Vestigial organs.

Hi there!
This is something I get allot, "If God created us, why do we have vestigial organs? Shouldn't everything be perfect?" Well yes, God created us and every little thing we have supports our body in some way. This is often used as an evolutionist argument, arts that are left behind from our ancestors.

A few years ago, there was a list containing all the "vestiagial" organs in our body, I think it included about 80. That list has been narrowed down, to 0. There are a few that were not mentioned that are mentioned today, but its still not vestigial. I will list a bunch of vestigial organs from various websites, I will explain what the organ is, if I can, what it came from, and then explain why it is not vestigial.

Plica semilunaris
Also known as the third eyelid in some cases.

What is it?
The plica semilunaris is a small fold of bulbar conjunctiva on the medial canthus of the eye. A non biology version would be, that little pinkish triangle thingy at the point of your eyes closest to your nose.

Here is a picture of one:

Where did it come from?

It is believed that this came from reptiles or birds. They use it allot, some other animals like cats and chickens. It is believed that we didn't use it, so it shrunk, and never fell off.

What it is used for
Now something I'd like to point out, just because it seems to be the same thing doesn't mean it is the same thing. Look at us and whales, we have 2 bones in our wrist and whales have bones with the same names close to their tail, yet to do completely different things. So it has the same name, but that means absolutely nothing they are not the same. Now the plica semilunaris is definatly not vestigial. I thought most people should be able to figure it out, but since it is used as examples... What happens if you cry? Where does the tears go? Straight to your plica semilunaris and it slips right off! What happens if you get sand in your eye? It hurts or burns, blink a little and you will notice that the dirt is moving closer and closer to the plica semilunaris, once its there its much easier to get it out! The plica semilunaris helps to keep your eyes clean and slippery.

Take contact lenses for example. Have you ever seen someone fall asleep with contact lenses in their eyes? I have, when they wake up their eyes are really really dry. The contact lenses blocks whatever the plica semilunaris wants to do to make the eye slippery, since you have contact lenses in it can't perform its job, making your eyes dried up when you wake up in the morning.

Body hair
I'm sure you all know what that is!

Where did it come from?
It is believed that this came from chimps, but I'm sure you knew that.

What is it used for?
Hair is used for things other than warmth. Hair intensifies the sense of touch, when they are moved or bent. The amount of hair is determined by your genes, not everyone has the same amount of hair everywhere, there are allot of other things that affect your hair growth such as androgens. I'm not going to go into the biology of it. Hair is mostly used for body heat.


Sinuses
What is it?
Well I thought this wasn't really worth to be on the list, but hey, I'm just reading from the lists and then replying. Sinuses are air-filled spaces, communicating with the nasal cavity, within the bones of the skull and face.

What is it used for?
Well, even some evolutionists agree that sinuses are not vestigial, allot of debates have gone on about it, but it is suggested that the sinuses's functions could be:

• Decreasing the relative weight of the front of the skull, and especially the bones of the face. The shape of the facial bones is important, as a point of origin and insertion for the muscles of facial expression.
•  Increasing resonance of the voice.
•  Providing a buffer against blows to the face.
•  Insulating sensitive structures like dental roots and eyes from rapid temperature fluctuations in the nasal cavity.
•  Humidifying and heating of inhaled air because of slow air turnover in this region.

Adenoids
What is it?
Adenoids are a mass of lymphoid tissue situated at the very back of the nose, in the roof of the nasopharynx, where the nose blends into the mouth.

What is it used for?
It is used to trap and destroy pathogens in the air that enter the nasopharynx.
If you have yours removed, not a problem, you might just get a few diseases others don't get.


Tonsils
What is it?
The tonsils are areas of lymphoid tissue on either side of the throat.


What is it used for?
Well these two small glands in the back of your throat help protect you against infections.


Coccyx
Also referred to as a tail bone.

What is it?
It is the final segment of the human vertebral column.
You can find it right there:

What is it used for?

Scientists have found that important muscles attach to those bones. Without those muscles, your pelvic organs would collapse Without them you could not have a bowel movement, nor could you walk or sit upright. Or go to the bathroom if you really have to go after eating allot!

Goose bumps
What is it?
Are the bumps on a person's skin at the base of body hairs which may involuntarily develop when a person is cold or experiences strong emotions such as fear or awe.

What is it used for?
Goose bumps are caused by muscle contractions. These force oil into the follicle and onto the skin. This traps air around the surface of the skin and provides added insulation.

Appendix
What is it?
It is a blind-ended tube connected to the cecum, from which it develops embryologically.

What is it used for?
Science recently discovered that man needs this organ. It helps protect you from gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending colon. It also fights infection. The problem is they say if something can be cut out and you can still live fine then its vestigial. Thats not how it works, cut off an arm, you can still live fine, does that make the arm vestigial? Same with your eyes, toes, fingers, everything you have has a function, just because you can live perfectly without them doesn't mean they are not needed.

Seriously the list just goes on and on and on, even though it mostly has a logical explanation people still choose to use it as arguments. Now we hit a problem for evolutionists, why arn't there any vestigial organs? See what has just happened there? Evolutionists ask questions, which are fine, but when we answer them, the same question is asked to them, but the opposite. According to evolution we should have a bunch of vestigial organs.

Other questions like this is, "What about the Geologic column?" then this is easily explained and the faults are pointed out in the evolutionists point of view, then we might ask why it looks like that. For example, why are there no erosion marks with the layers, if it formed over millions of years, don't you think it would rain once or twice? Or "How do you explain dinosaurs?", then after my explanation I can ask, why are human and dino footprints found on the same place, why are dino's mentioned and described in the bible, why did egyptians etc. know allot about dinosaurs?

So yea, its something to think about. Thats all for this topic.
-Martin

Uranium lead dating

Hi there!
Firstly I want to say, when making a comment, please, try to avoid using this website for me to go and read and answer: www.talkorigins.org. In one debate, I was referenced to this website no less than 5 times, I am getting sick of it, I explain everything, but they just keep throwing it again. From now on, if someone references to talkorigins, I am going to reference to talkorigins rival, www.trueorigins.org They are having war with each other so feel free to go there if you have any questions that you find on talk origins. The one comment was 29+ evidences for macro-evolution. Go here for that answer.

Well, its been a while since I published my first blog entry about carbon dating. I am very happy, I don't get any "proof" for millions of years old that includes carbon dating.

Actually the millions of years doesn't even fit, thanks to the 50 000 years limit, and all the ticks, so anything older than 50 000 years won't even give a single tick, so I don't know where they get that information from.

Anyway, now I'm not getting blasted with carbon dating, now I'm getting blasted with uranium lead dating! Well there are more than 20 dating methods so I suspects I am going to get blasted with allot of them, helium dating, lead 210 dating, racemization dating, astronomical dating, paleomagnetic dating I'm sure I'm going to get tackled with all of them, so I better get ready for it.

Uranium lead dating is pretty interesting, unlike carbon dating uranium lead dating has 2 separate decay chains. The one has a half life of 4,47 billion years and the other a half life of 704 billion years. I'm not going into any detail with all this like I did with carbon dating, it has the basics of carbon dating so I'm sure you will be able to follow if you read the carbon dating article. If you want more information on it get a book on it.

First there are a few things that every radiodating method assumes.
#1. Each system has to be a closed system or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. So immediately that tells you radiodating methods are not very accurate.

#2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must
originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.
But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of
radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. People can guess, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do! Not that long ago they dated dinosaur bones, the results gave them a few thousand years. (Which is what I believed from the start) what did they do? Throw out the dinosaur bones and conclude dinosaur bones are to old to be carbon dated. No, its not to old to be carbon dated, your dating method is faulty and you can't accept the truth. And its been known that the radiodating methods date things back to much. It would be interesting to hear scientists defend themselves on why they throw out some things. Because currently it works like this:
If the age sample is known, radiometric dating does not work, if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed that radiometric dating works. And you call that science? I would seriously find new dating methods to support your theory.

#3. The decay rate must always have been constant. These rates can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. The biggest mistake with the radiometric dating is the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space, if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation, if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral, if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. John Joly, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

#4. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. We know that the oxygen long ago was different than it is today, evolutionists and creationists both agree with this. Most evolutionists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger in the Jurassic age." Most creationists say: "Everything seems to have been bigger before the flood." The only explanation for everything being bigger would be if there was more oxygen and if the oxygen was under more pressure than it is today. Thats the only way that I know of that something can grow as big like a dinosaur. From my point of view, the bible says there was a firmament above the earth. So it is suggested that before the flood there was a water or ice layer above the earth, this is physically possible, and should that be true then the oxygen would be put under more pressure etc. I would like an evolutionists point of view on why everything grew larger in the Jurassic age.

Problems like that just come up and up, all that with just the types of radiometric dating methods. So with all my other radiometric dating posts, I am going to reference to this page. As this is the same for all radiometric dating methods. Now back to uranium lead dating. I have already discussed a few problems with it above. Now uranium lead, specific problems.

#1. Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product. When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is “daughter-product lead”.

#2. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

#3. There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine  yielded an error spread of 700 million years.Its like I said previously, if the age sample is known, it does not work, but if the age sample is unknown, it is assumed to work. Get a serious problem here.

#4. Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay!

#5. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. “Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?”Glen R. Morton. It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

In some of my previous debates I have started showing things from evolution that contradicts itself. Not just its dating methods, the theory itself. I don't know whats happening, but some how those contradictions just never seem to come up. There is a contradiction on how the stars formed, there is a contradiction in your dating methods, there is a contradiction with regards to matter and anti-matter.

Well, thats all for this article, thanks for reading!
-Martin

Am I good enough to go to heaven?

Firstly, this is a question allot of people who believe in God have.
So if you don't believe in God and you are just going to criticize, kindly leave as this entry has nothing to do about evolution or creation. This is my religion and I expect you to respect it, as I respect your evolution religion.

Now lets get started, are you good enough to go to heaven?
Thats a pretty good question, how do we know who is and who isn't good enough to go to heaven?
Like allot of questions, we simply refer to the Bible!

Note: Before making any comments or get upset or angry or neglect the word of God, read the WHOLE article don't just stop when you read something you don't like!
Don't make the same mistake my other test readers made!



Revelation 20:13-15
(13)  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
(14)  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
(15)  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So what that says is, if you don't do good you go to hell.
Now how do we know what is good or bad? Is it based on majority of opinion?
Because that never works out!
Lets see, the Bible actually tells us what we may and may not do, its called the 10 commandments, 10 laws, according to the Bible thats all you need to obey to go to heaven! Now what are the 10 commandments?

Well, the 10 commandments are split into 2 sections. The first is regarding God and the second regarding man.

#1. Do not worship any other gods.
This is very important. Hey, do you have more than 1 God?
Do you live for school and totally neglect the word of God?
Do you spend hours infront of the TV and don't even think of God, or even consider Him?
Is the answer yes?
Then you are in allot of trouble when you stand before God!

#2. Do not make any idols.
Don't make something that resembles God and worship that. God is much much much bigger than we will ever be able to imagine! Making a statue and praying to that, even if it resembles God is just a slap in God's face! If you read the bible you will see people that did this were punished!

In Exodus when the Israelites made an idol (the golden calf) they had a choice, stay with the calf or turn to God. Those who stayed with the calf died. Those who went to God...The calf was crushed into powder and they had to drink it! I'm sure that tasted...interesting.

If you want to talk to God go on your knees (just shows respect), close your eyes (to prevent distraction) and talk to God. Nothing special, just that.

#3. Do not misuse the name of God.
This is really bad, 40% of the people I know don't even know they are doing this, and 30% of them know they are doing this, but they just don't care. Honestly, why do people use the name "God" to express anger? You see it in movies, plays, series, books everywhere. People just don't care about this. If you are one of those guilty people, I think you are in BIG trouble when you stand before God.

#4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
God tells us, work 6 days, rest 1.
How many people actually do this?
Some people say: "We do this, we go to church every Sunday!".
Well I'm sorry, but that just isn't going to cut it. I will agree its hard to do in todays times, but atleat try! Most teenagers have got the resting part done, 7 days a week!
Not gonna cut it!

That was regarding God. Now regarding man.

#5. Honour your mother and father.
This could be tricky huh?
Its really hard sometimes, especially when they are being "unfair"!
You are not allowed to go to the party! When they say something you don't like you might crack and swear them, or intimidate them etc. Trust me, this happens allot!

#6. Do not murder.
I'm sure this isn't a problem for most people, but yea, just thought I'd mention it. The guy actually mentioned something I never knew, after some research I found it! Jesus states that hating someone, thinking bad of someone, it means you are committing murder in your heart, which is true, don't wish bad things on others.

#7. Do not commit adultery.
This is one of the laws broken allot!
Really, how many parents are divorsed?
How many couples cheat on each other?
Think about it, it happens ALLOT!

Mat 5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So as you can clearly see, these laws are not all meant to be interpreted physically, but also spiritually and emotionally.

#8. Do not steal.
Don't take something that isn't yours, without asking atleast.
Don't take a pen from someone. Don't take test answers!
Many variations of stealing! You can steal with your hands, with your eyes etc.

#9. Do not lie.
How many of you have ever lied?
All of you, right?
Big lie, small lie, good lie, bad lie. Against God's law. Any lie at all is against the law of God.

#10. Do not covet.
This is tough!
"My friend got the newest car on the mark! Why don't I have it? I must get it at all costs!"
Sure this happens. This happens to everyone, hey have you been jealous before? I have, I think this goes in here too. Don't be jealous! Don't covet! Give it a try! Not really easy!

You have to do that, its not called the 10 suggestions its called the 10 commandments. Its not optional. Anything that you have done that falls in 1 of those categories are considered sin. And you deserve hell. I have broken most of the laws, I am filled with sin every day. The only commandments I have not broken is number 2, 3, 5. Thats less than half of it. So in other words, I'm screwed! I sin on a daily basis!

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death;...

So this verse says, any sin we do will cause us to die. If you have done any one of those sins, sadly it means no, you are not good enough to go to heaven. Sad isn't it? So the short answer to this question is no. If you have broken any one of those sins you deserve to go to hell. Sorry to be the one telling you that. Seriously, the Bible says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

HOWEVER!

It does not end there!
You will notice in the verse above (Rom 6:23) I made an ellipsis. Thats because its not the whole verse.
The whole verse says:

Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does this mean? God is offering us a gift. Its free. All you have to do is accept it. Eternal life. Thats what you get if you don't break any of the above laws! So open your eyes!

John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Read it again. It says should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It doesn't say might not perish and maby have everlasting life.
You will not perish and have everlasting life under 1 condition.
You have to believe in God, you have to believe that He sent Jesus to earth and sacrificed Jesus for us. Our punishment is death. It has been paid by someone else. Jesus, all you have to do is accept it, thats that. Man, what a deal.

Now, how do we accept this gift?
Its easy, close your eyes and say the below (Or similar, doesn't matter as long as the base is there.)

Dear God, I repent of all of my sins. This day I put my trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour because I know You sent Him to save me from your wrath. Please forgive me, and grant me your gift of everlasting life. Change my heart, and make me who You want me to be. I ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Or say this:

Lord, I repent from my sins. I know I am full of sins and I'm sorry, I want to do good and I know that you sent Jesus to die in my place. Forgive me and help me go the right way and grant me Your gift of everlasting life. I ask this in Your name. Amen.

There's no magic words, anything that says you are sorry you have sinned, and you ask that God forgives you. Thats it!

So with this article I conclude. Everyone deserves to go to hell, but God loves us anyway He forgives us. And He will grant you the gift of everlasting life.

Its actually interesting Jesus says forgive your enemies (1 enemy) 7 X 70 times each day! So God forgives us atleast 490 times per day! Dang, bet it must be hard doing 490 sins each day by accident! We are human, we sin, but atleast try to stay pure. So yea, thats what I believe and I hope I have answered your question.

Martin

Information

This is just a general entry, its not going to talk about anything in particular.

First, the site has reached 1000 viewers!
My biggest success would have been around 200...
And trust me, those views arn't mine! I'd say no more than 30 of the views are mine.
So yea I'm pretty happy about this, I thought the website was going to be ignored. Guess I was proved wrong.

Secondly, I am very happy, I checked the comments I have recently got and none of them were offending! I'm really happy about this, its mostly just statements and links to other websites. Pitty I don't have time to answer all the comments, but I'll get to it! Thanks for everyone who made a comment. And thank you for (mostly) finally starting to treat me with respect, thats via IM, email and comments.

Thirdly, there is a new blogger that recently joined me. (I won't give out any details, he might do it himself.) He hasn't made an entry yet, it also doesn't look like he even started a draft yet, but whatever, so you might get a few articles that are not entitled to Martin. If anyone else would like to write articles for this website, please email me at mrtnstolk@gmail.com. It does not necessarily have to be about creation or evolution, it can be anything as long as it supports God and the bible.


Fourthly(And lastly)
I completely forgot about the poll at the end of this page!
The poll had 31 votes, here are the results:

Do you think evolution is true?
Yes 17 (54%)
No 9 (29%)
I don't know 5 (16%)

Which is pretty impressive if you ask me, I did the same poll at my school, I had about 40 - 60 votes. I'd say more than 90% of them believed in evolution. So I am pretty happy about the poll results.
Thanks to everyone who voted.

Now a new poll is up! You have a long time to vote...I can't wait to see some results on this poll!

Thanks for reading this completely unnecessary entry!
Martin

Dinosaurs and the bible

This can be a problem for some people.
I know this was a problem for me about a year ago.
People ask how do dinosaurs fit into the bible?

Well there are a variety of choices.
There are problems with some logic, but I'm not going into any problems with any theories.
Some say this:
"I don't think dinosaurs ever existed. Sure we see the bones of them, but I think God purposely put the bones underground, so dinosaurs never really walked the earth. Why did he do it? I don't know, maby he wanted to test our faith."

Feel free to email me your theories about them at mrtnstolk@gmail.com.

My theory is dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans!
Genesis 1:21

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It says every living creature that moveth. Every creature, not big creatures, or small creatures, or fat creatures, not some creatures, all the creatures. Which includes dinosaurs!

Now some skeptics might ask, why are dinosaurs not mentioned?
Well, thats a simple question, its a reasonable question, but is simple.
The bible doesn't use the word dinosaur, you know why?
The word dinosaur was invented in 1841, the bible was written way before that!
It was translated in about 1400. Which means the bible couldn't use the word "dinosaur" because it wasn't invented yet. The bible uses the word "dragon". The word dragon(s) is mentioned 35 times in the bible.
I'll even list the verses for you:
Deuteronomy 32:33
Nehemiah 2:13
Job 30:29
Psalms 44:19; 74:13; 91:13; 148:7
Isaiah 13:22; 27:1; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; 51:9
Jeremiah 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:33; 51:34,37
Ezekiel 29:3
Micah 1:8
Malachi 1:3
Revelation 12:3,4,7,9,13,16,17; 13:2,4,11; 16:13; 20:2;
And they are mentioned even more in the books not included in the bible.

The only other dinosaurs I read in the bible was Behemoth and Leviathan, which we will now be discussing.
Behemoth is only mentioned once in the bible, Job 40:15. After that it describes the behemoth.
The descriptions look like this:
Job 40:15 - Eats grass like an ox.
Job 40:16 - Strength is in loins and navel of belly.
Job 40:17 - Moves tail like a ceder.
Job 40:18 - Bones are really really strong (like bars of iron according to the bible)
Job 40:21 - Lies under shady trees.
Job 40:23 - Drinks up a river.

Thats a quick summary of it. Now it has been suggested that this could be an elephant or a hippo.
Thats a little inaccurate if you ask me.
Job 40:15 - Eats grass like an ox
Elephant - Eats grass, but not like an ox, does it? When elephants eat grass they grip the grass with their trunks, loosen the grass with their foot and pulls the grass out.
Hippo - Nothing wrong here, fits the description.

Job 40:17 - Moves tail like a ceder
Ceder tree huh? The tails...

 Oh yea,  sure it is.

Job 40:21 - Lies under shady trees
Really? An elephant? Last time I heard they roll in the mud to keep cool, or they spray themselves with water.
Same with the hippo, they stay cool by being in mud or water, not shade, water.

You know...Before the translators make comments I should suggest that they read the passage atleast twice. Otherwise wrong assumptions are made.

Now, what could a behemoth be?
It has been suggested that it could be a brachiosaurus.
Its possible. I don't know, but its possible. It fits the description pretty well.

This guy came to me and said:

It fits more than one dinosaurs description, it fits the stegosaurus to!

His missing the whole point!
The point isn't which dinosaur it was, its a dinosaur!
Anyway.

The leviathan...
The word leviathan is mentioned 5 times in the bible.
The description goes as follows:
Job 41:1 - Can't catch with a hook!
Job 41:12 - Strong!
Job 41:13 - Round teeth.
Job 41:14 - Has scales.
Job 41:19 - 21 - Breathes fire!
Job 41:22 - Strong neck.
Job 41:26 - 28 - Weapons don't hurt him that much!
Job 41:33 - No fear!

Thats another nice description of a leviathan. It has been suggested that this could be either a whale or a basking shark. Both those fits the description pretty well... There are problems!

Job 41:19 - 21 - Breathes fire!

I highly doubt a whale or any type of shark could breath fire, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

This guy I debated said:

You know, I think breathing fire sounds allot like a fairy tale. I mean really, how is that even possible? And even if it is possible wouldn't they give a better description of it?

Well, I'm sorry, the bible isn't a reference guide. All it says is out of his mouth goes fire and smoke goes out of his nose. Thats about it. Can't help you there. I will however argue that it is possible to breath fire. It is chemically possible. For example the bombardier beetle. Man that thing hits the enemy with 212 degree's of chemicals. Don't you think its possible? Well, according to the bombardier beetle it is.

Job 41:22 - Strong neck
This always gets to me!
They say its a whale or a basking shark. All I say is:

I would like you to point out to me. Where, on a whale, is its neck. Because I can't seem to find it.

Same with the basking shark... Not even to mention strong.
So someone, please email me at mrtnstolk@gmail.com where I may find the neck on a whale or basking shark. (Leave comments if you want, but I probably won't read it.)

A few years ago there was a reporting of a strange creature that washed out on the beach. Well people were rushing to go see it and they cut pieces off it etc. Well, nobody ever thought of taking a picture of it. Scientists suggested it was a basking shark, some people said that can't be true, it had a long neck. The scientists persisted and eventually the other people just left it, but thats dumb. Its actually saying "I'm right and you are wrong, because you were there and I wern't."

There is much much more I can say about this topic, but I'm going to stop right here, for now anyway!

They're both religions!

Hello everyone!
I want to say this straight up, don't be intimidating on the comments, feel free to prove my post wrong, or give your opinions or even ask questions if you like. But stay away from calling names.

Oh, if anyone would like to debate me (I got some comments on this)
Please contact me at mrtnstolk@gmail.com.
Lets make this happen!

Now before we can start, everyone has to know what religion means.
Now the word religion has atleast 9 meanings. One of those 9 meanings, means something one believes in and follows devotedly.

Now there are many meanings to the word evolution to!
One of the meaning means a variation in kind. Which is indeed scientifically proven and supported by the bible. Look, you get all kind of dogs, you get big ones, small ones, little ones, fat ones, ugly ones, wrinkled up ones etc. But in the end, its still a dog, right? Its simply a variation of a dog. Keep that in your head for a while.

Did you know, rat poison is 99.98% good food?
Only 0.02% of it is poison, but its the poison that kills them.
Its a technique that works great, mix two things together that don't belong.
In this case, evolution and science. See, they mix the variation in kinds with all the other meanings, when they give proof for evolution they always give examples of variations in kinds.

I think its safe to assume that a religion is something you believe weather you have proof or not.

Now the next definition we need to look at is science.
Allot of people I debate say,

Science isn't about knowing everything, its about giving the best possible explanation for things.

No its not.
My dictionary defines science as knowledge gained through observation, testing and studying.
Then they say, the majority of opinion makes it true.
Thats not true either. They use to teach that the earth was flat, they use to teach if you are sick, take bad blood out and you get fixed, they use to teach big rocks fall faster than small rocks. This was believed by most people, but its not true.

Interesting. Keep all the above in your head.

Firstly don't post a comment on my poor knowledge on evolution, I have more than 20 books on evolution, read them all, I know evolution.

Big bang
Lets start with the big bang.
Has a big bang ever been observed, tested? No, it couldn't have, nobody was there!
The one textbook I have says a big bang happens every 70 - 100 billion years.
Now how on earth does he know that?
Is that what he knows, or is that what he thinks?
Was he there when the big bang happened?
No, he doesn't know that at all, he thinks it. He, and nobody else was there when the big bang happened. A big bang has never been observed or tested. Only in math, which by the way, according to the math, would create a black hole and not matter. So a big bang is not science, a big bang is a theory. The big bang is something you believe in. Well lets look at our definition of religion.
Gasp! Something you believe in! What could this mean?

This only means one thing. The big bang theory is part of a religion!
Lets continue shall we?

Elements
The big bang theory suggests that the big bang produced hydrogen and maby a little helium.
Well, if thats true, how did we get all the other elements?
This guy came to me and said:

A simple question of nuclear fusion which takes place in stars. This has been proven by examining the spectra of stars. I thought this was a bit of a silly question so I presume you don't understand the science behind it. If you like, I will explain and maybe find a link for something to read which may also help.

Well, no its not so simple. It can be done with fusion, yes, how did we get all the elements higher than iron? Should your answer be the heat from the stars, where did the energy for the stars come from? Where did energy in the first place come from? In any case, there is no way that stars can form, have the other elements fuse and then heat up the elements to become anything higher than iron. Study the dates on evolution and you will see what I'm talking about.

It has never been proven that any element higher than iron can be produced from helium and hydrogen. It just doesn't work! Which means its not a scientific fact, which means that's part of a religion! Which reminds me, why is it that a star has never been seen forming? It should have been seen atleast once by now.

Consider all then then you'll see, I'm right about my facts, feel free to research it for yourself.

Life from dead matter
Next is how life can come from dead matter.You know this is actually really funny! This one textbook I have says in chapter 13 I believe, the last sentence says:

Therefor we conclude that life cannot be created from dead matter.

Then the chapter right after that, on evolution, it says:

However, we believe life started from dead matter.

Its just hilarious to read.
This one guy came to me and said:

Of course life comes from dead matter, simply add energy.

I would like to tell you thats not true, throw a bunch of junk together and give it an electric shock. Please notify me weather you  got life or not. As a matter of fact, throw a frog in a blender, blend it, throw the pieces in a cup and add energy. Thats dead matter, you still think you gonna get life from the pieces of the frog?
No?
Well why not? All the pieces are there...
But if it is organized in the right way, then it has life...
Big bang is nothing more than an explosion, nothing is organized in an explosion...

It has never been proven that life can come from dead matter. Never been observed (How could it, according to evolutionists, we wern't even there yet). So what can this mean? (All you creationists say it with me now)
Life coming from dead matter is religious!


Animals producing different kind of animals
The next part after life got started, eventually different kind of animals started to appear.
Just think about it logically for a second.

What is so scientific of believing dogs and peaches are related?

Whats so scientific to believe that humans came from hydrogen and helium?

Thats not science. Thats a theory, I respect your theory, I think its dumb, but I respect it.
Now, has it ever been observed that any animal can produce an animal of a different kind?
No!
I'd like to see what kind of animal a dog and a peach can bring forth. Since they are related...
Any farmer, that works with animals, cross-breeds them can tell you, you can cross-breed them up till a point and no further. They look different, but hey they are still the same kind of animal, arn't they? So thats a variation in kind. See a variation in kind has been proved hundreds of times, changing from 1 kind to another, has not.

They teach in the textbooks fresh water fish and salt water fish probably had a common ancestor. I agree, I believe it was called...a fish. Its a different kind of fish, but hey its still a fish, isn't it?

Now the problem with the evolution theory is when discussing it, they always start where life has already been started. Pretty unfair if you ask me, but whatever. I just want to say, that's not how it works, when you are explaining your viewpoint you have to give scientific evidence for it, unless, you admit its a religion. You can't just make a statement and say its up to me to prove it wrong, oh no, its up to you to prove it, otherwise its your religion. I could make any dumb statement, watermelons are purple on the inside until the skin is damaged. Prove I'm wrong! Doesn't work like that. You can't just skip the above as most of them do. If you believe the things above that means its part of your religion, you believe it, you think it is a fact, but its not really.

So with all the information above I conclude that evolution is considered as a fact and science (Obviously the man that started that didn't know the meaning of science or religion), but its not! Anyone can try to prove me wrong. I admit my belief is a religion so why won't you admit it either? So I think evolution should be taught as a religion, not science. Because that is what evolution is. Now since evolution is a religion answer my next question, why do creationists have to pay the state to have your religion taught in our school system?

Small things that evolutionists never seem to answer. Well, thanks for reading everyone!

-Martin

DNA similarities, proof we come from chimps?

Well my friend came to me the other day and said.

Friend: "Martin, I really do think we come from monkeys."
Martin: "What makes you say that? You know I don't believe that for one second!"
Friend: "Think about it! They look a little like us, sometimes when you're debating you act like one. Scientists suggest that we even have about 97% DNA similarities!"

That second last sentence was just a smack in the face!
Anyway, this is a very fun topic to talk about.
Yes, its true, scientists claim we have a 97% similarity in DNA.
In some occasions it even went up to 99%!

So does this prove evolution?
Does this mean we cam from a common ancestor?
You believe that, but I think we all came from a designer.

I get allot of people saying, "look these are similar! Thats proof everything came from a common ancestor!" Its possible, I suppose, but I believe we rather come from a common designer! So that doesn't really mean anything to me!

Like I stated some times, I am not here to give opinions, I am here to give facts, so don't take my word for it!

I would like to point out a small problem with the 96 - 99% similarity.
A human's DNA has been fully sequence, a chimp not. Part of it, but not all. I believe there is a company working on this... I would love to see the results after they are done!

Just because we have similarities doesn't mean we come from the same thing. Consider the following:

There are many scientists today that agree that the evolution theory is a fact of life and should be in the science textbooks.

There are not many scientists today that agree that the evolution theory is a fact of life and should be in the science textbooks.

Those 2 sentences have a 96% similarity. Does that mean they are the same?
No, they almost mean opposite meanings! They have similarities, but in the end you have a different meaning.

The one guy came to me and said, that doesn't count, English is allot different from science.
That doesn't make a difference. Its the same concept, but just because I feel nice today I will give some more examples.

Think about this:
Clouds are 100% water. Everyone should agree with that.
Watermelons are 97% water. Only a 3 % difference.
Jelly fish are 98% water. (last time I checked, could have changed by now)
Snow cones are 98% water.

Those all have allot of water in them, and yet none of them are even nearly the same (Except the snow cones with water, its just solid water with syrup).
So I have come to the conclusion that clouds produced snow cones. The snow cone got into one of those chemical "soups" and suddenly a jelly fish popped up. Later they decided they don't want to move that often, so they grew shells, turned red and now everytime we eat watermelon we are eating an evolved jelly fish.

You see how ridiculous that sounds?
Just because we have a partial similar DNA sequence as chimps doesn't mean we come from them. All it shows is that we have similar characteristics. That still doesn't mean great great great great great great grandpa was a chimp.

I think all that means is we all come from a common designer, thats my theory.
Its a reasonable theory, you know what. That isn't even put in as a footnote in 1 of the science textbooks.

The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. Thats huge, thats more words than most of my friends will ever read. See, our DNA is so complex that just a little bit can cause a tremendous change in everything.

This one guy said, the difference in DNA sequences are stuff like tails, hair, weird feet etc. We lost it because we don't need it. That 1% wouldn't even be filled with just that. And lose things we don't need? Think about how useful it would be to have a tail! You can drive, talk on the phone and eat a sandwich at once! I don't think we don't have a tail because we never used it, I think we don't have a tail because the designer never put one on us. Thats possible. Its never been proven, but neither has any of the evolution stuff! So whats the problem?

This was a short post as it was a quick question I thought I'd answer.
See ya!

Martin

Creationists shame!

Hi everyone!

This post will be something completely different!
This time I will actually go against some of the creationist words!
This time I will be fair, I will pretend I don't believe any one of the theories and answer things accordingly.

Before I start!
I got allot of messages about my story in the previous post...
Don't believe it if you don't want to!
Instead of attacking me about it, attack the topic, not the story!

Next, there seems to be some confusion between a creationist and an evolutionist. An evolutionist doesn't necessarily mean there is no God. All it means is you believe the evolution theory. A creationist is someone who rejects the theory of evolution and believes that there was a creator. So I am not saying if you believe in evolution you don't believe in God. This guy told me he is a creationist, God controlled evolution! No thats wrong, number 1, he is an evolutionist, and number 2 he believes the theory of evolution. So creationist means, you do NOT believe evolution.

The banana!
Oh my goodness this is a fault in logic. They say, the banana proves there is a God.
 I don't think this is so true. They say look at how it is formed, its perfect for the human hand. Good to eat, shape of the mouth etc. NO! Thats not true. Birds eat banana's, monkeys eat banana's, rabbits eat banana's, rats, bats, horses, bears, toucans etc. There are allot of animals that eat banana's, this thing proves absolutely nothing. A banana is not created for a human, there are allot of things that eat animals that looks absolutely nothing like humans and they eat it. The banana proves nothing!

Evolutionists say:

The banana that we know has been genetically modified over thousands of years into it's current form. In fact the designer of the banana is Man himself, hardly proof of a divine creator.

No, thats also not true, the man isn't the designer of the banana, its the planter. There is a difference. First they tell you it has been genetically modified. I agree. They say how it changes over a long time. I agree, what they don't tell you is that evolution has atleast 6 meanings. One of them is scientifically proven. Its called micro-evolution, which means a variation in kind. Hard banana in nature, soft banana here, its still a banana. Thats not evolution! I will expand on this in another post entry.

Dinosaurs
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen!
Everybody, enjoy a laugh with me!

Evolutionist: How do you explain dinosaurs? They extincted millions of years ago you now.
Creationist: Easily explained, dinosaurs never existed!
Evolutionist: How does that work? We found the bones you know!
Creationist: See this is how they trick the people! See God simply put the bones in the dirt, so they never really walked the earth! Why did He do that? I don't know, maby He just wanted to test our faith! Thats possible.

This is really funny, I am working on a blog entry for my explanation on dinosaurs. Just so you know, NO thats not true! Dinosaurs have always lived with humans! There is no problem, I will explain this later, but just know, saying that to an evolutionist WILL make them laugh at you and I will laugh with them!

Contradiction:
Evolutionist:  What do you say of contradiction of the bible? Got anything to say about that?
Creationist: There are no contradictions in the bible!
Evolutionist: *Shows a list of hundred of "contradictions"*
Creationist: People wrote that, people make mistakes.

If I didn't know that there were NO contradictions in the bible I would have became an evolutionist. There are no contradictions in the bible. Now all you creationists stop telling them there are contradictions! Yes it is true that some versions of the bible is translated wrong, I will admit that. This is also a huge topic, a topic for another day! Some bibles just mess up I can tell you that, but nothing to worry about!

Pangea:
Evolutionist: What do you think of pangea? Any thoughts on that? How is that possible?
Creationist: God did it!
Martin (Me): Refering to the creationist. Youre an idiot.

That guy thought I was against God, when I'm not, I'm against silly theories like the creationist when much much better theories exists. Creationists, if you want to answer this question, don't say "God did it!" because directly saying that without even trying to go a little more in depth makes you look like an idiot. I find it really annoying when I follow debates and the creationist just says "God did it!". Thats not how you should answer a debate! As for the evolutionist. They tell you the continents were once connected. What they don't tell you is that to do that they had to shrink Africa by nearly 40%. They also don't tell you that they completely had to remove Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize and Nicaragua. No doubt the continents are moving, about as fast as your finger nail grows, but underneath the water is dirt, take all the dirt between the continents put it a little together and you will notice the continents should be much larger than the pangea theory suggests. Lastly, any arguments you say like erosion, etc. that is possible, I believe it. Now remake pangea with all those things kept in mind and you will see it looks nothing like pangea in the textbooks!

Creating sun and stars etc.
Evolutionist: How was it that the bible talks about "days", but the sun was created on the first day? Also how did God make everything in 6 days?
Creationist: Well they are not literal days (Duh!) they are simply stages in which He made them!

To all evolutionists, if a creationist says that to you just say:
"Well if its stages why not suggest that those stages could occur over millions of year?"
Because I know where the creationists are going with this, they are trying to mix in evolution with creation and that doesn't work! I can tell you the creationist is both dumb and stubborn! Or, he doesn't really know, in that case, read below! (Hey that rhymes! I'm 'n poet and I didn't even knowet! I can make it rhime anytime!) On with the post!

The word days have 5 meanings.
#1. Part of a day period between sunrise and sunset.
Can't be that, the sun didn't exist yet.

#2. The part of a day period which one spends at one’s job, school, etc.
No, there wasn't time then (Remember, God is not stuck in time like we are)

#3. Rotational period of a planet.
Possible, but now some people would say, maby it refers to Venus days! Then it will take 243 days, for the first day to be completed. Possible, but highly unlikely.

#4. The period from midnight to the following midnight.
Now we are getting closer to the truth!

#5. A period of 24 hours.
Ah, there we go, 24 hours a day. Now you see, a sun is not needed for a day to complete!

Now, thats one theory you can follow. Or you can say, back then, the word "day" was a definition called a cycle of light and dark. The bible said God created the light and the darkness first, so there is not really a problem.

Alternatively you can say God represented the sun, He was light.

I really don't know which one of those are true, I don't know if there are any other theories and I really don't care. I just wanted to point out to creationists like the above. Almost all the bibles are translated as THE days. Look at this:

New international version
Genesis 1:5 "...the first day." 
Genesis 1:8 "...the second day. "
Genesis 1:13 "...the third day."
etc.

The message
Genesis 1:5 "...Day one." 
Genesis 1:8 "...Day two."
Genesis 1:13 "Day three."
etc.

New living translation
Genesis 1:5 "...the first day." 
Genesis 1:8 "...the second day. "
Genesis 1:13 "...the third day."
etc.

King James Version
Genesis 1:5 "...the first day." 
Genesis 1:8 "...the second day. "
Genesis 1:13 "...the third day."
etc.
I will also admit there are bible versions such as Amplified and New American Standard bible which says a first day, a second day, a third day.
Note how these are new bibles, they change the way they translated the bible, but the Hebrew word is translated to the first day and not a first day. How many a first days do you know of? Allot! It can be every day if you please, every week if you want. How many the first days do you know of? I only know of one.

Things like this go on and on and on. Now I understand ALLOT of creationists might hate me for saying all of this, but think about it logically. It doesn't work how most of you want it to work. In all the cases above, if a creationists answers my questions like that I would have definatly became an evolutionist. There are to many loop holes. I am not suggesting that creationists are dumb, I am suggesting that you look at more than one option and try to find a little references to them. I would encourage evolutionists to ask questions like this as they are trick questions, but what I also encourage is that you admit that it might work if it is answered intelligently or scientifically.

See I'm not against science, I really don't care who believes in evolution, it doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that evolution is considered a fact while it is not a fact. We cannot say evolution is a fact, we can't observe it, we can't test or demonstrate it. If we can't do that then its not a fact. I would be really happy if the textbooks change all the words under evolution from fact to theory. This book I have on evolution, the first sentence says:

Evolution is a fact.

The reader just has to assume thats true.
If that was changed to "Evolution is a theory" I wouldn't have a problem. I also won't have a problem if even 1 sentence of creation is in the books. Maby as a footnote.
"There is a possibility of an intelligent designer."
Thats all it has to contain and I will be happy with it!

I'm not against science, but I'm telling you, there are some lies in there. And I think that should be changed.

All you evolutionists that hate me.
Don't hate me, I never said creation was a fact, I am suggesting that it is possible and that there is no proof for evolution. I am friends with allot of evolutionists, it doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that I get impolite messages saying how stupid I am! People thinking that has a serious problem! I'm also not suggesting that any of you are dumb! I get that allot to! I think your theory is dumb, but I don't think you are dumb! Just like you might think my theory is dumb doesn't make me dumb! Like Kent Hovind said:

I don't hate him, he's not the enemy, he just works for him!

Well, I better stop typing before I #1. Burn the computer out, and #2. Create an incredibly long entry! (Edit, too late!)

Thanks for reading!
Martin!

Why don't we understand God?

Hya!
I'm back!

Before I start I want to say I have gotten an email of a Jake, at rocketmail or something giving me some "proof" of evolution, apparently it was a comment on the blog...
I don't read the comments much as I am pretty busy...
It will probably change in a while.
I just want to say that is no proof of evolution and I will explain it at a later stage. (I have several topics planned.)

Now, today's entry will be something I learnt from Dr. Kent Hovind (Which is currently in jail). You can visit his website here or here.

Well, this one guy came up to me (He was a creationist, but he did believe in the gap theory) and said, Martin, what is God like? Thats not an easy question. Well, Kent Hovind said...

Lets say you (The reader) is God, you created your own world. A 2D world. There are 2 people on it, Mr and Mrs Flat. They see 1D and observe 2D (Like us, we see 2D and observe 3D). Now lets say you put your finger on 1 side of the earth, where Mr. Flat is, he would say "God is as circle". Then you put 3 fingers on the other side of the world. Where Mrs. Flat is, she would say, "No, God is 3 circles...". So this argument will go on and on until finally they die. Lets say they go to heaven. They finally get the chance to see God. Now they will see God is not 1 or 3 circles, but nothing even close to circles, something much much more complex. So just like that we can't really understand God, we put our limitations on God. For example, we are stuck in time, God is not. We can't even imagine how something could be with time! Lets talk for 5 minutes and lets see if we can't refer to time!

Yesterday I did that... (Time)
I am 16 years old (Time)
Tomorrow I will (Time)
Today... (Time)
I will be... (Time)

So, we are really stuck in time! God is not, we put our limitations on God, God is something our brains can't even comprehend! Like example, think of a color that does not exist... (You can't) Not shades of the current colors, brand new colors. The 1 guy came to me and said:

Challenger: "Thinking of a new color? Thats nothing! Clearly you are very limited!"
Martin: "Ok, lets say I am limited, now describe your color for me would you?"
Challenger: "Well, it is a little reddish, with a little blueish..."
Martin: "Ok, number 1, thats purple. Number 2 thats not new colors, thats a shade of red, and a shade of blue mixed together. Describe a brand new color!"
Challenger: "..."
Martin: "Ok, think of a new sense that does not exist. I can't!"
Challenger: "Haha, piece of cake! An antenna on one's head then you can sense when something is near."
Martin: "Sorry, that is either a variation of sight, smell, touch or hearing, which ever one you choose."
Challenger: "Well, what about an antenna that can scan everything in an object."
Martin: "A variation of sight."
Challenger: "What about RV? Thats often called the sixth sight or the third eye."
Martin: "Variation of sight."

He deleted me from IM after that conversation.
This one anti-Christ came to me and said:

Challenger: "I believe there is a God, but I believe the devil is even more powerful!"
Martin: "Let me tell you how I see it, let me try to compare it. Satan = Saving light. God = Thunder. Who has the most power?"
Challenger: "God never helps anybody!"
Martin: "Thats not true! God completely overwhelms the devils power!"
Challenger: "Prove it!"

I took him to one of the classes in my school, there were more anti-Christ's plaing anti-Christ games.
The game they were playing is a game, you get a small stick (about match size) and say a bunch of mumbo jumbo, then the stick starts to spin, you simply swear the stick and the stick breaks in half. The challenger said see, that demonstrates the power of satan! I said and his power is very weak! The other anti-Christs said what about a game of glasses. (Basically they put a glass on the table, says some more mumbo jumbo and the glass moves, then something happens to it, I just can't remember what.) They started playing the game, the glass moved. The guy said see allot of power. While the glass was moving they were teasing me and the glass was moving faster and faster and he said my God can't come even close to that. All I did was I got on my knees and I started to pray, at first nothing happened, but as soon as I said "Jesus Christ" the glass stopped moving. I got up and they simply couldn't move the glass. They started it all over, the glass didn't even bunge. Until the one girl got mad and threw it out of the window. I said, "a fraction of my God's power." I walked out.

Point I am trying to make, we don't understand God, but He is almighty, I think that God is the most powerful thing that can ever exist. I don't understand Him, and I probably never will, but I believe in Him, and my life has been great thanks to that!

Thanks to everyone who read this entry.

Facts and the bible...

Okay, I am getting really irritated with this and I think its time I make a blog entry about this!
In some of my debates I come and people say:

Challenger: Evolution is a fact! Not only is it packed with science it also includes other scientific facts!
Martin: Like micro evolution?
Challenger: Yes!
Martin: Well, micro evolution is supported by the bible, can you think of any other fact?
Challenger: Fish can breath under water!

Okay, now I think readers will agree that this challenger was both ignorant and stupid! What I want to know, does evolution really include any fact that is not supported by the bible?
No!
Believe it or not, the bible is full of facts!
This one guy comes to me:

Challenger: You are ignorant to believe the bible is true! Show me 1 fact from the bible! Thats right it has none! The bible includes no facts! You creationists are all so dumb! You still believe the world is flat!

Now this is just stupid,  has he ever read the bible? No he has not, is he sure the bible includes no facts? No he is not! The one about the world is flat really makes me chuckle every time I see it! In this post I will give some scientifically proven facts straight from the bible! Please note that the bible was written about 6000 years and books were added.

Lets start with this:
The earth is round:
This is funny, because evolutionists always think Christians believe the earth is flat.
Isaiah 40:22 KJV

It is He who sits above the circle (Sphere in Hebrew) of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Wow, interesting, here is said that God is sitting above the circle shaped earth that
Christians have knew this for thousands of years. Still it was taught in schools that the earth is flat, until it was proven wrong in the 15th century. Thats interesting isn't it?


Earth is in space
You know, Creationists has also known that there was always a space:
Job 26:7 KJV

He stretches out the north over empty space;
      He hangs the earth on nothing.

Interesting. Why did nobody (Except creationists) know about space until 1667 when the term was created for "beyond the earths sky"? Yip the bible triumphs again.
The one evolutionist I debated said:

Challenger: You are making no sense, you think that I am dumb because I believe something came from nothing! You believe the earth is hanging on nothing!

Well, go out in space, what would you see other than stars, asteroids and planets? Nothing!
I think, maby what was meant by nothing was emptiness. Which comes down to the same description at the end of the day! Christians have known this for thousands of years, evolutionists figured this out at a late date of 1650.

Importance of blood in the life process
Leviticus 17:11 KJV 

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

An evolutionist said, thats dumb, even cavemen knew if you bleed long enough you die.
There are 2 problems with this.
#1. You are assuming cavemen existed. They didn't.
#2. If thats true, why did people think that if you remove enough blood from your body you will get healed?

Cavemen thing will not work! They discovered the above fact in the 19th century!

Vision of birds of prey
This one is just fascinating! We didn't know much about birds a while back right?
Especially not birds of prey!
What we do know now is that a bird of prey has about 4 times better vision than humans.
Did evolutionists know that birds of prey have better vision 3000 years ago?
I don't think so! They always taught they hunt by smelling. Creationists on the other hand...

Job 28:7

That path no bird knows,
      Nor has the falcon’s eye seen it.

Job 39:27-29

 ²⁷ Does the eagle mount up at your command,
      And make its nest on high?
 ²⁸ On the rock it dwells and resides,
      On the crag of the rock and the stronghold.
 ²⁹ From there it spies out the prey;
      Its eyes observe from afar.

Very interesting!
Thats 4 for creation ZIP for evolution!
Seriously man, evolutionists have been behind for years!

Light is a particle and has mass
Job 38:19 says:

Where [is] the way [where] light dwelleth? and [as for] darkness, where [is] the place thereof,

So know I have a question, why have Creationists know this for thousands of years, but this was figured out in 1932? It has to mean something! Evolutionists are so ignorant, they will never admit their theory is wrong! The problem is the theory is never changed, only the "proof". The bible never had that problem as proof never had to change!

Lightning and thunder are related
You know, a few hundred years ago, people thought the "gods" were angry when thunder came, they thought when lightning comes that the "gods" are showing off their power!

Thats ridiculous! And they believed that until the 19th century! Creatinists on the other hand:


Job 38:25

Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

 Now its up to the readers to decide the next question.
Either someone has always been way ahead of technology as they knew the creator of our world and communicated with Him. Or creationists can guess stuff extremely good!

Humans posses the seed of life
To us allot of these things may seem like common sense, like we posses the seed of life. Did you know that was only discovered in the 17th century?

Thats pretty odd. Last time I checked Creationists knew this for about 6000 years!
As a matter of fact, the first book in the bible states this!

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Ah yes, ironic isn't it? Evolutionists claim to surpass creationists intelligence because they believe in evolution! Looking at these examples I think its pretty clear who has always had the most intelligence!

Oceans has natural paths in them
Yes once again science has shocked the community in 1854 by saying there are natural paths in the oceans! Well they shocked creationists to! We thought they should have known this for a few thousand years already!

Psalm 8:8

The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas.

Snow has material value
Yes its true, up and till 1905 everyone (except creationist) believed snow was useless. Except for playing games in! Creationists have always knew snow has value!

Job 38:22

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Water cycle
People never knew where rain came from. Until finally in the 17th century when they discovered the water cycle! You know thats actually wrongly stated...

Finally in the 17th century when they discovered Creationists were right about the water!
Ecclesiates 1:7

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Right here I just gave 10 examples of where science is stated in the bible, there are many more though!
Now some people might say, they teach evolution in almost all the schools so it must be true!

No thats wrong, they taught the earth was flat, they taught that if you take out your blood you get healed, they taught birds of prey smell their foe, they taught thunder was angry gods... So I think its pretty logical to say, not everything taught in school is always 100% accurate!

So now, Creationists reading this, next time evolutionists say the bible is not scientific, direct them to this page! That ought to keep them shut for a while!

If you would like to become a member of this blog, or just want to tell me something, email me at mrtnstolk@gmail.com thats all for now!

-Martin

Debate shame, Part #1!

Hi all!
This has been a really strange week! Not one of my debates lasted longer than 10 minutes!

I get a flaming message saying that evolution has allot of proof behind it, its much more logical etc.
I give them one reply saying their theory is wrong and I never hear from them again! So my debates are not going good. Everyone is so eager to "prove" evolution, that nobody ever does it!

I just counted, I got 8 debate requests, none of them ever reply to me!

Just for the learning purposes, I will show a snip out of one of my debates:

Challenger: You are a retard, there is loads of proof behind evolution!
Martin: Really? Can you show me one?
Challenger: There are mountains and mountains of proof supporting evolution!
Martin: Ok, I hear so, now show me some.
Challenger: You are blind, can't you see the proof?
Martin: No I cannot, if you can show me 1 bit of proof of evolution, I will declare you the winner of the debate.
Challenger: ...
Martin: Anytime now.
Challenger: ...
Martin: I thought so, you don't have any proof do you?
Challenger: ...

So that challenge didn't end that well. Face it, there is simply no proof for evolution!
This one guy comes to me. I would like a debate. Science VS religion! I asked what he means. He then said Evolution VS Creation. What? Thats not science VS religion! Thats religion VS religion! He said, evolution is a fact... Here we go again (At start of the topic.) I told him to please explain the evolution theory for me. He said:

Well billions of years ago all the dirt in the universe got together in a dot smaller than a period.

...

Then I said, ok, how would all the dirt in the universe be compressed in that teeny tiny dot?
He said, they don't know. Then I asked, ok, where did all the dirt in the universe come from when the big bang occurred? He said, they don't know. Then I said:

So if you ask me where did God come from, and I say I don't know. You are going to say its a religion, but now I asked you, where did all the dirt come from, and you said, you don't know. So according to your logic, evolution is a religion.

He replied saying evolution is a scientifically proven fact. I asked, really? Has evolution ever been tested? Observed? Experimented with? Given small examples with predicted outputs? No? Well in that case, it is not scientifically proven.

Albert Einstein said:

I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality [...] Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.

What? The man who created the theory of relativity, solved the mystery of the atoms etc. says your choice for believing in reality is religion! Well thats what I have been saying this whole time!

See, not only does evolution not have ANY proof to back it up, believers are also stubborn. Evolution is not a fact, its an unproven theory! Atheism is a religion, you believe there is no God! You believe in evolution, which is a theory, which must means atheism is a religion to!

No matter which way you go, evolution is not science, evolution is religious, so why won't people admit this?
Thats all for this post, we will continue this discussion later in Debate shame, Part #2!

Carbon Dating, Part 2!

Hello! Its been a few hours since I wrote the Carbon Dating, Part 1! And that explained why carbon dating does not work. This entry are some examples when carbon dating has failed. The information is gathered from various people and websites.
First, any live animal or any plant is supposed to be dated to 0. As you will see in a moment, it doesn't.

Someone once said: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in as a footnote. And if its completely 'out of date', we drop it."

Someone else said that the accepted dates are selected dates.

In 1949, a mammoth was carbon dated. The mammoths lower leg dated back to 15 380 years, the skin and the flesh however, dated back to 21 300 years.

In 1963, a live mollusk dated shells were dated back to 2300 years old.

In 1971, a freshly killed seal was dated back to 1300 years ago.

In 1975, a mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 29 500 years ago and the other part 44 000 years ago.

In 1975, a frozen baby mammoth was carbon dated, one part dated back to 40 000 years and another part 26 000.

In 1984, shells from a living snail was dated back to 27 000 years ago.

In 1992, 2 mammoths, found next to each other, were dated with the ages of 22 850 and 16 150.

20 year old hard lave was dated back to thousand of years (I cannot remember the precise date).

A pig skull that died in 1470, was dated back to 1,2 million years.

The list goes on and on and on. It is not logical to believe that carbon dating works. It never has worked, nothing that was ever carbon dated was every proved. So they might date something to 1,2 million years ago, but they don't know for sure so they accept that date. So they have no second opinion. So with all of this I believe that carbon dating does not work and it also does not prove that the earth is millions of years old.

Feel free to leave comments, email me with questions, suggestions for a next topic etc.

-Martin

Carbon dating, Part 1!

Hello, I'm back!
I am here to make my first "official" post. The one 30 minutes ago doesn't count as it contained next to nothing information! Please note, when working with figures I try to round them, its just easier to read.

Well, if you read my previous post you would know that here I am going to talk about why carbon dating does not work. I will explain step by step. Here goes.

Allot of people would say carbon dating proves that the earth is millions of years old. They dated the fossils! Firstly I want to say that is not true. They determine what the age of the fossils are based on their position in the Geologic column, which doesn't exist anywhere, but in text books. (Later I might write about this.) They get a fossil in a layer and say, this is in this layer so it must be approximately this old. That is number one, not scientific proof, its a guess. And number two, stupid. As we will see when I am discussing the Geologic column.

Before I can explain why carbon dating doesn't work, everyone needs to know the science about it. I will summarize it here, it beats reading wikipedia! Even if you know how carbon dating works, read this, you might learn something new.

Firstly, you have to know, the earth's atmosphere is about 160 KM thick (about 100 miles)
The air is mostly nitrogen. About 78% A little bit of oxygen, about 21%, a little less than 1% argon and about 0.038% carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is what plants use. If you would increase the amount of carbon dioxide, the plants would grow faster. There is an incredibly small amount of radioactive carbon 14. Now how is that possible? Well, the radiotion from the sun collides against the atmosphere and this produces radioactive carbon 14 (I will now refer to radioactive carbon 14 as C14), this then combines this the oxygen and creates carbon dioxide (I will now refer to carbon dioxide as CO2). So C14 is very very rare and it does not stay stable. It is always breaking apart. After it breaks apart it turns back into nitrogen. It disappears with the gas and then disappears with the air.

So C14 is being produced by the atmosphere by the sun and about half of it breaks down about every 5500 years. So in theory C14 will never be 0, it will be 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc.

Plants always breath in C14, during photosynthesis (A part of the CO2 is C14). Animals eat plants, and it is then part of their body. So continuously we are absorbing C14. We eat plants or eat animals that have eaten plants. Now, if we die, we are obviously not going to absorb any more C14.

Now here comes the big problem. Assumption, they are assuming something is true, but have no actual proof for it.
They assume, the amount of C14 found in the air is the same amount that are found in the animals. For example, the atmosphere has about 0.038% C14. It is assumed that all of us have the same. I don't know about anyone who has ever been tested for C14. It might be true, I don't know, but it is an assumption, that is where all the dangers come from.

When a plant or animal dies, the C14 begins to decay. And NOT being added again, unlike when the animals are alive. So carbon dating is basically measuring the amount of C14 in an object with the amount of carbon in the athmosphere. If the object has only half the amount in the athmosphere, they would assume its been dead for 1 half life. If it only has 1/4 as much its been dead for 2 half lifes. 2 times 5500. It continues like that. So they are comparing the amount in the object with the amount in the atmosphere. That is how carbon dating works. Lets look at a practical example.

I tell you fill a barrel full of water. And I make holes in the barrel. While you throw water in it will start to flow out. So its getting more and less at the same time. At some point you are going to reach the stage called the equilibrium. In other words, you will never fill the barrel past that point. Unless you increase the input or decrease the output.

So the atmosphere is constantly taking in C14 from the sun, and its constantly losing it. Now the question is, how long would it take the atmosphere to reach the equilibrium stage? After some test and stuff a while ago, they claimed it would take about 30 000 years. The whole problem is, we have not reached equilibrium yet. There is more C14 now than there was 50 years ago. Scientists say C14 is forming 29% faster than it decays. So, with some logic, it means the earth is less than 30 000 years old. And this is what (most) creationists have been saying all these years.

Lets look at another example.
If you walk into a room and you see a candle burning and I ask a very simple question, how long has the candle been burning? You would say you don't know, you just got here. I would say, ok, lets do some science, lets prove it by using tests. So the both of us are now working as a team to figure out how long has the candle been burning.

We decide we start by measuring its height. Lets say its about 18 CM tall (about 7 inches). So now, when was it lit? We don't know, we don't have enough information. So, lets measure how fast it burns. Lets say after careful measure we find out it burns 2.5 CM a hour (about 1 inch). Now when was it lit? You can't tell me unless you make an assumption!
#1. How tall was it?
#2. Has it always burnt at the same rate?
Doesn't matter what you choose it can't be proven.

So if you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is that it died. The amount of C14 can be measured very precisely and a rate of decay can be determined. Now when did it live? No one has any idea, unless assumptions are made (the candle story above). To work out how old it was you would have to know how many C14 was in it when it was alive and if the earth atmosphere has reached equilibrium. Which it hasn't.

Now the bible says there was a water/ice canopy above the earth's atmosphere (a topic for another day). Now that canopy would keep out quite a bit of C14. So if you find an animal that died in the time of the big flood (when the canopy was also destroyed). So when carbon dating an animal that died in the flood, they would assume that when this animal lived the atmosphere was the same as it is today, which it wasn't according to the bible.

So thats why I believe carbon dating doesn't work. I wrote this entry very very fast so it might contain errors, please email me about those errors at mrtnstolk@gmail.com or pm me. Or even email me if you have any questions. I would be happy to answer them.

Feel free to leave your comments, but I ask everyone to try and be polite.

Thank you for reading this entry.
-Martin

Introduction

Hello, my name is Martin, allot people know me as zappy77.
I am 16 years old and I live in South Africa.

I started this blog to basically try to get people to stop believing in evolution and start believing there is a God. In other words, I am a creationist and I would like to get some more of them!

Basically what is going to come in this blog are a bunch of discussions, debate, evidence etc. on the complex topic, evolution vs creation. I respect people that believe in evolution and I expect everyone who reads this to respect my religion and not to flame. I will try to update the blog atleast once a week.

The first topic I am going to talk about is carbon dating, it will be divided into 2 parts, number 1, why carbon dating does not work and number 2, some examples of carbon dating gone wrong.

Thats all for now, see you next time!

-Martin