War2.ru Slogan
News: New responsive forum theme available!
Click here to switch! More info here!


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the forums! We're glad to have you here! :) You can register your account here, then feel free to introduce yourself in the Server.War2.ru board & let us know who you are on the server.

Some people 1073  34

Sappers Posts: 868 Karma: +53/-3 ******

LiveFreeorDie

  • Sappers
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Some people
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2018, 10:17:06 PM »
You'll like this. hehe. men are a virus. way back when life was very simple a chunk of dna came about that worked by sticking its dna into something else and letting that thing replicate it, instead of replicating by itself. This was a massive boon for life because it enabled the transfer of genetic traits and encouraged diversity which led to much faster and more efficiant evolution. The sperm, the womb and all the related naughty bits evolved later once this system was already in place.

This is why, despite the fact that asexual reproduction was around first, the forms of life that have evolved from the sexually reproductive branch (plants/animals/us!) have evolved much further in a shorter amount of time than the asexual forms of life like bacteria, which remain very simple.

"Way back when life was simple." Life isn't simple. Even the simplest living cell is more complex than a space shuttle, and needs all the parts to work properly together in order for the cell to be alive.

I understand that evolutionists make up just-so stories and long imaginary tales to explain their ideas, but again, it's not science. It's conjecture. Wishful thinking.

Show me scientific evidence of the claims, not fictional productions of fantasy.

No human besides Adam has seen a time before men and women existed. There is no evidence that sexual reproduction came about by gradual, chance processes.

"A simple chunk of DNA" DNA isn't simple. DNA also can't do anything by itself. It can't go hunt down victims to attack or squirt into. It's in instruction manual, a code, that needs a processor and a power source to make use of the information. Outside of a living cell, it isn't going to be doing much of anything.

The human reproductive system is so complex and perfectly designed that obviously you can't have the womb coming along "later", because if the mother didn't have a womb, there isn't going to be a baby who can start trying to develop one randomly by chance mutations.

Even with all the knowledge humans have obtained over 6000 years of trying to understand the reproductive system, and in spite of how much we've learned, we still are left with a lot of awe-inspiring mystery.

Two cells becoming one cell. Mystery.

That one cell becoming 26 billion in time for birth. Mystery.

The beginning of labor. Mystery.

To try to gain an appreciation for what we take for granted, think about how hard it would be for you, with all your intelligence, to MAKE that.

Imagine trying to design a single cell that turns into a human being. Imagine having access to unlimited personnel, science experts, funding, machinery, medical equipment.

You wouldn't be able to do it in your lifetime.

The above explanation of how male and female originated is so simplistic and undetailed and entirely lacking scientific evidence. The idea that there was some reproduction happening without a womb would, if it were true, make the womb unnecessary. If it is sexual reproduction, I can guarantee you that the womb is absolutely essential. A person can't have a baby without a womb, and if you could, you wouldn't need to get one. The same is true for every other part. If you can reproduce without a penis, you wouldn't need to get one. And the penis is such a glorious marvel and source of pleasure that its existence is 100% not an accident.




Sappers Posts: 975 Karma: +62/-0 ******

Lambchops

  • Sappers
  • ******
  • *
  • Posts: 975
    • View Profile
Re: Some people
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2018, 10:28:51 PM »
Ok, just briefly:

on the molten sea:

The words in the bible, which you say are infallible, are describing a molten sea and giving its dimensions. People can draw as many pretty pictures of excuses as they like. Which page of the bible is that illustration on?

If the bible is describing the diameter of one part of this vessel which contains the 'sea' then describing the circumferance of another part of it and attributing them both to the same thing, then that is an error intself.

Why would GOD in his perfect wisdom choose to provide these irrellivant dimensions in his all too brief accout to his beloved creations. Maybe GOD suggested to some MAN that "hey you should tell them about the molten sea, that's pretty cool" ... and then some man did his best to describe it, and just kinda roughed out the dimensions eh? Seems a bit more likely than the holy spirit commanding someone to accurately measure completely different parts of an odd shaped vessel then attribute the measurements to the contents of the vessel. Doesn't sound like the kind of mistake GOD would make, more like that of a man.

on wives and commandments.

Thats all nice and you can interpret it with nice unicorns and rainbows or as "her body is my body" i.e. "she is my property" and should respect me. That is about the interpretation, not the words.

Just please direct me to the passage in the bible that mentions consent, I mean if the holy spirit in its perfect wisdom thought we needed paragraphs incorrectly describing some old pot, surely there's a word or two in there on consent? As we are describing the perfect morals for all of humanity, I'm pretty sure that will be in there somewhere (hopefully carved into a stone tablet ;))

on multiple prefixes for the word "evolution".

Ok. Firstly, I'm not in a tizzy. I wouldn't tizzy at you :)
There was no confusion. The introduction of all these "diferent types of evolution" is just a word game that attempts to obfuscate the issue (hence propoganda). The fact that it comes from a religious source is evident because every one of them is described as being "the origin" of something. This is obviously written from a religious viewpoint as that is what gets creationists in a tizzy (lol) the origin of life.

As I said immediately prior to the quoted section "There is only one meaning for the word evolution, and that is not it. Evolution describes a change that happens over time, it does not describe the origin of any basic object, only how a system changes."

Even Darwin (who was neither prophert nor messiah, just a man with the start of an idea) entitled his book "on the origin of species" NOT "on the origin of life". It attempts to describe how life evolves over time, thereby how new species come about, it has nothing to do with how life was created in the first place.

on "proof"

There is an absolute mountain of evidence that proves evolution. Fossil records dating back millions of years. Just because you dont live long enough to see it happen in front of you does not mean it doesn't happen. I believe last time I had this discussion I ended up saying: I don't have to actually throw myself into the sun to prove I will be burnt, just knowing it's hot, and that hot things will burn me is sufficiant.

So how are you going at proving the existance of GOD? .... not like oh the world is so wonderful therefore GOD must have made it, I mean like maybe a fossilised GOD footprint or something?

      .... and BTW which page of the bible describes the computer you're using to post these messages? ;)

on hey you missed a bit

The bible was written by men right? I mean even if they are writing down what they remembered hearing Jesus say or whatever else was going on at the time, they were all just men ya? There is no gospel of Jesus, let alone a gospel of GOD. So then after these men wrote it down the way they remembered it, then other men transcribed what they had written multiple times, and into multiple languages. Then a bunch of men sat down and decided which of these stories they thought were best and which ones they didn't like, then they put those stories into a book and called it "The Bible" and declared it to be the word of GOD. Men did that right?
Sappers Posts: 868 Karma: +53/-3 ******

LiveFreeorDie

  • Sappers
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Some people
« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2018, 05:51:59 PM »
The Molten Sea

The description in the Bible describes exactly the item pictured. It even describes the brim turning out like a lily flower. It makes perfect sense to me.

What DOESN'T make sense is the idea that people "back then" were too stupid to be able to do basic math calculations but were smart enough to build things requiring perfect math. We see ancient ruins all over the world, many of which puzzle today's experts in how they were made. Stone workmanship and structures that have lasted for 500 or more years are clearly not the work of imbeciles.



In contrast, today's houses are made slightly more durable than cardboard boxes. Does that prove people are getting stupider or lazier, or perhaps both?



Rape


I don't know where you would ever get the idea from the Bible that God approves of rape. There are a number of historical accounts recorded in the Bible where rape happened, but it's always depicted as the evil that it is. If you provide chapter and verse of where you would get that idea, that would help.

I've already proved that God doesn't approve of rape, because I would say it's very clear that rape is not acting in love, kindness, gentleness, selflessness, self-control, and so on, which God commands all people to act in towards each other.

Terminology "Evolution"

I already stated that it doesn't matter as much what terms you use, but rather that the people having a discussion understand what the other person's meaning is.

You are saying that evolution means a very vague "change over time", and does not address origins, such as the origin of life, the origin of stars, the origin of chemicals, the origin of time, space, and matter.

"Change over time" happens. Squirrels turning into birds does not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it does.

You do apparently accept macro-evolution (the belief that animals change from one kind of animal to another - you specified that the squirrels and monkeys that grew wings are today's birds).

IF you hold to the idea that evolution cannot answer origins questions, then your worldview has no foundation to stand on.

It is true that answering origins questions lies at least partially outside of science, since science is the study of the world around us that we can observe with our five senses in the present. We can't experiment on the past, and if we weren't there to observe it, we have only writings of others who were there to tell us what happened. Whether we believe the accuracy and honesty of the writings we have from the past is another issue.

If your worldview can't address the basic questions of the existence of certain things we see, then how can it reliably address anything else without a solid foundation to stand on?

If you are willing to concede that origins questions can't be answered by observable, testable science, then your views aren't in line with what's commonly accepted and taught in school, which is that nothing or an "infinitely dense dot" depending where you're looking exploded. POOF. Even IF such an event had occurred, it would be impossible to determine scientifically, since it happened in the past and was observed by exactly zero people. Imaginations and speculations of what may or may not have happened billions of years ago lies far, far from the realm of science.

You can read these amusing fairy tales at sites like these:

https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/

They also admit that they have no clue how this works or could happen, but IT DEFINITELY HAPPENED! HONESTLY, KIDS. IT HAPPENED. And don't you dare question it or you will get an F on your next science test!

The purpose for the existence of evolutionism is to remove God from the picture. There is no scientific reason for people to believe in, protect, and promote these fairy tales, nor to fire, harass, insult, intimidate any scientist (and there are many of them) who points out problems with their ideas or who thinks intelligent design of the universe is a rational explanation for the amazing design one can observe everywhere in nature.

Lies in Textbooks

The textbooks are full of lies, that schools continue to teach to the kids, which leads to adults who simply accept it as fact without ever fully researching or thinking about the claims made.

Here's an example. Ernst Haeckel was so determined to promote the idea of evolution that he faked drawings that were used in textbooks for decade and are STILL IN TEXTBOOKS TODAY. KNOWN FRAUDS ARE STILL USED TO SUPPORT THE LIES OF EVOLUTION.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/

He wanted people to believe in evolution so badly that he used lies to support his ideas.

He wanted it to look like all embryos look the same.

Below the fraudulent drawings are photographs of the real embryos.



Horse evolution - known to be false, still in textbooks





According to the textbooks, the Eohippis was the size of a fox, was a meat eater and had 18 pairs of ribs. What they fail to mention is that the next horse had 15 ribs, then 19 ribs then back to 18. This is clearly not the same animal evolving.

Problems with Horse Evolution:

1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location.

2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than “ancient horses”.

3. The “ancient horse” (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa today!

4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.

5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)

6. Never found in the order presented.

7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side.


“Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of the sabertooth ‘tigers’ can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic.” (George G. Sympson, “Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record”. Scientific Monthly, Vol. 71 October 1950, p. 264).

Quoted section taken from https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/horse-evolution-fraud-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/

Lies and Frauds about Ape-Men "Missing Links"

From Joseph Mastropaolo Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biomechanics, California State University, Long Beach:

From my earliest memory, my public school biology education must be the greatest betrayal of my life. I feel ever so strongly that every lie and betrayal of my life, or anyone known to me, cannot begin to compare with the lies, betrayals, and ruined lives caused by the teachings of my public school biology teachers.

From elementary school through to graduation from college, we were told about the missing link. It was the ape-man peering at us from the biology book. It was what convinced my friends to become atheists and convinced me to become an agnostic. The most famous ape-man was the “Piltdown Man,” Eoanthropus dawsoni, the dawn man discovered by Dawson. Five books were written on this crude forgery constructed by fitting the jaw of an orangutan to the skull of a man.

The orangutan’s teeth were abraded artificially to resemble human flat wear, and chemical analysis revealed the skull and jaw had been stained the same brown color using chromium and acid iron sulfate, with neither chromium nor sulfate occurring in the locality of the dig. It was so transparent a fraud that it had to be guarded for 40 years in the British Natural History Museum. For 40 years, the world was led to believe that the missing link between apes and man had been found.

Another ape-man, the “Nebraska Man,” Hesperopithecus harold cookii, this time associated with the American Museum of Natural History, was concocted from a single tooth from a wild pig. The ape-men were frauds, but they converted hundreds of my classmates to amoral atheism as if they were true. We blindly believed our teachers textbooks and had our lives ruined with great efficiency nonetheless.


Many formerly evolutionist atheist scientists have been converted to the truth after coming to recognize the lies and impossibility of the teachings of evolution. Dissenting from the religion of evolution can cost people their jobs, because the religion is so intolerant of being questioned, like all false religions are.

Many famous scientists were creationists:

Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Galileo Galilei
Francis Bacon
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Carolus Linnaeus
Louis Pasteur

And many others, including the inventor of the MRI machine, Raymond Damadian.

And below is a long list of scientists living today who possess a doctorate in a science-related field who believe in the biblical account of creation (killing the false idea that all scientists believe in evolution) plus many scientists from the past who believed in a creator:

https://creation.com/creation-scientists

The notion that only "retarded" people believe in Creation is clearly false.
 


Darwin


When we're talking about Origin of Species, let's not forget the whole title.



Darwin also did not come up with the idea of evolution on his own, nor did it stem from scientific observation. He was influenced by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who was already promoting evolutionary ideas and by the writings of Charles Lyell and James Hutton and others.

If you actually read Darwin, you will see that he talks about other races like they are primitive animals.

It was Darwin's writings that influenced Hitler to create a supreme race and help evolution along by having fun with (ie. torturing) and destroying the "inferior races". Humans who were considered "less evolved" animals were also displayed in zoos.





These ideas are both disgusting and dangerous. Not to mention, they are lies.

Macro-evolution has no evidence to support it. The idea that animals can change into other kinds of animals is outside of science. It's faith-based just as much as Creationism is. No one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. There is no mechanism for adding new genetic information into the genetic code, nor is there any evidence that this has ever happened.

What we DO observe is what's misleadingly labelled microevolution, which is simply variation within kinds. This happens. This one is scientific. And all the examples of "evolution" used are examples of variation within a kind of animal. Horses produce big horses and little horses. Dogs produce a great variety of dogs from Great Dane to Chihuahua and the sad can-barely-walk-and-can-barely-breathe bulldog to the super-long back-breaks-super-easily dachshund. Roses produce a variety of roses. Corn produces a variety of corn. All still the same kind of living thing from beginning to end. No one has ever observed a banana give birth to a monkey, or a corn produce an elephant, or a cow produce a whale. The transitional forms, which should exist if the evolutionary story were true, should far outnumber the "end" point creatures that we see today. These transitional forms are sweepingly absent.

The modern evolutionary idea also teaches that it was reptiles and dinosaurs that turned into birds, not squirrels and monkeys. Supposedly, mammals came later.

There is no reason to believe that a bone found in the dirt can do something that living animals have never been observed to do, which is to produce something other than their own kind of animal.

The "earliest" fossil bats and birds already appear fully flighted and just like today's animals.

I'll start a new post to discuss FOSSILS.
Sappers Posts: 868 Karma: +53/-3 ******

LiveFreeorDie

  • Sappers
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Some people
« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2018, 07:14:15 PM »
Fossils

Dr. Michael Denton said that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils.

The majority of fossils found are creatures that look just the same as today's animals.

Evolutionists aren't particularly excited about these, because it doesn't help support their views.

They are finding so many of what they call "living fossils".

Even the famed supposedly 65-million-year-old coelacanth, which they believed lived at the same time as dinosaurs (and it did! just wasn't millions of years ago) was found ALIVE and well in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.

Their response. "Oh, wow, it didn't evolve at all in tens of millions of years!"

The coelacanth was touted as the missing link between fish and land animals. It was supposed to be the ancestor of all land animals, the animal that was coming out of the water. Yet...it's still here...and it's still a fish! Oh dear. What a calamity.

Now scientists have come up with a new story to cover for this blunder that was previously taught as FACT and anyone who questions it is a retard (like Ywfn says, anyone who questions FACTS of evolution is a retard!) Now they have decided, "Oh, this thing is just evolving slower than anything else because it's genes are remarkably stable!"

Yeah, the genes of it and every other living organism on the planet!

Facts are things that can be observed, tested, repeated, demonstrated, measured, or experienced with the 5 senses.

The notion that fish started walking onto land and left their gills behind in the water to get lungs instead is not a part of science. People are welcome to believe these fishy stories all they want, but calling it science is entirely inaccurate.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/

The "420 million year old" elephant shark is even more tragic for the evolutionists. An animal hasn't evolved in 420 millions years. Maybe, it's because the theory is baloney!

There is zero evidence for one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the creature, if not fatal.

Mutations involve a scrambling or deletion of existing information, NEVER, EVER, EVER a GAIN of new information or new instructions on making new organs and body parts that the parent organism did not have.

Evolution, in order to progress, requires the addition of NEW information and new instructions for new parts. This has not been observed and this does not happen in real life. This is not a part of science. This is faith. It is as religious as the belief in God.

Intentional breeding with a specific goal in mind (like to create a dog breed with super short legs or a curly coat) takes mutant animals and reproduces those intentionally until the genetic diversity and normal genes are removed from that population pool. "Pure" breeds or specifically bred types of corn, cattle, chickens, etc. have LESS genetic diversity and information than the parent animals, not more, and are sicker and weaker than the genetically diverse animals.

What you start with? dog
What you end with? dog
Change in kind of animal? no, none


Bacterial Resistance


If a virus attacks a specific protein in bacteria, and a mutation causes some bacteria to be produced without this protein, they are protected from that threat by having a mutation that appears to be, momentarily beneficial.

This is a LOSS of information, not a gain. And these bacteria are sicklier and weaker than the normal bacteria in the long run. And they are still bacteria!

Species at start: bacteria
Species at end: bacteria
Change in kind of life form? no, none

And they are still always the same KIND of animal or organism that they were at the beginning.

Back to Fossils

Evolutionists admit that there is a complete absence of fossils of transitional creatures.

Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” 

University of Chicago paleontologist David M. Raup: “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”

University professor, paleontologist, curator of two museums, George Gaylord Simpson:  “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”

UC San Diego biology professor David S. Woodruff: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”

University of Hawaii paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Steven M. Stanley: “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson: “About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

The evidence for one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal is NOT found in "the fossil record".

How do fossils form, anyways?

Is the Google search result true?

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.

People don't see fossils forming very often in nature today, yet there are millions of fossils all over the world.

When an animal dies in nature, usually the flesh and often even the bones are devoured and anything left decays.

It takes special conditions for fossils to form...like a worldwide flood catastrophe. There is evidence that the entire world was underwater, just like Genesis says in the Bible. There are marine fossils found on Mount Everest. There are marine fossils found all over the world.

I believe the fossils formed in the flood catastophe, when there would have been enormous amounts of mud and water travelling rapidly to bury these creatures alive and under pressure and just the right conditions for fossils to form.

It's not a slow process.

A fossil fish seen below died rapidly during the process of giving birth.



Here is a fossilized fish mid-bite.



These things did not die and get buried slowly. These creatures were buried alive and rapidly, as they would be in catastophic flood conditions, as would a vast quantity and assortment of animals.

Soft tissue (blood vessels, blood cells) has been found in dinosaur remains. These things cannot survive from 70 million years ago from when these creatures are believed by some to have existed.

The discoverer, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."

Scientists wrong again.

They have been scrambling to come up with new stories and ways to explain away yet more evidence that contradicts their notion of "science", which is in effect their religion that they must protect at all costs, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation week, along with other land animals.

There is plenty of evidence to show that dinosaurs (this word was invented in 1842) existed alongside human beings. Before that, they were often called dragons or other names.











Some of these images and carvings are thousands of years old, but people started digging up dinosaur bones in the last few hundred years.

The evidence indicates that the people making the pictures and carvings and writing the stories of these huge reptiles (dragons or dinosaurs or whatever you'd like to call them) actually SAW these creatures!

There are many historical accounts of battles with dragons (aka dinosaurs).

On Proof

You can't compare the "science" of those two things.

In one instance, you can feel the sun's heat, and observe on earth that the sun's heat can harm, blind, or kill people by excessive exposure. These lie within what can be observed.

On the other hand, bones found in the dirt do not talk. Nor do they have dates stamped on them. What people conclude about fossils found in the ground can be a number of things, depending on their worldview lens that they are looking through. "Dating" methods rely on assumptions.

We can observe or study certain things like the half-life of an element, such as the decay of radioactive potassium to the gas argon.

You can measure the rate of decay, but to use it to estimate ages for rocks or fossils, you have to assume the quantities present of each at a certain point in time in the past, which can't be tested.

When samples of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand lava flows (1949, 1954, 1975) were tested at a commercial lab, the "scientific" dates were millions of years. The methods do not work on samples of known age, but are assumed to work on samples of unknown age? This is illogical.

The reality is that all the dates derived by these methods that evolutionists don't like are thrown out, while they keep the ones tha suit their ideas.

The methods have repeatedly proven to be unreliable.

They date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. "The fossils date the rocks more accurately."

It's all based on faulty assumptions and an incoherent worldview.

So if a rock is dated at an age that is "too old" or "too young" for the fossils found in there, the dates are discarded because the fossil's presence "proves" that it's older or younger.

This isn't science. This is picking and choosing what you like and calling it science, when the dating methods are proven to not work reliably on samples of known age. It's also circular reasoning to date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils.

All the evidence in the world lines up with what the Bible teaches.

God created the heavens and the earth and all living things according to their kinds in 6 days. Man sinned and death came into the now-cursed world. There was a global flood to judge man for wickedness. Most of that water is still here. The earth is covered with mostly water. Many ancient underwater cities have been found, some of which likely are advanced pre-flood civilizations.

Man was created intelligent and I believe far more intelligent than people today. The actual archaeological findings fit the Bible perfectly, with many discoveries of advanced technology in ancient ruins that some believe must be proof aliens visited earth long ago.

People are so brainwashed with the lies of "primitive" ape-like cavemen and evolutionary thinking seen in textbooks and mueums, which have been shown to be lies and frauds, that all contrary evidence is hidden and suppressed.

Giant human fossils were hidden because it didn't fit their worldview.

Evolutionists are so ardent in supporting their worldview that they are willing to fabricate evidence for it and destroy evidence against it, as seen when the Smithsonian destroyed tens of thousands of giant human skeletons that did not fit in with their beliefs that everything is getting bigger and better and stronger over time. What we tend to observe is things getting weaker and sicker and dying.

SMITHSONIAN ADMITS TO DESTRUCTION OF THOUSANDS OF GIANT HUMAN SKELETONS - YouTube

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/

There is TONS of evidence all over the world, not only of giant humans, but giant animals as well. These are HIDDEN and SUPPRESSED because they DO NOT FIT evolutionist worldview!

The evolutionist worldview is FALSE. The real evidence goes against those ideas over and over and over again on every level in every field of science.

More giant bones found thought to be 5000 years old:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/skeletons-china-giants-5000-year-old-archaeologists-discovered-jiaojia-jinan-shandong-a7824326.html

Photos of giant skeletons, footprints, graves, ancient armor, living giants:

http://www.6000years.org/giants.html

Why, WHY, would honest scientists hide evidence???

Because they are more interested in promoting an atheistic worldview than presenting all the evidence and showing the truth, that the evolution story does NOT fit the evidence!

Giant humans fit just fine with the Bible. "There were giants in the earth in those days." (Before the flood) And we find giant human fossils, most likely formed during the flood with all the other fossils of everything that died in that worldwide catastrophe.

Did you know that many, many different and separate cultures and peoples from all over the world  from ancient times all have global flood legends?

On Hey You Missed Something

If the Bible were written by stupid primitive man and is not the Word of the living God who made the heavens  and the earth, it should be full of errors. Yet it isn't.

You have made an attempt to prove that there was a math error in the Bible, but that's been proven not a problem at all when you take into account the description provided of the non-cylindrical object.

It should be full of errors.

On the contrary, the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. It was written by people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so is in fact the Word of God.

How do you explain "pre-scientific" knowledge in the Bible from "primitive imbeciles" of thousands of years ago? Like the fact that the things we see are made of invisible things like atoms and molecules? The fact that the world "hangs on nothing", which was recorded in Scripture an estimated 3500 years ago when many couldn't fathom this apparent impossibility and believed, for instance, that earth rested on a giant turtle's back?

There should be so many errors that finding them would be like collecting shells on the ocean shore. I'm still waiting, after decades of examination, to find these.



Sappers Posts: 868 Karma: +53/-3 ******

LiveFreeorDie

  • Sappers
  • ******
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: Some people
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2018, 08:30:41 PM »
Ancient Civilizations Very Advanced and Intelligent, also Underwater (Possibly Pre-Flood) Cities Found

Harappa and Mohenjo Daro

Ancient advanced civilizations built these expertly planned cities with water and sewage systems so well designed that it looks like the entire city was planned before it was built. They had highly advanced knowledge of mathematics and a sophisticated system of weights and measures. They had bathrooms, toilets, combs, soaps, medicines, dentistry, toys, and a language that people have been unable to decipher.





Underwater City (Possibly A Pre-Flood City) of Pavlopetri

Thought to be 5000 years old, which if true, would put it before the flood which was about 4400 years ago. Streets, homes, temples, tombs, and a water system have been found. The original name of the city is unknown.



There are actually NUMEROUS underwater advanced cities and civilizations that have been discovered (and of course, we don't know how many there are that haven't been discovered).

Following taken from https://www.ancient-code.com/antediluvian-civilizations-submerged-ancient-cities/:

Antediluvian civilizations: submerged ancient cities



Even though most scientists will deny it, among the scientific community there has always been that slight possibility pointing towards the existence of the so-called antediluvian civilizations that were destroyed 11,500 years ago due to the sudden and extreme rise in Earth sea levels.

Numerous ancient cities have been discovered in the recent years pointing toward a strong possibility of the existence of ancient civilizations and cities like Atlantis.

Worldwide cultures have left written texts that speak of great floods, some of them are the following: Atrahasis (Sumerian myth), the epic of Gilgamesh (Babylonian legend), the Bible (the Hebrews), Shujing (classical Chinese history ), Matsya Purana and Shatapatha Brahmin (Hindu sacred texts dating from the first millennium BC), Plato’s Timaeus and Crizia (Greece) and the Popul Vuh (the Maya civilization), among others.

Bimini underwater street

One of the first cities to be found under the sea was actually discovered in the vicinity of the island of Bimini in the Bahamas. While swimming, in September 1968, Dr. Valentine suddenly saw what he believed was a paved street with huge blocks of rectangular and polygonal shaped stones under water. The stones that make up the construction have lengths up to five meters and are “perfectly” sculpted. Strangely, the underwater stones bare a mysteriously close similarity with the stones found at Sacsayhuaman, the imposing ancient structure located a few kilometers from Cusco, at 3300 meters above the sea level. According to Dr. Valentine and other researchers like underwater archeologist Robert Marx, believe these underwater structures are clearly artificial and they believe they have originated in the glacial era.

Mysterious submerged streets off the coast of Florida.

In 1969, the crew of the US submarine Aluminaut found another incredible discovery in the vicinity of the coast of Florida. According to reports, they had found the remains of an underwater city 900 meters below the surface. Among mysterious structures, they believe they found a gigantic “avenue” of 20 kilometers in length. According to the crew, traces of aluminum, silicon and magnesium oxide were found.

The submerged monuments of Yonaguni.




One of the most incredible discoveries of underwater structures was made in 1987 in the vicinity of the Yonaguni Island. The oldest of the Ryu Kiu islands in Japan. The Yonaguni monument is a megalithic formation found 40 meters below the surface, that, according to numerous researchers, points towards the existence of and ancient civilization that inhabited the area.

Masaaki Kimura, a marine geologist at the University of Ryu Kyu, has studied the underwater structures for 15 years. According to Kimura, these underwater structures are the remains of a 5,000-year-old city.
According to the underwater archeologist Sean Kingsley, the submerged city of Yonaguni would correspond to a pre-Flood era city when glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere and the sea level was lower than today.

The submerged city of Khambhat

In 2000, researchers discovered, off the coast of Gujarat in India, mysterious structures that pointed toward the existence of an ancient city on the seabed. In 2001, the discovery was confirmed by the Minister for Science and Technology Murli Manohar Joshi when he officially admitted that it was an underwater city that was destroyed by the great flood. In the same year, the remains of wood and pottery were found in the vicinity of the archeological site. These findings were carbon-dated. According to the tests, researchers believe these mysterious underwater ruins are between 13,000 to 31,300 years old. The underwater city of Khambhat is believed to be the oldest underwater city found to date.
The mega city found in the Caribbean

Researchers were performing underwater explorations in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Cuba with the help of a robotic submarine in May 2001. What they found at a depth of 600 meters was anything but what they expected to find. An area of over 20 square kilometers covered in structures, pyramids, and other manmade buildings. It’s a gigantic underwater complex that according to mainstream archeology and researchers, does not exist. According to geologist ManuelIturralde, who participated in the research, it is possible that the submerged ruins found belonged to an antediluvian civilization, dating back to 10.000 BC. Images of the ocean floor confirmed the existence of gigantic granite blocks, circular and perpendicular formations. This discovery has led to several theories that propose that theYucatan peninsula was once connected with Cuba with a narrow earth bridge. Researchers from Mexico believe that these underwater remains could be attributed to an ancient civilization like the one that built ancient Teotihuacan.


End of article

Some underwater cities have a more recent, known history, like Port Royal, Jamaica, which was called one of the most wicked cities in the world at the time, which was thrown into the sea by an earthquake in 1692 and Lion City, Shi Cheng, China, which was intentionally flooded by the government for making a dam.

All the same, it's fascinating stuff!