Creation is a Scientific Fact

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Your maturity and sense of humor both impressed me and made me feel like a jackass. I kind of gave up on this forum and use it more as a place to have a shouting contest (otherwise it would be too frustrating), so it's kind of nice.

As for your voiceover, it wasn't normalized properly. It spikes in some areas. I'm not sure why, you'll have to play around with your software or normalize it bit by bit. Which leads me to...

For a first run, it actually wasn't bad. I suggest speaking fragments instead of doing it as one run-through, and then compiling them individually. Seems more intuitive and you can manage it better.

And it's sort of hard, but you have to make sure you don't sound whiny. Not sure how much of it you can control.


What does remain, however, is your silly generalization of atheistic philosophy. It really shows that you don't properly understand them. There's a lot that aren't explicitly atheistic, but are not theistic either. Existentialism is my favorite out of those.

And none of the facts in that video can really be construed to suggest a creator. They work to do so for a finite universe, but that's about it.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
All your Darwhining Atheist sensitivities fall on deaf ears. I think Atheists lost the right to claim bigotry after astyanax created the "Creationists are destroying ATS" thread without it being removed.

...But amigo, I'm not an atheist...

Originally posted by Conspiriology
BTW the video, was so much better than the one you didn't make

...And I'd rather not make a video than make one that misrepresents facts and draws false conclusions. My scientific writings are pretty good because I don't go for much; it's only little papers, lab work, or attempts to explain scientific concepts.

I might go for videos and books once I get some more science under my belt. And maybe get motivated.

Originally posted by Johnmike
...No, there are all sorts of atheistic philosophy, such as existentialism, nihilism (those two are the big ones that go against sorts of materialism), Kantianism, objectivism, humanism... Give me a break.

You cannot generalize existentialists because all of them are different. But i'm pretty sure that the ones that are atheists, look around, and based on what they observe in their physical world, conclude that believing in G*d is silly.

There is no such thing as a true nihilist atheist. The very moment a nihilist says that he does not believe in something; he relinquishes his nihilistic beliefs because he inadvertently admits that his disbeliefs have purpose. Nihilists don't care whether or not there is a G*d. It's quite different than not believing in G*d.

I actually had no idea what this was and had to look it up . . . thanks for teaching me something new. Kantianism seems like "high" materialism to me. Materialism with a conscience so to speak. I'm not sure though . . .

I always thought that the reason why people could be objectivists was because they believe in the "pure" spirit. Something separate from the body that can interpret the world in it's objective state. If you're an objectivist you're spiritual to some degree. I guess you wouldn't have to believe in a creator though.

I'm fairly certain that all humanists are materialists.


My brain feels like exploding after trying to get in to the psyche of all those belief systems. .

Sorry if it came off as complaining. I'm very hesitant to respond to things when there are grammatical errors. I tend not to address them because if i do, half the time i have to make assumptions as to what the person was trying to say.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
I'm going to guess that you're a big fan of "The Fountain"? If you aren't, i'm surprised. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you do. It's one of my favorites.

I am actually, so nice insight. I'm an atheist with aesthetic sensibilties. I also love Mayan anything and everything since I spent time in the Yucatan a few years back.

It's a great film that expresses much of what makes us human, IMO, as well as the cyclic nature of the universe (potentially - it's one of the consmologies I find compelling from a subjective view, nice and tidy). It speaks well to our emotional drives and stuff. I'm one of those who embraces my own pain and happiness (good and bad, reward & punishment etc), both valenced feelings are the meat of our growth as people. Without the pain, the happiness wouldn't be the same. A duality we need to be fully adaptive organisms.

It is right it should be so;
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.
Under every grief and pine
Runs a joy with silken twine.

William Blake

But anyway, yeah, more on topic. Cyclic universes are a real possibility. I don't know what whammy will do if that's the path modern physics takes us down. The hindus will be getting excited about multiverses and other theists about a cyclic nature. So the idea that atheists are driving this in some attempt to deny theism is pretty funny.

It appears that whatever cosmologists come up with will fit someone's theistic beliefs. Theism's a bit like that.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by melatonin]

Interesting thing though, all those who "can" imagine "existence" of something infinite as God, can never wrap their mind around another construct: infinite causality chain. There is no need for the first cause there, and there is no causality broken either, every event has it's own cause...

Just like the set of real numbers has no first member, there is no number that doesn't have a predecessor. Logic doesn't demand a first cause anymore than it demands a first number.

The big bang is still a theory, not a fact, it has it's flaws, it is widely "accepted", but, still fully open to corrections and criticism, even replaceable with something different if necessary, like someone here said, science indeed does not care, that is a beauty of it

Nihilists don't care whether or not there is a G*d. It's quite different than not believing in G*d.

As I like to call it, Apatheism.

As for BigWhammy, I fail to see where you think you're making a point in quoting people like Einstein and Anthony Flew as some sort of an argument from authority, when they obviously do not support your biblical standpoint nor your views on the universe or it's creation. Einstein, for all intents and purposes, was an atheist. However, he was rather vague in regard to referencing god. At best, he could be considered a pantheist or possibly a deist. Anthony Flew vehemently denies he is affiliated with ANY organized religion, and also expresses a his position as being a Deist.

Deism and Atheism, while not always the best of bedfellows, tend to have a healthy respect for each other on the whole. Deists are even often mistook for Atheists because of their reliance on reason, evidence, and observation of the natural universe to form their beliefs. They do NOT accept revelation, prophecy, miracles, or any other such super-naturalistic hearsay to support their beliefs. Like atheists, they are free of structured religions shackles to follow the evidence to it's conclusions, as it holds no sacred belief structure, scripture, or revelation that must be adhered to and may be contradicted - nor prophecy that may go unfulfilled.

This is evident in the case of Flew during a discourse with Atheist Richard Carrier. This page has many updates as their dialog progressed, and as he followed Flew's career.

In regards to Flew's conversion, Flew states that his only reason for accepting Deism is the improbability of the evolution of sexual reproduction. However, he admits that he has not kept up with the latest advances in science and philosophy.

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. ~ Anthony Flew

However, once provided with the evidence he retracts this statement saying:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. ~ Anthony Flew

Anthony later flip flops on the issue, apparently ignoring the evidence presented or refuting it without critically examining it. Then supporting it again, then dropping it.

Carrier then goes on to follow Flew's numerous interviews, publications, and speeches adding commentary and links. It's an interesting read. However, no matter which way you perceive that Flew fell on the details of the intelligent design issue, it is evident that he most certainly did not support a Judeo-Christian creationism account. Therefore, he does not support your position. Even if he, like I, both believe that there is a god and it is a creator god. (albeit my own views on the subject differ from his, as well)

secweb.infidels.org...

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.

Are you actually arguing 1 in 10^40 is something likely to occur?

Whammy, is this your tactic now? Just reemphasizing the numbers we've already been discussing and saying 'Dude, but it's 10^40! 10^40!!!' Whammy, just saying the same thing over and over again, this is not a strong way of debating, my friend.

Also, please stop putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of doing it to you. I never said 10^40 is something 'likely to occur'. I'm saying that without all the information, you can't just use a God in the Gaps argument to fill it in. Read my last post again, and try and understand what I'm trying to say to you. You need to have all of the information before you make such assumptions that 10^40 possibility is impossible, which, you have already admitted IS in fact possible.

Taking 10^40 and saying 'Well, that's close enough to impossible, so there's no way no how it could happen without God' is a rather ignorant thought, especially when you don't have all of the information, as I tried to convey to you in my last post.

I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".

Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:

1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes.

Really...

If you're just going to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to try and win this debate, at least you could just say so so that I know what you're going to be going back to. Might save us both some time.

I see your tact now. You are using your own wants and needs to fill in any gaps with God. So basically, what's happening is, instead of asking more questions about what caused this or that, or how the universe began to exist (if it even technically has), you're just dropping all those questions so you can say 'Well, must've been God'. This is the typical God in the Gaps argument. Now I know where Melatonin was coming from when he said "logic free zone".

The second premise is "the universe began to exist". This the one atheists used to deny creation with until the evidence squashed their primitive eternal universe beliefs. So do you deny that? Then you are stuck in a 19th century view of physics. Most people would call that primitive.

Wow, Whammy, you and your insults...pathetic.

And I can see that you failed to read the link I provided to you. Here, let my 'primitive' views show you one of the fastest growing theories in the world today:

NARRATOR: Above all, they were still trying to solve the biggest problem of all: what caused the very start of the Big Bang, the singularity?

NEIL TUROK: Nobody has a solution for the singularity problem other than essentially by hand starting the Universe at a certain time and saying let's go from there and let's not worry about what happened before and that's very unsatisfactory. This is the deepest problem in cosmology. If you can get through the singularity you're on your way to a complete theory of the Universe.

NARRATOR: Most cosmologists have begun to think they might never find a solution. They'd almost given up completely, which is when Turok and his colleagues heard Burt explain his idea properly for the first time. At a conference in Cambridge pioneers of M Theory had been brought together to explore its implications. Burt was the star of the show. His vision of a violent eleventh dimension wowed the assembled physicists and caught the attention of the cosmologists.

PAUL STEINHARDT: We heard about a vast variety of ideas. The ideas that struck both Neil and myself most strongly were the ideas that Burt presented.

NARRATOR: On the last day of the conference Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt and Burt decided to take time out. They went to see a play.

BURT OVRUT: We wanted to see the play Copenhagen which was being performed in London at the time and the three of us took the train down to London one evening and we had whatever it was, an hour or so on the train to sit and talk about these ideas.

NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big Bang.

PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.

NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.

PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.

BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the effects of the early Universe and in particular it's just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.

NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.

NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and galaxies.

BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars, we have clumps of matter.

NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?

NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.

PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they don't hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.

BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.

NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.

NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.

BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.

NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.

Also, here's some good reading:

Top 10 Problems with the Big Bang

More Problems with the Big Bang

Now, since you seem to be stuck on this beginning to exist thing, here is a website to a man who wrote this book, perhaps YOU should read IT:



This book is also written by a man who explains very clearly how:

Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.

Here is a website where you can see a brief summation of this discussion as well:

www.positiveatheism.org...

bigbert you are a smart enough guy it is just that as long as you deny God it will always be that way. So the solution to your problem is simple enough. Stop denying the reality of God and your reason and logic problems will be solved.

Stop defaulting to God for anything yet unexplained, and YOUR problems might be solved.

Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well.

Whammy, are you actually reading what I'm writing? You are STILL equating 'God' and 'supernatural', even AFTER I've covered that.

I have studied it. It is only the consensus amoung desperate materialists

WTF?!? Is this some kind of joke? You want to pretend that String Theory is only for 'desperate materialists'? Yep, Melatonin was DEFINITELY right, a logic-free zone.

Perhaps you could read a bit more about String Theory before dismissing it as a means for 'desperate materialists'.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

So "just add universes" is a lot crazier than "Goditit". It offers no explanation for where they came from.

Now I can see without doubt that you did not read the link I provided, so read the excerpt I posted from it above.

If you're going to debate with someone, at least give them the courtesy of reading what they propose.

No you seem to be the closed minded one. Any thing but God....

And you are trying to find God through science. Tell me, who's the more sane?

Claiming secular humanism and that we should do away with religion is considred atheism to most folks. I believe you did make that claim. You also repeatedly ridicule belief in God. But I understand. I would never want to confess a canard belief like atheism either.

Once again proof positive that you do not read, NOR understand my writings.

I said "might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor. " referring to your hostility to God. It is a reasonable description of your attitude not an insult.

I have no hostility to God, quit being so assumptive. I simply believe science can answer our questions better.

In Review

You are wrong and overly assumptive.

You denied logic. You denied science. You invoked magic.

Uh-huh. Keep on hoping and reaching for that rainbow there, Whammy.

Thanks for playing.

Another sad attempt at satire?

Just a reminder to our "skeptical" friends

that a day to The Lord is a thousand years to us. hence His saying, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

no one in The Bible has ever lived a thousand years, so again, The Lord speaks the truth.





Thanks for the heads up on this vid, I'll let you know after I get a chance to watch it.

Busy day ahead...

reply to post by bigbert81




LMAO @


" Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause. "





I wonder how many spontaneously created watches the author of that ever found laying on someones lawn...............

reply to post by bigbert81


After that amazing response I have no choice but to give up!

Because you just destroyed the foundation of Science in one brilliant statement:

Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.

That's friggin' hilarious!!! Oh I mean devastating... I guess 1+1=6 and black is white in berts world too? Well to suit your mood. Oh yes you are a relativist. So your truth is different from my truth. There's no absolute truth..

1+1 = whatever you decide on any particular day right bigbert?

Well only relatively speaking...

Oh wait you pulled that book review from an website called "Positive Atheism" gee perhaps they have an agenda? Positive Atheism like "additive subtraction" and oxymoron for and by morons.

It must be very so convenient to be a relativist. I don't have the stomach for it. My religion doesn't allow it either. When you lose you can just change the game and then you always win. bigbert you WON ok?

but for the record...

Victor Stenger is just a foamy mouthed rabid atheist. Just because science hasn't found the cause of few quantum processes doesn't disprove the founding law of science. The law of causality is no danger from his sophomoric straw man attacks.

It simply means that quantum mechanics still has along way to go before the complete picture is presented. All responsible physicists admit that. If there are 11 dimensions (still highly debated) as string theory contends- if there are -- whose to say the cause for those quantum processes doesn't lie in another dimension? For that matter, I theorizes that God exists in another dimension and that's why materialists can't test for him and miracles can indeed happen... but I know anything but intelligence is allowed.

If things happen with no cause - you just admitted that not miracles but random miracles are possible - and pure science is rendered impossible. Science is just a search of causes. So either bigberts argument just destroyed the foundation of the scientific method or we live in world of random miracles, or bigbert merely proved he is a really desperate atheist grasping at straws.

I'll just reserve making that judgment - as I think it is self evident.


YOU WIN bigbert!!!!!!



Reason Logic and Science have been rendered obsolete by rabid atheism.

Bask in your glory...



[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
After that amazing response I have no choice but to give up!

Because you just destroyed the foundation of Science in one brilliant statement:

Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.

That's friggin' hilarious!!! Oh I mean devastating... I guess 1+1=6 and black is white in berts world too? Well to suit your mood. Oh yes you are a relativist. So your truth is different from my truth. There's no absolute truth..

Heh, talk about taking an argument and running with it to absurdity.

Looks like you are an inductivist turkey, whammy.

Gobble! Gobble!

NOTE FROM THE OP

I really made this video to demonstrate that materialist science ridiculed the Bibles bold contention that the universe was created. Until just recently the evidence forced them to concede a creation event. And as a scientific consensus they have. Scripture was vindicated after centuries of eternal universe ideas. So the Bible is not being disproved by science at all. That's the point.

Sure there are theories based on String theory that use 11 dimensions to postulate other parallel universes. It is highly speculative and there's no reason to think all that didn't come into existence in the creation event as well. Personally I find an infinite number of universes a lot more far fetched than belief in God. It seems like a desperate attempt to deny God to me. Anyway I'm not a particle physicist I just play one on TV ( I mean You Tube )

So a big debate on the merits of string theory is beyond the scope of this thread. But quite frankly, I contend 11 dimensions opens the door for what we used to call miracles and "magic". It seems science has observed electrons being in more than one place at a time. Almost sounds like walking on water or feeding thousands with a couple fishes and a loaf of bread. The implications of quantum physics pose more of at threat to materialism than spirituality. Einsteins general relativity still demands a finite universe regardless.

Funny thing is extra dimensions is not a new idea from physics but borrowed from ancient Hebrews and the Bible:

The ancient Hebrew scholar Nachmonides, writing in the 12th century, concluded from his studies of the text of Genesis that the universe has ten dimensions: that four are knowable and six are beyond our knowing.

Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions. Three spatial dimensions and time are directly discernible and measurable. The remaining six are "curled" in less than the Planck length (10^ -33 centimeters) and thus are only inferable by indirect means. (Some physicists believe that there may be as many as 26 dimensions.4 Ten and twenty-six emerge from the mathematics associated with superstring theory, a current candidate in the pursuit of a theory to totally integrate all known forces in the universe.)

There is a provocative conjecture that these ten (or more) dimensions were originally integrated, but suffered a fracture as a result of the events summarized in Genesis Chapter 3. The resulting upheaval separated them into the "physical" and "spiritual" worlds.

There appears to be some Scriptural basis for an original close coupling between the spiritual and physical world. The highly venerated Onkelos translation of Genesis 1:31 emphasizes that "...it was a unified order."

The suggestion is that the current physics, including the entropy laws, ("the bondage of decay") were a result of the fall. The entropy laws reveal a universe that is "winding down." It had to have been initially "wound up." This windup - the reduction of entropy, or the infusion of order (information) - is described in Genesis 1 in a series of six stages. The terms used in this progressive reduction of entropy (disorder) are, erev and boker, which ultimately led to their being translated "evening" and "morning."

www.khouse.org...

So materialism is no served well by string theory at all. Again it supports Biblical concepts. The more science learns, the closer they get to God. See my signature. Anyhow I am not debating highly speculative theories any more... the juries still out.

This video is first of all Evangelism and I fully admit that. Yet it is based on the best scientific consensus that we have currently and the historical information about materialist science's battle against creation is correct. Creation has won that battle.

The Bible was right. There was a beginning.

It is your choice whether it happened by accident, for no reason. Or if there was an intelligent cause.

Remember your choices have consequences.

Me - I'll go with intelligence.

Caveat emptor



[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

The Bible also "boldly" states that whoever works on the Sabbath should be put to death. (Exodus 20)

Or "boldly" states that we should stone people who do not believe in God to death. (Deuteronomy 17)

Should we stone to death disrespectful, disobedient, and rebellious children, as the Bible tells us to do? (Deuteronomy 21)

Should it be illegal for women to speak in church? (1 Corinthians 14)

Should we support slavery, as the Bible does? (Leviticus 25)

Is it okay to beat a slave as much as you want, as long as he does not die? (Exodus 21)

Or should we put to death anyone who cheats on his or her wife? (Leviticus 20)


The concept of universal creation is nothing new nor limited to Christianity, or even religion at all. It's a normal concept that both make sense and agrees with the human understanding of cause and effect. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but come on. Stop using the Bible like that.

reply to post by Johnmike


And how does that relate to creation? Oh it doesn't - just yet another ATS Christian hater rant. *yawn * It makes you uncomfortable to think the Bible is true doesn't it? Yeah it did me too when I didn't want to admit God was there. He's watching it all my friend. If you would stop the simple minded bigotry approach you might learn that. I was like you and I did. But probably just start another Bible bashing thread - I'm sure it will be popular. Oh wait those questions have been answered like A THOUSAND TIMES. Use the search engine.



[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Well, BW, I loved the video and learned a lot from this thread. You provided evidence of a finite universe which confirms a creation. Not proof of a creator but most certainly evidence for a creation... a beginning. This is yet another example of the Bible being confirmed by science. Not to mention several other fascinating points in the video that hopefully at the very least made us think. Well done.

I did notice several, what I like to call, 'speculative cogs' being thrown into the works in an effort to throw the thread into yet another off topic battle of skeptic vs. believer but your original point was successfully established and defended. The Nachmonides article was fascinating and I am going to look into that more to find out what passages in Genesis led him to believe in ten dimensions. Fascinating information.

I know you were very uncomfortable and hesitant to start this thread due to the inevitable appearance of the ATT but I am very happy you decided to share this with the rest of us.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Johnmike


" Replacing an o with an asterisk is pretty immature. "


Au contrare...it's considered respectful.

Anyone ever teach you that? Respect?!

Not much of that around these parts.... But

Maybe you can find some on special @ K-Mart...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


yeah I have to agree between the two trolls and Johnmike the Atheist posing as a person, This was the most hilarious philosophically, scientifically, illogically ignorant statement I have ever seen in my life.

The fact that he says it with such an air of righteuousness too.

The emperor has no clothes!

It is statments like that you realize, as you did, you are taking to someone much more edumacated than yourself.

- Con

Originally posted by melatonin


Heh, talk about taking an argument and running with it to absurdity.

Looks like you are an inductivist turkey, whammy.

Gobble! Gobble!

Oh come off it mel that statement was so ignorant, it made me whince reading it. The only post more asinine was johnny Atheists


- Con




[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by AshleyD


Well Ash I suppose one should expect an ATT infestation when one titles a thread "Creation is a Scientific Fact". The Big Bang is the accepted scientific consensus. Truthfully I titled the thread that partially as an experiment. Here's why:

If I had a nickel for each time I heard "Evolution is a scientific fact" around here I would be a rich man. So how ironic the very same folks shift the goal posts and call the Big Bang Creation "just a theory". ZOMG hypocrisy abounds :shk:

Anyway how about "The Social Taboo of Criticizing Gullible Darwinists Who Airbrush History" for the next thread idea?

...soon the be a feature length film as well.

hmmm?



[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]