Recent Science News As Viewed By A Creationist

I invited guest blogger Joe Yokel (a Young Earth Creationist) to share his views on a recent scientific discovery. Take it away Joe:

Huge Frog Was Eating Machine

With an armored head and a mammoth 16-inch body, it wasn't quite the frog prince. Scientists have discovered the remains of what might have been the largest and fattest frog ever to have lived on Earth.

A team of researchers unearthed the fossilized frog in Madagascar. Dating from about 65 million to 70 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period, the frog is 3.5 inches longer than the largest living frog, the goliath frog of West Africa.

The idea of animals being bigger a long time ago is nothing new. Back during the time of the Ark, reptiles were much larger, evolutionists call them dinosaurs. Noah most probably transported either very young dinosaurs or more likely dinosaur eggs when God made him take two of each kind with him on his voyage.

Of course, the Liberal media has fallen for the so called dating lie. Scientists add quite a few zeros to the age of their findings in order to make their religion of evolution possible. Here for instance, they added 4 zeros (I did the math) to the actual date of the fossils.

In another article on the same find, they refer to the frog as a Devil Toad. This is another bash against Christianity by calling it a Devil. But more importantly, it shows that scientists can't even tell the difference between a toad and a frog, yet they want us to buy into the rest of their crap. If the fossil gave the scientist a wart, it was a toad, if it didn't, it was a frog, pretty simple. But they still don't know much.

It also says that this frog or toad ate baby dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs. Aha!, now we know a reason why there are no more big dinosaurs anymore. I may have to rethink the idea that dinosaurs were today's reptiles, with this new revelation, it could easily be deducted that both small and large reptiles could have gone on the Ark.

Of course, when these large frogs ate the last dinosaur eggs, they had to settle for smaller meals and eventually over 5000 or so years evolved to get smaller.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Another Embarrassment

Christopher Hitchens isn't the most likable guy in the world. He is sort of like the Simon Cowell of the secular world. But aside from that, he was given the very easy task of "debating" Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. The topic was "Does God Exist?"


I don't want to get too repetitive here, lots of comments can be found on other blogs and the Youtube video comment section. The main blog post can be found here at 92Y.

What really pissed me off about Shmuley (I really like that name) was his ignorance. Typical of creationists. He doesn't even know what he believes when it comes to evolution. On one hand he says Stephen Gould wasn't an evolutionist because he believed in punctuated equilibrium, which of course does not mean he wasn't an evolutionist, yet on the other hand he says that he himself believes in evolution...guided by God...which the majority of Christians and Jews believe. However, he also asked where are the transitional fossils (there should be lots more if evolution is a reality according to the rabbi).
In other words, he is full of crap.

He also went on about the evolution of the eye. He is either stupid or lying when it comes to evidence regarding the topic.
He tried to debate God existed by attacking evolutionists and evolution. As soon as someone does that, the debate becomes pointless. Evolution is fact, and evolution does not mean God exists one way or the other. Of course, it rules out quite a few Gods (especially the ones who poofed man into existence).

Hitchens must have felt like he was shooting fish in a barrel. It is embarrassing to watch anyone try to prove God by dissing evolution.

Note: If you watched the entire video, an argument was left unanswered regarding whether a rabbinical court in Israel declared that it was right to deny a non Jew in distress help during the Sabbath. It seems the answer is still up for debate, though on the surface it looks like Hitchens wasn't wrong citing the example.

Also upon reading the comments, it seems that Shmuley never debated Dawkins nor was he the chief rabbi at Dawkins. This comes as no surprise. Shmuley is just a very bad liar.

Great point made a few times by Hitchens: Just because you don't like the facts and implications of what science has proven regarding evolution and the fate of the universe, doesn't mean that one should seek an alternative baseless story to feel better.

Human Evolution And Human Ancestry Made Easy

Potholer54 keeps cranking out the good stuff. Here are back to back videos that should be flung like monkey feces at internet creationists, who pound their chest while spewing mindless rants against evolution (Oh, I'm not calling us so called "evolutionists" monkeys, but we do share a common ancestor and I'm pretty sure that our common ancestor flung poo. So flinging poo might be in our genes).



OK Fundy lurkers, try refuting the above with your little book of myths or better yet, scientific evidence to the contrary. If you still interested in learning something?, then watch the video below too:



H/T Atheist Media Blog: The blog updates quite frequently and is full of an abundance of great material.

I just wanted state something about the second video. Missing from the migration map, is new evidence, that has theorized that migration to the New World most likely wasn't only a result of man crossing the Bering Strait. It seems that after the last ice age, Clovis Man, from where France is today, may have crossed the Atlantic via canoe and iceberg bridges. A debate is going on right now pertaining to this subject, and the possibility that Clovis Man came to America first, predating the direct ancestors of the Native Indians. And there is the possibility that Bering Strait Man wiped out Clovis Man, and most likely ate most of the evidence.

Of course, the Native Indians don't like this kind of talk. Lets face it, I don't think they want to send their casino profits to France:)

I Guess Atheists Rule

This post on Google Groups (Atheism versus Christianity) has to have been written by an atheist. I just can't give a debating Christian (or any debating believer) enough credit, not for the wisdom in the following, but for the honestly:

Christians: Tips To Doing Battle With Evil Atheists

Some things to keep in mind:


1. Remember that they are people, just like you are. Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, they are not some lower life form we share this planet with.

2. More than likely, they are smarter than you are. This can be difficult to come to grips with, but it does appear to be true and is a claim that is actually supported by the Bible (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

3. Statistically, they are also as moral, if not more so than you are. While it is a good thing that they generally are highly moral, it is a shame that we, who often times claim the moral high ground, seem unable, or unwilling, to match our words with our lives.

4. They will probably thump you in debate. They are much more likely to have carefully thought through their position and understand why they believe what they do. We are more likely simply to present some argument that the person we heard it from guaranteed would destroy the enemy. The problem with that is that many of them have heard the same arguments many times and are easily able to counter them.

5. Don't under-estimate their knowledge of the Bible. Many of them are more familiar with the Bible than the average Christian is. And they know all of the passages that will cause you a problem, and will not hesitate to challenge you with them.

So, as a Christian, what chance do we have when doing battle with the godless empire? Here are some suggestions that may make your stay here more rewarding.


1. Don't feel like you have to win all of the battles. You are not going to. In fact, you may not win any of them. Be satisfied with being able to clearly and logically express what you believe and why. While you may never convince another person on this group, you will have helped yourself by taking the time to understand what you believe and why, and to verbally present it. 1 Peter 3:15 says in part "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." We are challenged to give an answer, not to win a fight.

2. Be respectful, open and truthful. The remainder of 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to make our defense "with gentleness and respect". Realize that the people you are debating with really do have a lot to offer. Don't throw away the opportunity to learn from them because they do not believe in the God we hold dear. Don't make the mistake of believing that everything an atheist says is suspect.

3. Treat them the way you would like to be treated yourself. Remember what Jesus says in Matthew 7:12: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Jesus tells us to initiate the desired treatment, not just respond to others in the way we are treated. Most atheists here will treat you with at least the same amount of respect that you show to them.

4. Be willing to admit that there are things you don't know. Believe it or not, it will not hurt your position.

5. Remember that our walk is by faith and that we cannot prove that God exists or that the Bible is true. We might be able to make an argument to support those beliefs, but do not mistake that for proof.

6. Remember that while the Bible may be authoritative to you, like it is to me, to an atheist it is just an old book and has no more authority than the Iliad.

7. Enjoy your stay with us, learn and share, and don't get too worked up about anything.

8. Don't feed the trolls.

H/T God is For Suckers and Pharyngula

I had to look up 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, and it hurt my head. But it sort of says that God will destroy the intelligent non believers (they will perish), while the foolish believers will live for eternity.

No wonder Christianity appeals to so many in the third world.

So it is cool to be ignorant. The ignorant will live forever. I just don't understand why Christians have to debate. Is it an ego thingy?

I know why I debate. It is for the lurkers. Those on the fence, who have been brainwashed most of their life. Those brainwashed that evolution is false especially really need to be corrected. Not that the ones debating will ever change, that rarely happens. They are too far gone. It is the lurkers who do Google searches and those willing to learn who I am after.

Again, I like when creationists debate their nonsense on the internet. The result is that they help immensely with the growing number of atheists and agnostics on our small planet, because of atheists like me, who put up a few good links...again not for them, but for their audience.

Peer Reviewed Creation Science Website Now Up

AIG (Answers In Genesis)is sponsoring new science website
ANSWERS RESEARCH JOURNAL
Peer reviewed papers will be published, but non creationists are frowned upon to be the reviewers.

Here is one of the papers from the site (gotta love this term: creation microbiologists):

p7–10Microbes and the Days of Creation

by Alan L. Gillen


The world of germs and microbes has received much attention in recent years. But where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall? These are some questions that creation microbiologists have been asking in recent years. Ongoing research, based on the creation paradigm, appears to provide some answers to these puzzling questions. The answers to these questions are not explicit in Scripture, so the answers cannot be dogmatic. However, a reasonable extrapolation from biological data and Scripture can be made about the nature of microbes in a fully mature creation. This article attempts to provide reasonable answers to when microbes were created and is meant to stimulate discussion and further research in this area.

Very little has been written in Bible commentaries or in creation literature on the subject of when microbes were created. Some have postulated that microbes were created on a single day of Creation, such as Day Three—when the plants were made. This is partially due to the “seed-like” characteristics that bacteria and fungi have—therefore classifying microbes as plants. In addition, we observe microbes (such as Escherichia coli) isolated in the lab and we tend to think of microbes as individual entities much like birds or fish or animals and, therefore, created on a single day. However, in nature, the vast majority of microbes live in biological partnerships, not in total isolation. The natural symbiosis of microbes with other creatures is the norm. Therefore, we postulate that microbes were created as “biological systems” with plants, animals, and humans on multiple days, as supporting systems in mature plants, animals, and humans. This idea is further supported by the work of Francis (2003). Francis calls microbial symbiotic systems a biomatrix, or organosubstrate. He proposes that microbes were created as a link between macroorganisms and a chemically rich but inert physical environment, providing a surface (i.e., substrate) upon which multicellular creatures can thrive and persist in intricately designed ecosystems. From the beginning, God made His creation fully mature, and complex forms fully formed. This would ensure continuity and stability for the times to come. Although we cannot be certain as to specifically when the Creator made microbes, it is within His character to make entire interwoven, “packaged” systems to sustain and maintain life.

*********************************
Getting a little lazy of late, I posted the above at Raving Atheists. Check the thread out.

I like this response by RA member UBS: "What is Sanskrit for microbe?"

Typical creationist bs. Lots of scientific jargon but next to zero science. Just philosophical nonsense in another attempt to fit in part of the observable world into a literal bible.

I not a scientist, but isn't man made up of bacteria, and don't we need it to survive? I pretty much pointed this out in an earlier post: Revelation: All Life Evolved From Bacteria. So maybe God created microbes on Day 1 or Day 2:) God needed microbes to create all life forms, and since man is created in Gods image, God is full of microbes too. Which came first? God or microbes?