and it is DISPROVEN for lack of evidence ………..

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “that is part of the theory”

            What is?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            its cause ………… SCIENTIFICALLY ……. you are attempting to call it SCIENCE ….. RIGHT ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I have literally no idea what that is supposed to mean.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YOU are claiming “science” ….. and yet you have none …. and because you cannot say what or even how …. “it is okay to “not know”” …… and that is LAUGHABLE ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that science claims to have all the answers…..

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            I think with him all roads lead to scripture and/or God.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. you and several of your fellows claim science is the be all and the end all ….. and all it is ….. in the end …. AGAIN …… is stealing from a CHRISTIAN worldview ……….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If you’re trying to tell me that part of the Big Bang theory states that “everything came from nothing” or something like that…..well, sorry, you’re wrong.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. YOU are telling US ….. that a bunch of stuff was just there ….. and for no other reason …. it EXPLODED ….. and now HERE WE ARE ……….. laughable ………

          • Michael Link

            prove that they don’t need a creator….

          • Eldrida Urika

            As I know they will remove an actual address, I am changing
            it so you can work it out.

            It is a report about some scientific findings that I thought
            you might like to see. I checked out the people mentioned and many of them are Nobel Prize winners, and includes quotes by Stephen Hawking too. I think it is a fascinating report regardless of what the scientists found, but it’s even
            greater because of the discovery.

            It’s on that popular site with digital film.

            dotcom slash watch question mark v equal sign Er9D00DXQQs

            This is scientists explaining about the Big Bang and how it happened in their own words

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Proof of a creator or lack thereof is unattainable through the scientific method”

            I agree. That’s why I don’t believe in a god. You’re the one making the assertion that a god, and a specific god at that, exists. I don’t have to disprove something to lack belief in it. (ever heard of Russel’s teapot?) And, I certainly don’t have to disprove the existence of a god to believe in the Big Bang theory. (you know there’s quite a lot of people who believe in both of those things, right??)

          • Terri Horn

            I would think non believerd

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I would think non believers would at least check it out. ones who honestly check out what the Bible says since the consequences are so horrific.

            Two problems with that: I know about the supposed consequences; I haven’t been an atheist my whole life, after all. And, it’s basically Pascal’s Wager stated in a different way, anyway. By that logic, I should “check out” every religion that has a belief in something like Hell, shouldn’t I?

            there are lots of things we believe BUT cannot see evidence such as carbon carbon monoxide, sir, oxygen, evolution etc.

            There is plenty of evidence for all of those things.

            If I am wrong I will never know but if you are you will see a nightmare from which you can never escape from

            That’s one of my big problems with Pascal’s Wager: People always put it in all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms. Either this, or that, with no other possibilities. What if neither of us is right? What if there is a God, but he lets us both into heaven…..or neither of us? Or, what if some other religion has it right?

          • p78

            The answer to that question is also testable. One of the bibles cornerstones is it’s prophecies especially about Christ and Israel (which are unfolding before our very eyes) .if I was looking to invest my life savings would I invest it with a fund manager who had a 0% success rate (Islam Hinduism, etc) or one with a 100% success rate. the Bible is the ONLY SCRIPTURAL book that is 100% bang on. You are however investing in your salvation by accepting Christ. Even more important than your wealth and health!

            The problem with you and people like you is you don’t want to believe. If God performed a miracle for all the world’s scientists , one just for them, they would spend a lifetime trying to find a scientific explanation for what they saw. They would create the most fantastic nonsense a la big band et al

          • LynnRH

            Everyone has the right to believe or not. Personally i’d rather believe than not believe. I look forward to living in Heaven eternally with God and with all my loved ones who have gone on before me and will after me. Besides the Word of God I know He is real just by the deep feeling of His presence in my soul. I don’t have to have proof.

          • Lark.62

            Please list every religion you checked out prior to accepting christianity.

            Also list the sacred texts of other religions you read prior to accepting the bible as true.

            Other religious traditions are backed by miraculous claims and have horrific threats for non believers.

            Please explain why you found other religion’s supernatural claims implausible and selected christian claims.

            Also please explain why you are not at all concerned about the afterlife promises and punishments of other religions but accept the afterlife claims of christianity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. the order in Genesis is TIME, then SPACE, Then MATTER, Then ENERGY ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Genesis

            1:1 In the beginning (Time was created) God created the heavens (all of space required was created) and the earth (all matter for the creation was created).
            1:2 And the earth was without form , and void (it was only matter as it was “without form and void”); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (God enters His creation).
            1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light (ALL the energy that would be needed for the creation was added to the creation from Gods own being).
            1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
            1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

            When the rest of the entire world said that the earth sat on turtles or Atlas shoulders or some other thing ……. God told us, gave us the only SCIENTIFICALLY accurate description of how things came to be and in the proper order …………

        • Terri Horn

          takes more faith to believe to believe in all this universe created by evolution than to believe in a Creator

        • p78

          And therein lies your problem the assumption of linear time and causal effects based on a wanton desire to rule out the creator at all costs.
          Well God is going to give you over to your reprobate mind.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            If we’re going to throw time and causality out the window, we can believe just about anything we want to, can’t we?

          • p78

            you do

          • p78

            LOL That’s exactly what your religion does. (EVIL UTION) What can we concoct to explain away God. How about this. In the beginning was nothing. no energy no mass oh then it exploded.
            In order to get from nothing to what we see today we need to break our own laws of physics by claiming that the expansion of the universe happened at faster than the speed of light. Something that you just denied s possible.

            It seems that breaking your own laws of physics is ok when it comes to proving the lie of your religion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I’ll use Luke’s line in The Last Jedi….

            “Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.”

            I don’t have a religion. Atheism isn’t a religion, evolution is most certainly not a religion. You’re apparently confusing evolution with the Big Bang theory, and getting that wrong while you’re at it. (along with relativity) The Big Bang theory does not state “In the beginning was nothing. no energy no mass oh then it exploded.” That may be a popular misconception, but it’s wrong.

          • p78

            I can quote literature that states exactly that! Show me a species mutating into another maybe a lion with a wing? Evolution isn’t observed. Mutation as is variation of a kind. If it isn’t observable or reproduced or it isn’t science it’s faith therefore it’s a religion. The big bang theory is the building block that biological evolution is built on. Before biological evolution you need stellar evolution. Or are you suggesting some new religion?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Show me a species mutating into another

            Easy. Look all around you. Look in the mirror. Everything is a “transitional form.” It just doesn’t happen like some creationists seem to think it would, i.e. no “crocoducks” or things like that.

            The big bang theory is the building block that biological evolution is built on.

            No, it’s not. Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published about 70 years before the Big Bang theory was proposed, probably more than that before it was commonly accepted.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            There are types of salamanders that have been observed as evolving.

          • Lexical Cannibal

            I advise you look up the five-toed worm lizard, also known as Bipes biporus; a species of lizard that is elongated, as a snake, with two front legs and two internal, vestigal back legs, only viewable by x-ray. You’ve got bits of snakes, bits of lizards, it’s hard to get more transitional than that in a single animal.

          • p78

            ITS STILL A LIZARD

          • p78

            So which way is evolution moving lizard to snake or snake to lizard and where are your transitional fossils that confirm your hypothesis? Or are you making an assumption because it looks like an animal has attributes of both animals and you WANT to believe the evolutionary idea?

          • p78

            Science……
            1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

            Evolution isn’t observable or reproducable ergo it’s not science you believe it through faith. That’s religion!

            You’re confused the pre-cursor to biological evolution is stellar evolution of which the big bang is the “accepted” THEORY.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Evolution has been observed (multiple times) and it has been reproduced. (what is selective breeding of dogs, for one example, but man-made evolution…or, to put it another way, artificial selection? You know that exists, then why doubt natural selection?) And, of course, that is a completely different thing from what you’re calling “stellar evolution” here.

          • p78

            As usual you conflate Macro evolution with Micro evolution. No one denys variation within the species. That would be silly its all around us, but you defend a Macro evolution view that is neither observeable or reproduceable.
            Not only is not observed but mathematically its considered a nonesense.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            As usual you conflate Macro evolution with Micro evolution.

            Macroevolution is nothing but the result of a bunch of microevolution over time. It’s not really two separate things, it’s just all evolution. And there’s plenty of evidence for evolution, micro and macro. How on earth is it “mathematically considered nonsense”, and who exactly considers it that?

          • p78

            utter rubbish. even proponents of evolution admit there is little or no evidence. You really need to get your head out of the sand and brush up on the latest news.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Oh, big deal. That’s all you got, argumentum ad populum? Okay then….

            The National Center for Science Education started a list of their own, in response to things like that. It was of scientists who agree with this statement:

            “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
            biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in
            favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
            Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically
            irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited
            to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of
            our nation’s public schools.”

            Over 1400 scientists have signed it. The punchline is, though, that in honor of the late Stephen Jay Gould, and to make a point, they’ve limited it to scientists named “Steve” (or some variation).

            The list you were talking about? 12 Steves, as of 2012.

          • p78

            well I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens when we die then.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s a non sequitur.

          • p78

            Are you in for a shock

          • Lark.62

            Think about it. All you know is what someone said that someone said that someone else said.

            Every person passing on the story has a motive. Over millennia, priests and shamans gathered wealth and power by claiming to speak for a deity.

          • p78

            I’m not after anything. I couldn’t care less how much money you have or don’t have I couldn’t care if you never step foot in a church ever Accepting that Christ is God in the flesh and that he died FOR YOU and your sins is my only concern. I was an atheist who did my own work. I changed my mind.Thank the Lord I did.

            As I said earlier we will see which one of us is right in the fullness of time.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Evolution is God neutral, it neither proves nor disproves God, therein lies your fallacy.

          • ThroatwobblerMangrove

            Evolution isn’t a religion, but more importantly, it’s not about the origin on the universe, so why are you talking about how the world started?

            Evolution is about gradual change over a very long time.

            If you want to talk about origins, it’s not evolution you want. It’s cosmology or abiogenesis.

      • DrIndica

        It’s all chaos, but less sophisticated minds need an explanation provided to calm fears of a post death consciousness.

        • Michael Link

          yeah – like the word ‘random’…

        • Joshua Turner

          Except that it is NOT chaos. The universe is full of order and design. I choose to believe that the order and design that are clearly visible, result from an intelligent creator. Your “more sophisticated mind” apparently believes that order arises from chaos naturally and without guidance.

          • DrIndica

            Embrace existential nihilism

          • ZappaSaid88

            Bunny Lebowski: “Uli doesn’t care about anything. He’s a Nihilist.”
            The Dude: “Ah, that must be exhausting.”

          • DrIndica

            Walter Sobchak: Say what you want about National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

        • Nick Halflinger

          Chaos, that would be the son of Chronus and Ananke.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          does not answer the question …….

          • DrIndica

            There was a question? Better to have questions to which there may be no answers than answers to which questions are not allowed.

        • LynnRH

          Well I have a sophisticated mind but I didn’t feel I was needing an explanation to calm fears of a post death consciousness. Honestly many years ago when I was a young’un and accepted Jesus as my Savior and never even thought about death, I just had a sense of SomeOne greater than myself whom I felt loved me unconditionally and wanted me to get to know Him better. That lead me into Bible study, church family, worship time. Wouldn’t trade any of that now for anything else this world has to offer.

          • DrIndica

            Jesus as your Saviour. Saving you from??

  • JPT

    Fascinating news.

    I didn’t see anything mentioning data which supports the conclusion. Perhaps someone could provide a relevant explanation.

    • Michael Link

      only yec’s would take evidence of 260million year old trees buried under 800thousand (and possibly up to 35million) year old ice and call it proof of the flood because there was some unexplainable dna samples found.

      • carolyn

        A flood written in a bible that says that nothing is 260 million years old and nothing would be fossilized. I too was baffled as to how they can present this as supporting the bible!!!

  • Shane Barker

    so…do they now acknowledge Pangea, dinosaurs and the world being older than 8000 years…or are those still taboo?

    • Tangent002 ✓

      No, they only pick out the parts that vaguely support their narrative.

      • Michael Link

        then use it to tell any other Christians that don’t follow their dogma how much more awesome a yec’s faith is…

    • Terri Horn

      Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible see Job. Were NOT called dinosaurs until 18th century. Examine note on Mt. St Helen. They already have fossilized animals and trees and ONLY happened in 1980. Like at moon dust and sediment on ocean floors which increase every year. If we were that old the oceans would have ceased to exist. Plus the sun is getting closer to the earth so if as old as it says the earth would have ceased to exist. Some of this was obtained via NASA. Lots of objective information but those who believe that nothing created something (evolution) thus breaking one of the rules/laws of science will NEVER accept the truth even if the Creator God stood in front of them and showed absolute proof.

  • Reason2012

    On a related note: Evolution does occur, but the critical fact is that it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that there are barriers that evolution cannot cross: For example that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers. Fish to mankind evolutionists throw out science on the matter to instead give reasons to believe there are NO barriers, then call their reasons to believe “evidence”, which is really anti-science.

    • ZappaSaid88

      Disproving some aspect of evolution (which you failed to do,btw) doesn’t make your viewpoint true. Present your case and evidence for your argument.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        because God said so ……… and it is published ……

        • p78

          The thing is Amos that for every word of truth that God disclosed satan has a word of lie. Whether it’s scripture or science. Satan just loves to lead people away from Christ. And some people love to be led away.

          God bless you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Whether it’s scripture or science. Satan”

            God owns all three …… satan, the devil, is GODS devil, and he is on Gods leash, and satan does nothing without God allowing it ……….. and God owns science, and logic, and reason, and every other thing in His creation as they are all a direct reflection of His character and being ………… and there is not one thing that passes His notice ….. there is not even one undecided atom or molecule here …………. God is sovereign ………… God Reigns ….. that is not sometimes He does ….. HE DOES ……….

            47:1 O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.
            47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
            47:3 He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet.
            47:4 He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah.
            47:5 God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet.
            47:6 Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises.
            47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
            47:8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.
            47:9 The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.

          • LynnRH

            Amen, Amen, Amen!

          • LynnRH

            Amen to that!

        • Jon Staples

          Published by man.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            WRITTEN BY GOD ………

          • ThePleiades

            God inspired through those chosen by God to receive it. I’ll believe God over man any day of the week.

          • LynnRH

            I absolutely will too.

          • Jon Staples

            No, that’s just blind faith. There is zero evidence to support it.

          • LynnRH

            And God says to believe through faith. And i’ll do just that, thank ya!

          • Jon Staples

            According to the myth, you are correct.

            However, it’s just faith… it’s made up and you’ve been convinced to believe it.

            Nothing more.

          • ThePleiades

            Only because you haven’t followed where the evidence that IS there takes you. Maybe you don’t want to find out. Ask yourself that. Do you want to find out???

          • Jon Staples

            There is zero evidence that anyone was “inspired by god”. That is nothing but blind faith.

            Otherwise, you could lay it all out in black and white right here.

            Facts do NOT NEED TO BE “WANTED”. Fire burns… that is a fact, and you don’t have to want to know it for me to demonstrate that it is a fact.

            You cannot present any facts.

      • Leslie

        Present your evidence against it. Of course India, Egypt, China and the USA have evidence of a flood in their historical writings and oral history. The Pyramids had a layer halfway up of salt on the inside. You could check with some Native Americans or First Nations people. There is a lot of evidence you have to look for it now…because…evolution.

        • Terri Horn

          Plus indicating it was a worldwide flood since EVERY part of the world has stories about a flood and though some aspects differ it ALWAYS includes a boat, 8 people, 2 animals of every kind, God was angry.

  • MCrow

    National Geographic did an article on this last month. The plants discovered there are A) around 250 million years old and B) had some unique biological adaptations to survive the climate, including rapid germination and seasonal shift.

    The fossilization of the fungi and microorganisms occurred rapidly in a matter of weeks. The pattern is strikingly similar to fossilized trees in Yellowstone national park, caused by volcanic activity. This actually confirms the notion of an extinction event by something akin to a volcanic eruption rather than a flood.

    In short, it continues to support our known models. Creationists continue to selectively choose and interpret data. Nothing new here

  • Charlene

    I don’t object to articles like this, but let’s be honest: it all comes down to the core question, Do you believe this all “just happened,” or is there a Creator? The age of the earth and the age of the universe are minor matters compared to the pivotal question.

  • Reason2012

    Evolutionists continue to promote the false claim that the Earth is old because they’re fish to mankind belief system falls part without it. Yet there’s much evidence the Earth cannot possibly be anywhere near that old.

    #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

    #2 Bent Rock Layers

    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

    #4 Faint Sun Paradox

    #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

    #6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

    #7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

    #8 Short-Lived Comets

    #9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

    #10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

    1) Net gain of 19 billion tons of sediment per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would only need a few million years, not billions of years.

    2) Rock doesn’t bend, it cracks and breaks. Yet rock layers of the same thickness, thousands of feet thick, that evolutionists claim each layer took millions of years to be deposited are BENT, not cracked or broken.

    3) It’s scientific fact that red blood cells cannot survive more than a few thousand years. Yet they find them in bones mistakenly claimed to be tens of millions of years old, proving those bones are merely thousands of years old.

    4) The sun is getting hotter, meaning it was much cooler in the past, too cool at the ages evolutionists claim for life to have been possible on earth.

    5) The strength of the magnetic field has been decaying overall – the earliest records are only 1820’s or so. As some put it “Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today.” This alone puts the age of the earth at best to be 20,000 years.

    6) Helium defuses so rapidly there would be no helium after, at most, 100,000 years, more so in hot areas where it defuses even faster. The deepest and therefore the hottest zircons (387 degrees F) contained far more helium than expected. All measurements are in agreement that all the helium should have leaked out long before now in the claimed age of the universe.

    7) The Earth was not supposedly formed when the imagined big bang happened. After a few hundred thousands of years, with a half life of 5,730 years, there should be none left, yet it’s found in abundance in “ancient” fossils.

    8) Comets burn up merely being anywhere near a sun, not just entering in an atmosphere. Scientists know comets cannot last millions of years, so they invent “oort clouds” as one “rescue device” where these imagined clouds make new comets.

    9) Again an imagined “the land became sea and vice versa” as a rescue-device, realizing the salt accumulation in the oceans would mean we could now walk across the oceans because the salt would be so thick.

    10) DNA breaks down quickly even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree it should not last more than a million years. Yet we find it in bacteria dated at 250 MILLION years. (A false dating of at LEAST 250 times the true date).

    • Jacob Waldmiller

      Perfect post by Reason2012. The fact of the matter is that if people would humble themselves, and truly look at the evidence objectively, they would see that evolution is a farce. It’s purposely pushed in our schools systems and thrown in our face on television everyday as being “proven”, yet the evidence is heavily and hysterically stacked against it.
      “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself “. There is one word that comes to mind when I see this…..indoctrination. I would highly recommend watching “Walter Veith-Genesis Conflict” for the truth, its a great series.

      • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

        Thank you for recommending Walter Veith-Genesis conflict I see that people can watch him online. He has a lot of videos I’m going to check out. Again Thank you.

        • WorldGoneCrazy-NotMurderedYet

          Merry Christmas, LadyInChrist!

          • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

            Merry Christmas!!!

    • Tangent002 ✓

      This is referred to as a ‘Gish Gallop’ – presenting several specious and long-debunked arguments and expecting responses to all of them.

      • ThroatwobblerMangrove

        Exactly what it is, thank you. It is a list of PRATTs (Previous Refuted a Thousand Times).

    • carolyn

      The CREATION SCIENCE ORGANIZATION (A contradiction in terms in itself – Science cannot have a stand point) appear to be saying there are 260 MILLION YEAR OLD FOSSILS?

      • Reason2012

        Hello. Fossils “dated” up to 100 million years old continue to have soft tissue and red blood cells remains found on them, proving they cannot be more than thousands of years old, and proving their “dating” methods, based upon assumptions piled upon assumptions, are a farce.

        • carolyn

          Either way, the CREATION SCIENCE ORGANIZATION appear to be confused. A creation perspective would be saying that there are NO FOSSILS as every thing was created at once by God? Or did God also create Fossils, maybe in secret on the seventh day, to throw people off his scent?

          • Reason2012

            No, a creation perspective would not be saying that there are no fossils. Fossils are created by creatures being rapidly buried, like from a flood. There are fossils “dated” millions of years that are protruding through multiple layers that are supposed formed millions of years each, which of course shows those layers were not formed in millions of years each, but all rapidly at once, like from a flood.

            Did God created Adam as an adult to fool people into thinking creation was 20 years old? No.

            Not sure why you’re trying to appeal to God’s Word to somehow prove that fossils are millions of years old when the topic is supposed to be about science and the fact is dating methods for fossils, assumptions piled upon assumptions, has been shown to be a farce, God or not.

            Now if we want to talk about what a person’s going to believe in – our creator, God, or “nothing did it – it all just happened on its own”, then we can talk about the Bible.

          • carolyn

            The bible, Gods word, for which there is NO evidence as it relies on FAITH.

          • Reason2012

            Correct, it’s by faith. Yet those who reject God believe nothing created everything – that it all just happened – all by faith. So they’re just kidding themselves to pretend the reason they’re against God is because it’s “by faith”.

            Although it will not make anyone believe, these are things that prove God is real, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that we will be without excuse when we face Him to give account for our lifetime of breaking His laws and refusing to be forgiven for it:

            The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, several hundred that have come true after the fact of them being written down, even up to thousands of years later, proving it’s divine origin. Easily searchable.

            Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of scientific facts in the Bible that scientists didn’t and couldn’t figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later, up to as late as 1890’s, also proving its divine origin. Easily searchable.

            All religious texts were written in one lifetime by one person – the Bible was written over 1,500 years through 40 people and reads as one mind.

            The grave of all false religions’ prophets has their bones – the grave of Christ is empty – although they’re desperately trying to find it to try discrediting Christianity.

            You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion like islam, and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you’re met with the utmost hatred. As Jesus said:

            John 15.18-19 *”[Jesus said]If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”*

            People who profess faith in Christ have major changes instantly from the inside out that they were unable to overcome over a lifetime.

            We know all we need to know – but the world seeks to keep us blind to the truth of God. When we face Him, it won’t work to say “well how was I supposed to know?” We will be without excuse. Please think again.

          • carolyn

            Science constantly updates. There is a theory and when evidence emerges, it backs or disproves that theory and the theory is updated. No faith. Research. What prophecies. What scientific facts. The bible is RIDDLED with contradictions. For starterss, the bible says there is only Man and Woman – Adam and Eve, yet also talks about Naturally Born Eunuchs – INTERSEX people who are not male or female, but fall inbetween. People living to hundreds of years old etc etc etc. People have major changes when they profess christ? So please explain why whole swathes of people die in eg developing countries, regardless of faith? Thousands have been killed in the name of Christianity. The bible itself documents this. No proof. No different to other religions. Faith.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, science updates, but in science, a theory begins with something that actually happens, the theory our attempt to explain how it actually happens. Starting with a belief, like “nothing created everything” then coming up with reasons to believe in it is not science, but instead anti-science.

            No, there’s no contradictions in the Bible – every supposed one has long since been explained by those who demanded it was one – please consider looking up explanations if you’re sincere in wanting actual truth.

            A Eunuch is not an “intersex” or homosexual person, or someone who chooses to be celibate as some have tried to claim – Eunuch is someone who’s castrated.

            “[Jesus said] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
            Matthew 19:12

            Using that logic that Enuch means “homosexual” or “intersex” and so on, Jesus would then be saying there are some homosexuals who were born that way, some who were made homosexual of men, or some who made themselves a homosexual, which of course exposes their deception as false..

            If some try to pretend it means to choose to live in celibacy, a person is not “born from the mother’s womb choosing to live in celibacy”, which again shows how they’re simply being dishonest.

            It’s translated from the Greek Word eunouchos, which means “a castrated person”.

            Jesus is not going to say that it’s good to do something for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake that instead elsewhere God says it’s a sin. He’s not going to say “A person committed a bad life-long sin for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake”. And it’s not choosing to be celibate if it’s “you’re made celibate of men” as part of that verse says.

            Even if a person didn’t know the word meant “castrated”, reading the verse makes it clear it CAN’T be “homosexual” or “choosing to be celibate” or “intersex”.

            Mankind can try to twist scripture all we want, but it’s God we’ll have to convince that he approves of homosexuality, not men, as those who try to twist God’s Word bearing false witness of what God says and will answer to the deception they spread that God is just fine with homosexuality. Live forever, carolyn.

          • carolyn

            Feel free to provide me with references for your claims

  • Rocky

    For mind-blowing suppressed evidence, check out Ron Wyatt, from WAR-Wyatt Archeological Research. Suppressed evidence of Biblical proportions, literally.

  • Travis Stephens

    The problem with evolution is it pulls a crackpot theory out of thin air and tries to glue it in to mankind’s history. And the reason it does this is to attempt to deceive the masses and as mentioned lead them quite happily into hell.There is plenty of proof as to why evolution does not work but I cannot do all the legwork for you. You must do it.. satan hates God’s creation he hates us, the reason he wants to deceive us is because he hates what we represent. We are created in God’s image. The enemy’s pride and rebellion got him cast out of heaven and ever since God created mankind the enemy has been deceiving and lying and attempting to destroy us. The flood did happen there is evidence but of course this is being covered up as well. The reason why our government is covering things up is because they do not want the world to know the truth. They are puppets of the enemy and this is all a part of a bigger picture which will lead up to the return of Christ and the tribulation. This isn’t just some story in a book. This is the reality in which you and I live. You can choose to accept it with faith and accept and follow Christ or you can close your ears to it and walk away but the message is here. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life – John 3:16. Do I want many more to come to repentance? Of course I do! It’s my job as a Christian to tell others about the hope that I have in Jesus. It is my sincerest hope and prayer that I may reach the lost and hurting. I may be bashed and mocked and ridiculed for my witness but that just means im doing my job. Im not here to make friends I am here to win souls.

    God Bless You all

    • LadyInChrist♥ThankYouJesus

      And God Bless You, for reaching out to the lost.

    • ThroatwobblerMangrove

      Are you going to tell all the evolutionary biologists out there that they make their living based on a crackpot theory?

      • Nick Halflinger

        Lots of people making a living off crackpot theories. It is called religion.

    • ThePleiades

      We will be hated because of our belief in Jesus. Jesus told us this. We don’t want to be loved by the world then we have failed. Jesus came to shake things up and separate the wheat from the chaff. Why more people aren’t running to Jesus I’ll never know but we know Our reward is in Heaven not on earth.

      • LynnRH

        “Why more people aren’t running to Jesus I’ll never know.”

        Satan is running rampant in these latter days. And that’s the reason we (Christians) need to be running rampant too. God expects that from us. Love you in Christ.

  • Croquet_Player

    He announced it on the ICR website, did he? Well that’s very nice, but please do let us know when his findings are accepted for review in any respected scientific journals, subject to the scrutiny of peer review. That’s how actual science works.

  • Lark.62

    There is not enough water on the planet to cover the earth to the height of the Himalayas.

    • Terri Horn

      The entire water did not come from the surface. In fact no oceans before the flood. Look at atlas and ALL continents appear to match other continents like a jigsaw puzzle. most of the waters came from the fountains of the deep. There are massive amounts of water beneath the ocean floor. Read the description of a polar shift and this fits description

      • Lark.62

        Read any first year geology text book.

  • Lark.62

    1. It would seem this article disproves claims of a 6000 year old earth.

    2. This article completely ignores supercontinents, plate tectonics and the continent of Pangaea. Pangaea – a supercontinent with all the earth’s landmasses – formed about 335 million years ago and began to break up 175 million years ago.

    None of the current continents are on the same place on the globe that they were 250 million years ago. None. What is now South America and the southern part of Africa were once joined. The northern part of Africa collided with what is now north America, creating the Appalachian Mountains. Before erosion, the Appalachian were higher than the current Himalayas. New York and Scotland were once joined, as evidenced by identical rock formations. The Atlantic Ocean did not yet exist. India was connected to what is now Africa. Parts of what is now Antartica were near the equator.

    The fossilized plants found by scientists were those that grew in the climate where what is now Antartica was located at that time. Geologists documented this with supporting evidence decades ago.

    Read any geology text book.

  • MCrow

    The Himalayas are actually still forming. Everest grows about 4mm each year. Factor in time, and you would expect that, at some point, the Himalayas were at or below sea level.

  • Nick Halflinger

    Not to mention that the top of Mount Everest is limestone (skeletal fragments of marine organisms) and marble (metamorphosed limestone). It is puzzling that in the 5,000 years since the Noah’s flood only some of the limestone has turned to marble.

  • Jon Staples

    Oh, this is funny! So there were once trees in Antarctica… we’ve known this for a very long time.

    It doesn’t indicate anything about a “great flood”.

    Good grief.

    • carolyn

      Even if it did, surely saying these trees were 260 million years old and fossilized contradicts the whole story of creation. The ability of some to turn blind eyes is remarkable.

      • Jon Staples

        That I will agree with. The fact that they’re using it to support the “Great Flood” is hysterical!

  • Tina Garsee

    Watch the new movie Genesis: Paradise Lost.

  • carolyn

    Trees in the Antarctic? “This discovery should be no surprise to those who take Genesis as literal history.” Surely the discovery of FOSSILS that are 260 MILLION YEARS OLD, in itself contradics Genesis as literal history? PS a Creation Science Organization is a contradiction in terms. Science cannot have a standpoint.