War2.ru Slogan
News: Check out the new Just for Fun CONTEST CENTRAL 2018 For All Players!!!! @ the newly reopened Moderated Section !

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.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by Antti_Kiviniemi on Today at 03:41:28 AM »
Hmm, when it comes to religion people will have their own feelings about things and that's fine. I'm just talking about historical happenings but everyone's faith is up to them.

well claims given without evidence can be swept aside without evidence. so far you have described events in a subjective manner. i just wanted to say yo team lutherans bitch.
Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by eyyy im walkin here on January 15, 2018, 08:35:01 PM »
Hmm, when it comes to religion people will have their own feelings about things and that's fine. I'm just talking about historical happenings but everyone's faith is up to them.
Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by Antti_Kiviniemi on January 15, 2018, 08:26:48 PM »
They're a cult formed after Martin Luther sperged out and rage quit the Church because he was mad at the admins.

i like the lutherans.
Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by eyyy im walkin here on January 15, 2018, 07:55:30 PM »
They're a cult formed after Martin Luther sperged out and rage quit the Church because he was mad at the admins.
Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by Antti_Kiviniemi on January 15, 2018, 07:34:34 PM »
Catholics and Orthodox are the only real Christians. Protestants and Mormons are heretical splitters.

lutherans are protestants and they are much more true christians than catholics.
General Discussion / Re: Some people
« Last post by BabyShark on January 15, 2018, 07:14:15 PM »

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.


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 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).

Out of time for now.

Server.War2.ru / Re: serious question
« Last post by eyyy im walkin here on January 15, 2018, 07:13:27 PM »
Catholics and Orthodox are the only real Christians. Protestants and Mormons are heretical splitters.
General Discussion / Re: nba 2017-2018
« Last post by marx was right on January 15, 2018, 06:49:41 PM »
Lauri Markkanen becomes the fastest player to make 100 3-pointers in their career, doing so in 41 games

General Discussion / Re: Some people
« Last post by BabyShark 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?


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:



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.


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:


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


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.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10