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!