Cassiterides

There are some very interesting things about the ancient Chinese. Firstly is the fact that their original religion was based on a single monotheistic diety (Shangdi). U7syfnuNtW4?fs=1&hl=en_GB The above video shows how the original Chinese were monotheists, who worshipped a supreme single diety. Their account of creation bears striking similarity to Genesis: ''Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and moon to shine. You, O Spiritual Sovereign, first divided the grosser parts from the purer. You made heaven. You made earth. You made man. All things with their reproducing power got their being’' ''ShangDi, the Creator-God of the Chinese, surely appears to be one and the same as the Creator-God of the Hebrews. In fact, one of the Hebrew names for God is El Shaddai, which is phonetically similar to ShangDi.'' Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/china.asp However there is much more evidence which links the ancient Chinese to Genesis. The beginning of ancient Chinese documentated history and their first dynasty, perfectly corelate with the dispersal at the Tower of Babel. Their ancient mythology preserves an account of the deluge, the Miautso or Miao peoples of China also preserved the mention of Noah in their creation account as ''Nuah''. Genesis According to the Miao People http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-according-miao-people/ The book God's Promise to the Chinese by Ethel R. Nelson and Richard E. Broadberry puts forward a lot of evidence for a similarity of the Chinese written characters and Genesis. This has also been documented in the work The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language . About the book and research: ''This linguistic analysis of the Chinese language suggests the ancient Chinese were well aware of the God of Abraham. Readers will discover the possibility that the Chinese were a remnant of the Tower of Babel dispersion.The evidence they compile supports the thesis that the ancient picture writing of the Chinese language embodies memories of man's earliest days. The characters when broken down into component parts, reflect elements of the story of God and man recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. Man and woman, the garden, the institution of marriage, the temptaton and fall, death, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel - they are all there in the tiny drawings and strokes that make up the Chinese characters.''

The Psychology of Atheism Professor Paul C. Vitz DN53Txg-xhk?fs=1&hl=en_GB The following article from Paul shows that nearly all the most prominent atheists from the 19th century (and some more recent) all had very bad upbringings i.e being abused by their parents, not getting on with their parents, having a poor upbringing and come from not loving homes. ''In many prominent atheists in history, we see a strong antipathy toward their fathers. Voltaire was not an atheist, but he rejected the idea of a personal god. He vehemently rejected his own father, to the point of rejecting his surname and assuming the name 'Voltaire' (we do not know how he came by his adopted name). Diderot, likewise, was a profound atheist. He once stated that a child, if he had the strength of a man of thirty, would "strangle his father and lie with his mother". ''What of Freud's own father? Jacob Freud was weak and unable to provide for his family. The money for their support came from his wife's family. Jacob was also passive in the face of anti-Semitism, whereas his son greatly admired courageous resistance and was himself courageous. Moreover, Sigmund Freud wrote that his father was a S@xual pervert.'' ''Another example of a prominent atheist with a poor paternal relationship is Thomas Hobbes. His father was an Anglican clergyman. Although the exact circumstances are unknown, he got into a fight with another man in the churchyard, following which he abandoned his family.'' ''As for Ludwig von Feuerbach, his father abandoned the family and lived with a married woman in the same town, then returned after the woman died. Feuerbach was twenty at the time of his father's return.'' ''Schopenhauer was rejected by his mother, and his father committed suicide when Schopenhauer was sixteen.'' ''Nietsche's father died when he was four. Camus and Hume also lost their father's in early childhood.'' ''Madeleine Murray O'Hare also had an unhappy family life. She often fought with her father, and on one occasion tried to kill him with a butcher's knife. We cannot know the reason for her hatred, but it probably was not without cause.'' ''Dr. Anthony Flew (sp?) is another famous contemporary atheistic psychologist. Some while ago he was at a party and, having had too much to drink, ended up lying on the floor, hitting it and saying over and over, "I hate my father. I hate my father." ''Russell Baker's father died when he was five. He describes raging against God as a child, and concluding that God was not to be trusted. Since then, by his own account, he has never cried and has never been able to love freely.''

Saw this book on Amazon, apparently evolutionists are now claiming we evolved from this fish like creature. It's hard to take this serious, you can read my review on amazon.co.uk which sums up my views. I don't know, everytime i look at evolution book they are claiming we evolved from something different. They can't keep their theories coherent.

Ancient literature is filled with catastrophism.

Geode wrote the following: This statement is false, since Geode then pasted a fabricated script with inserted [laughter] in attempt to make it as if Stearns comments were not serious.

Atleast try to make your lies coherent.

And yet you link to evolutionist material, and a few posts up posted you agree with what Todd Wood believes: From Todd's blog: ''There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.'' ''It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.'' Also nowhere did i say on this forum Todd was an atheist. I said that on another forum, so it's quite clear you have followed me here from there. This also explains why when you arrived on this forum you pretty much stalked every thread i created or post i made. This is why i ended up originally blocking your posts. So clearly you are some kind of disgruntled evo/atheist who followed me here from another forum. Nice attempt to pose as a JW, i'll give you atleast that.

So finally you have come out the closet and admitted your account is a fake. I knew you were an evolutionist/atheist all a long. From Todd's blog (who you now have openly admitted you support): ''Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.''

Just to point out that the Baraminology Study Group (BSG) are actually evolutionists, not creationists. From Todd Wood's (one of the founders of BSG) blog: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/trut...-evolution.html ''Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution.'' Creationists should be warned what Baraminology really is and the real agenda agenda behind it.

As i said, evolutionists have failed for 150 years on how to define a species. This problem is so well known it has been added to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem Modern evolutionary biologists admit they don't know what a species is or how to define one.

You wrote the following: Stearns did not laugh in the video though, the audience did. Maybe the audience found it funny, but there is no evidence Stearns did. From what this lecture actually shows is that Stearns believes squids evolved from trees.

''the rock record changes from non-existent to basic to complex as one progresses from the oldest rock at the bottom of the record to the younger rock at the top of the record. I'll ask again. How do you explain this?'' This is an incorrect statement. The most complex forms are found at the lowest strata, and nothing leading up to them. An example would be the trilobite, look up its complex eye. "And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginningâ€â€Âto have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life-forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes." Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150.

Note how Geode is inserting [laughter] in the script to make it seem as if Dr. Stearns was joking about this. However this is not in the original script or from the lecture you can watch. But that's typical evolutionist dishonesty for you. Of course, evo's now can only resort to claiming this was a joke to play it down.

As are all evolutionists, you have failed for over 150 years to be able to define what a species is. Charles Darwin: ‘‘... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.’’ Henry Nicholson: ‘‘No term is more difficult to define than ‘‘species’’, and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word.’’ Ernst Mayr: ‘‘…Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated in the title of his work.’’

The front cover and early chapters. Which is based entirely on the assumption/faith 3.5 billion years has existed. Does he have a time machine?

Looks very interesting, my only criticism with this is that the Bible says ''mountains of Ararat'' (plural), not a single mountain so i don't believe Mount Ararat is where the ark landed. Also note that the mountains of Ararat are described as having been east of shinar (sumeria/mesopotamia), since from those mountains they moved east into Shinar. This means the landing site of the ark was not mount Ararat in Turkey/Armenia which is west of Shinar, not the east. My opinion is that no one has yet found the arkbecause they are looking in the wrong place.

The last person to link to this site was an atheist (who is now banned). It's only up to attack creationism. Ikester and others here believe in the canopy theory. Yet that link attacks the theory and portrays it as dumb: ''Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present.'' Secondly it also attacks those who believe that continental drift was put in affect in the days of Peleg (that includes myself, and numerous others creationists i have seen on this forum).

I don't see the point in this thread, you are just here attacking creationism and many creationist arguments that are actually valid. If you believe all those listed arguments are wrong, then what are we left with? Irreducible complexity, Fine-tuned Universe? We would be left with boring intelligent design claims which dabble in technical science equations and so on which just isn't interesting.

‘Darwin recanted on his deathbed’. Agreed this is not a good creationist argument, it's actually an urban myth, and even if this actually happened it can't be verified or proven, so there's no point in using it. ‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon.’ No creationist (as far as i am aware) still use this argument (not that is was popular anyway). It was an error made in the 1970's, and most books have corrected it. ‘NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day†and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20 This argument is semi-valid. While the NASA claim might be an urban myth, the article criticising this fails to note that there was actually a book put out by a professor at Yale University on the subject Joshua's Long Day and the Dial of Ahaz by Charles A. L Totten published in 1890. This was long before the NASA claim, Totten concluded there is scientific evidence for Joshua's long day. ‘Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe.’ The article criticises using this argument when it is valid. In fact this argument dates back to creationists like Cuvier, and is still evidence today for sudden catastrophism. ‘NASA faked the moon landings.’ This has nothing to do with creationism, and is entirely independant. Therefore if a creationist wants to believe in conspiracy theories there should be no objection. ‘The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old†strata invalidate the geologic column Never heard this one before, so can't comment. ‘Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link†and claimed it was just a giant gibbon This argument is valid and is true - sourcebooks confirm it. The article oddly quotes Stephen Gould (an evolutionist) in attempt to debunk it, not sure why a creationist would do this. The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand We don't know was the carcass was (its never been identified), therefore the article which criticises that this could have been dead plesiosaur is clearly mistaken - so this argument is actually valid. ‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.’ This rests entirely on biblical interpretation, so i don't see this as a creationist argument. ‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ This is actually a valid argument. The media though have gotten hold of this and turned it into sarcasm. Creationists who now ask this are unfortuantly mocked. Women have one more rib than men.’[/b I've never heard this argument used before by a creationist. I'll go through the rest if i have the time. From what i can see though, most of these are actually valid, and some are not even relevant.

Most those arguments listed on that website are actually fine. This is why creationists should not belong to creationist.org's because once you become affiliated they then start to control how you think and what you believe.

Yes, i read a few chapters. Couldn't get far into it, as it was just all faith and poor interpretation of history. I've also read most of Dawkins books. All of these i review on amazon.co.uk. I've looked at both sides of the debate od creation vs. evolution. I look at pretty much every theory/concept regarding origins including both creation and evolution ideas, particularly alternitive/rare/strange/out-dated theories. Here's an rather unknown evolution theory: Zermatism http://www.paranormality.com/zermatism.shtml ''The theory was conceived by a man called Stanislav Szukalski who was born in Gidle in Poland around 1893 and died in 1987. "According to his theory, differences in races and cultures were due primarily to inter-species breeding between near-perfect ancestral beings and the Yetinsyn (humanoid creatures reputed to live in remote Himalayan valleys which some people call Abominable Snowmen".

It's a mental illness. Did you know that h*m*s*xuality was listed as a mental disease by the American Psychiatric Association up to 1973?

No, we have evidence (non-religious) that h*m*s*xuality is immoral. Look up H*mos*xual longevity. Can you explain why they die 20 years younger than normal people? Yet Another Study Confirms g*y Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorterhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html Plus ontop of their short life expectancy, you have to add all the disease etc they obtain from their unhealthy life style. So science/nature has proven h*m*s*xuality is not the norm and is immoral.

I thought Dawkins and evolutionists thought they were sane rationalists? Now they are saying we were seeded by aliens. It couldn't be anymore crackpot.

No we don't. Creationists believe in the word of God from the Bible, and Genesis says man was created (in the form he is now). Theistic evolutionists in contrast believe they evolved from a fish, ape etc ultimately from a molecule from a primordial soup which was struck by lightening. Clearly not the same God.