PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism for Dummies
       The Creationist dictionary

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

creationist dictionary

(made link easier to access)
(and fixed spelling)

(Edited by TQ 6/10/2004 at 3:04 PM).

(Edited by TQ 6/10/2004 at 3:04 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:55 PM on June 10, 2004 | IP
godyag

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ROLF

WHOA!
Moon craters:   Possibly the result of a supernatural battle between Satan and Michael.  



I like these ones:

Impossible:   That which evolution is.



Creationism:  An accurate history of the world's beginnings as recorded in the holy book of Genesis. The first person was created from dirt, not a rock, like evolution claims.

.

(Edited by godyag 6/10/2004 at 2:17 PM).


-------
love,
godyag
 


Posts: 33 | Posted: 2:16 PM on June 10, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a supernatural battle, wish i could have seen that one.
another reason why i belive the bible is the amount of space dust that was found on the moon. scientist thought there would be many feet of dust becuase they thought it was much older that what it truly is. in fact there was only 1.75 inches


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:08 PM on July 10, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahahahaa!!!!  You're still trying to use this old argument?  Even creationists don't use the
moon dust argument anymore because it is so WRONG!

From here:Talkorigins

"There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system." "

Please, your using stuff that was refuted over 30 years ago!  Learn a little real science before you make yourself look like an even bigger fool!




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on July 11, 2004 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That guide was soooo true



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:50 PM on August 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That guide was soooo true

No it wasn't!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:20 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya it was!


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:48 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So your saying you know more than NASA?  Ever been to the moon?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:31 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat does NASA have to do with this?!?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:01 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat does NASA have to do with this?!?

The original argument was that the amount of dust on the moon somehow supports a young universe.  I mentioned NASA because this argument, like all YEC arguments, is wrong.  NASA proved this decades ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:40 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof please


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:24 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof please

Here's a report from 1963 that addresses the space dust claim, from here:
MoonDust
"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)

There's your proof.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:14 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no that it is billions of years old.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:50 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no that it is billions of years
old.


Radiometric dating of moon rocks.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:35 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that means that the rock is billions of years old. not the moon.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:11 AM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that means that the rock is billions of years old. not the moon.

Gee, what's the moon made of?  Do you think geologists don't know the difference between a rock just laying on the moon and a piece of the actual lunar crust?  Come on, don't you give ANY scientists any credit?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:37 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

U use  machines that could easily be 100% rong to date the moon.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:57 PM on August 30, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

U use  machines that could easily be 100% rong to date the moon.


You have to be joking. We can chemically engineer material that comes out of the ground to act as a fuel agent for launching a multi-billion-dollar spacecraft into and beyond Earth's outer atmosphere. We can sustain oxygen environments on those multi-billion-dollar spacecrafts. We can land those spacecrafts on the moon, a structure that orbits at hundreds of miles per hour around our planet! Not only can we do that now, but we had the capability to do it nearly 50 bleeding years ago!

Oh, yeah, but when it comes to something as puny as dating the rock on the moon, we're scientifically inept. Right.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:17 AM on August 31, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

having the ability to launch spacecraft is not proof for 100% radio dating.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:40 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

having the ability to launch spacecraft is not proof for 100% radio dating.


I do so appreciate how you deliberately miss the point...

1.) Stop using "proof". For what must be the eleventh time, try "evidence" instead.

2.) The evidence of radio dating's consistency is in the countless experiments that have been carried out on it.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:15 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

having the ability to launch spacecraft is not proof for 100% radio dating.

No but using different isotopes for dating the same samples and getting the same dates IS proof that radiometric dating is acurate.  Obtaining concordant dates with other, non radiometric dating techniques IS proof that radiometric dating is acurate.  
Please present your evidence that radiometric dating isn't acurate...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:52 PM on September 1, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"sigh" I have head several diffrent items of the same brand and none of them worked right.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:04 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sigh" I have head several diffrent items of the same brand and none of them worked right.

List them because no geologist would believe you, no scientist would believe you and no one on this board believes you.  So post your sources and support your claim or withdraw it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:53 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok it is possible the earth is billions of years old not because i am surrendering to evolutionests but because that each of the the days in which the earth was created could have each easily been a peroid of several million years.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:12 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok it is possible the earth is billions of years old not because i am surrendering to evolutionests but because that each of the the days in which the earth was created could have each easily been a peroid of several million years.

HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAAA!!!!  Oh, that's funny!  You're admitting the earth could be billions of years old, not because the evidence that it is billions of years old is overwheloming but because you suddenly reinterpret your book of fairytales!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:17 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"sigh" and i do this 2 pass time.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:08 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"sigh" and i do this 2 pass time.

What's your point?  Radiometric dating is highly accurate, it is verified by comparing it with other dating methods, it is heighly reliable.  You have not been able to prove otherwise.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:39 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

your book of fairytales.

That is a 100% lie


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:38 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

your book of fairytales.  That is a 100%
lie


Nope, radiometric dating has been verified.  You've failed to falsify radiometric dating.  The only one lieing here is you.  
This is from a site called "Radiometric Dating, a Christian Perspective"
Radiodating

"Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating."

Present your evidence that falsifies radiometric dating.  I know I always ask you to present your evidence, but you never can...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:02 AM on September 7, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

check out my post for a accurate bible.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:06 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

check out my post for a accurate bible.

Bible is NOT accurate scientifically or historically.  But you admit the earth could be billions of years old, just like the evidence indicates...where's your problem?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:36 PM on September 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bible is too historicly accurate.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:47 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

bible is too historicly accurate.

No world wide flood, so that means the bible is not historically accurate.

Adam and Eve were not real, that means the bible is not historically accurate.

Get back to the point, you admit the earth could be billions of years old.  If you admit this then you also must admit that the scientific tools that tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old could be accurate...
Here we see a typical creationist tactic, any science that supports biblical claims is rock solid, any science that doesn't, is wrong.  Creationest6 first complains about radiometric dating, even though he doesn't understand how it works, but then admits the earth could be billions of years old based on some silly twisting of biblical verse.  So now he is forced to admit that radiometric dating could also be accurate.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:13 PM on September 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That it COULD also be kinda accurate


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:47 PM on September 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That it COULD also be kinda accurate

Bad way to do science, only going with the evidence that agrees with the bible!  If we still did that, we would believe in a flat earth, a geocentric solar system and the sky would be a giant metal bowl!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:37 PM on September 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if god wanted to flood the earth, he could. it says that the floodgates of heaven were opened.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:40 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if god wanted to flood the earth, he could. it says that the floodgates of heaven were opened.

But he didn't, so the bible is not historically accurate.  And just what are the floodgates of heaven???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:07 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he did flood the earth


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:10 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Creation17

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dude u must have real trouble demon god is real!!!


-------
God is real.
Creation is real.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:11 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he did flood the earth

Nope, that is an impossible myth that has been comnpletely disproven.

dude u must have real trouble demon god is real!!!

Nope, I have no trouble, I have a good life and God is a myth.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:14 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he is not a myth


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:16 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he is not a myth

Proof please...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:30 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Proof of God - Intelligent Design
What would constitute objective proof of God? Well, consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It's simply cause and effect. In our search for proof of God's existence, we could examine the various claims of supernatural occurrences, determine whether or not these are legitimate experiences, and build a case for the existence of the supernatural, which would be a step towards identifying a supernatural Creator God. Or we can just apply what we already know and search for signs of intelligent design within creation itself.

We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification -- a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it's meaningless). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified (it's meaningful). We can't have a Shakespearean sonnet without Shakespeare. (William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, 1998.)

Proof of God - Nature
So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It's a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum's stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we've given these parts these names - that's truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor -- much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor -- to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.)

The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum's assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

Proof of God - His Fingerprints are Everywhere
Where is the proof of God? If we're willing to open our eyes, we'll see the fingerprints of God all around us and all throughout us. Our very existence proves the existence of a Creator God.




-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:32 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What would constitute objective proof of God? Well, consider the following self-evident and universally recognized truth: Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer.

This is not true.  Evolution in unintelligent design.  So your whole claim is completely disproven!  So it is not self evident and universally accepted. You are wrong again!

So where's the proof of God's existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

Another false claim!  What a dishonest source your useing!  The tremendous advances in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics (what does information theory have to do with biolgy?), show us the exact opposite of this claim, that there is no need for a god.

When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design.

Once again, this is a lie.  Irreducible complexity has been disproven.  From here:
Flagellum

"The examples offered to support the irreducible complexity argument have generally been found to fail to meet the definition and intermediate precursor states have been identified for several structures purported to exhibit irreducible complexity.[3] For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[4] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[5]"

ONce again, your source is completely refuted.  The flagellum is not irreducibly complex, it is clearly a product of evolution, unintelligent design.  You do realize that every source you've used to make a scientific claim has been wrong!  Do you ever learn?  Do creationists ever learn?  Apparently not!

Proof of God - His Fingerprints are Everywhere

Actually, his fingerprints are nowhere and you've been unable to show us any evidence for his existance.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:52 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No Evidence of a Spiritual Realm?

by Rich Deem
IntroductionThe claim is often made by non-believers that there is no evidence of any kind of spiritual reality. The Bible describes the spiritual realm as consisting of both good and evil, with non-corporeal spiritual beings influencing the spiritual component of our nature. Other pages on this site examine evidence for the reality of answered prayer and religious activity improving health and extending longevity (evidence for the existence of a benevolent Spiritual Being). This page examines the evidence for the existence of the evil spiritual realm.

The biblical explanation for the presence of evilThe Bible says that the presence of evil is due to the spiritual component of our nature - something the animals do not possess. God endowed His spiritual creatures (humans and angels) with free will to love God or oppose Him. The most powerful created being (the angel Satan) rebelled and led one third of the angels into opposition against God. Those humans who oppose or ignore God follow Satan into rebellion - either consciously or unconsciously.

Human evil - to the max!Some people blame the presence of evil on "society." However, society is composed of individuals who make individual choices. Most the evil is committed by people who oppose the will of society. In contrast, there are many examples of societies in the animal kingdom, especially among the primates. None of these societies have the capacity for evil that we do. We are different from all other animals on our planet - a fact that has no scientific or evolutionary explanation.1.Look at all the evil perpetuated within the last century alone - 6 million Jews killed by Hitler, 40 million Russians killed by Stalin, 2 million Cambodians killed by their own government in the 1970's, ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs - in addition to the hundreds of massacres committed in virtually every nation of the world. Evil acts committed by humans are so pervasive and extreme that their presence is not explained by childhood abuse, biochemical abnormalities of the brain, or any other naturalistic explanation. People laugh at the explanation "the devil made me do it." However, the reality is that those who commit these evil acts have demonstrated a continuous, long-term rebellion to God, and extreme hatred. All of these people, through their rebellious activities, have opened doors to the occult for so long that they no longer have a conscience, but are ruled by hatred and demonic influences.

A recent example - Wedgwood Baptist Church massacreOn September 17, 1999, Larry Gene Ashbrook, 47, fired several bullets from the parking lot at the Wedgwood Baptist Church's windows. At the time, the church was filled with participants in the 10th annual "See You at the Pole" event, sponsored by the National Network of Youth Ministries. Youth from all over the nation gather at their school's flag pole to make a public statement of faith, and pray for others. Following the initial shooting, the gunman burst into the sanctuary cursing and mocking God, and began shooting people with a 9-mm handgun. Like many people who hate God, Ashbrook chose to take out his hatred on God's people - in this case, most of the victims were teenagers and young adults, with three of the seven being 14 years old. At one point Ashbrook detonated a pipe bomb inside the church. Then, a young man, Jeremiah Neitz, 19, armed only with his faith in Christ, stepped into the church sanctuary because he heard gun shots, and said to Ashbrook from about 5 feet away, "Sir, you don't have to be doing this." Ashbrook cursed at Neitz and told him to shut up, but Neitz said he kept pleading as Ashbrook fired more rounds, then gazed at him in rage and shot himself in the head. Jeremiah Neitz's bold stand for Christ probably saved many more lives.

Another recent example - Littleton shootingOn April 20, 1999, two high school students, in a carefully planned attack, killed 12 students and one teacher and wounded 23 others before killing themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. The targets of the attack were athletes and Christians. After shooting and throwing bombs on the campus and hallways, they headed for the cafeteria, where they continued their rampage. Then they went into the library, where they continued shooting and throwing bombs at the students, who were attempting to hide under desks and behind the stacks of books. Students were picked out and threatened, with many pleading for their lives as they were gunned down.

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death. (Revelation 12:11)

Cassie Bernall - a modern Christians martyrAt one point, one of the gunmen asked if anyone believed in God. Cassie Bernall hesitated, then answered the call, knowing what had happened to other students the killers had talked to. She answered, "Yes, I believe in God." The gunman asked, "Why," but shot her execution style before she could answer.2 The gunman who shot Cassie approached another girl, Valeen Schnurr, who, when she had been wounded had said, "Oh my God, oh my God!" The gunman said, "God!" and asked her, "Do you really believe in God?" Having witnessed Cassie's death, she answered, "Yes, I believe in God." The gunman asked "Why?" as he stopped to reload. "I do believe in God and my Mom and Dad have taught me about God." While the gunman continued to reload, she crawled under a table, where he left her alone.3 Despite receiving nine bullet wounds, she miraculously survived and returned home from the hospital just six days after being shot. Rachel Joy Scott, 17, another Christian who was killed in the library, had led a weekly prayer and Bible study group of fellow teens the past year and a half at Orchard Road Christian Center. John Tomlin, 16, another victim, attended a Baptist church twice a week to participate in a youth ministry. Other Christians became victims as they served Jesus by helping others to safety. Student, Danny Rohrbough, held a door open for students to escape, before being shot and killed by the gunmen. He could have fled to safety with the others, but chose to demonstrate the ultimate love described by Jesus.4 Teacher, William "Dave" Sanders, stayed to help students escape from the gunfire and was mortally wounded in doing so. With his dying breaths, he asked one of the students to take a picture of his family out of his wallet and asked him to, "Tell my girls I love them."

Why would Christians be willing to give up their lives so easily? It is the reality of Jesus Christ in their lives that assures them that serving Christ is worth any price - even death.5

The spiritual (evil) component in the gunmen's livesFollowing the shooting, investigators found information on one of the gunmen's web site. The gunmen were into a game called "Doom," which can be customized to suit any taste (or lack thereof). Their version was designed to resemble Columbine High School's floor plan and was described by Rabbi Abraham Cooper as "a game of massacre." A young man who had played the gunman's version of Doom reported, "That game was basically kill everything that moves." According to Cooper, as the characters in Doom lay bleeding from gunshots they shouted out, "My Lord, why did you do this to me?"6 This game manifests the extreme hatred the gunmen held for God and those who love Him. Such a condition can be explained by the presence of the author of hate, Satan, in the lives of these killers.

Cassie's prophetic insights - evidence of the power of the Holy SpiritCassie Bernall was not always a Christian. In fact, before coming to faith in Christ, she was into witchcraft, drugs, and alcohol. However, Cassie accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior on a church retreat for teens in 1997, and was delivered from her addictions.

The presence of the Holy Spirit in the life of the martyr Cassie Bernall is evidenced in her writings and conversations immediately prior to her death. Cassie's younger brother, Chris, found a prophetic poem the night of her death that she had written the previous Sunday. Cassie wrote:

"Now I have given up on everything else -- I have found it to be the only way to really know Christ and to experience the mighty power that brought him back to life again, and to find out what it means to suffer and to die with him. So, whatever it takes I will be one who lives in the fresh newness of life of those who are alive from the dead." [emphasis added]

Shortly before the shooting, Cassie talked about death to her mother. "I don't know how we got on the topic, but Cassie said to me, 'Mom, it would be OK if I died.' She said, 'I'd be in a better place, and you know where I'd be.'" God has in the past talked to humans7 and he still does to those who have committed to following His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.




-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:17 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Absolutely no evidence of any kind of spirituality in your post.  Absolutely no evidence for any kind of spiritual realm in your post.  You keep posting stuff that doesn't prove a thing!  Animals have their own moral codes, anmals kill each other.  Other religions have martyrs.  Once again, your post is worthless!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 08:30 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.