Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Cassiterides

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cassiterides

  1. Cassiterides

    History Of Man

    Since i saw in another thread atheists/evolutionists have resorted to attacking great men like James Ussher who dated creation to 4004BC, here is a thread where you can debate the history of man. It is Never Safe to Assume Remove from a library shelf any volume on world history or ancient man and examine its opening chapters. In it will be such expressions as: "it is thought," "there appears to be some basis for believing," "it has been suggested," "it may be presumed," "one may safely assume," and "others are of the opinion" -- just to mention a few. What do all these carefully chosen expressions really signify? Just this: that no demonstrable evidence really exists for accepting as a fact what has been written in the textbook. It is mere speculation! No "Prehistory" of Man The modern idea that man has been upon earth for more than 6000 years is predicated on the assumption that "prehistoric time" once existed. Almost everyone takes it for granted. Few have ever thought to question it. As used by critical historians, "prehistoric time" is said to refer to earliest antiquity that is nowhere documented in written records. Is this kind of "prehistoric time" really a fact? But how did the theory of "prehistoric time" originate? Why was the idea invented? Stuart Piggott, noted British archaeologist, summarized the development of the theory in his book "Approach to Archaeology." Note carefully his wording: "The first step was the realization that non-documented antiquity could in fact exist at all: that the whole creation and the sum of human history was not in fact contained within the Biblical narrative. This was the repudiation of the theological model of the past ..." (page 53). "Prehistory" was developed to explain the presence of man without the Bible. It is merely another facet of the evolutionist's "historical method" which denies the possibility of God in history. The fallacy of "prehistory" is clearly explained in the "Encyclopedia Americana". Here is its surprising statement: "... it is no longer accurate or logical to use the term 'prehistoric,' unless it is employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive and tangible record ...." (from "History, its rise and development".) Could words be plainer? "Prehistoric" -- scholars now admit -- denotes nothing more than a "vague and hypothetical period ... of which there exists no positive and tangible record"! But what of the famous periods or "ages" designated the Palaeolithic (Old Stone), the Mesolithic (Intermediate Stone), the Neolithic (New Stone), the Chalcolithic (Stone and Copper), the Bronze and the Iron? Cultures, Not "Ages" These terms do not represent "ages." They are CULTURAL appellations. It is a historical deception to speak of the "Stone Age." There are only STONE CULTURES. "These names," writes William L. Langer in "An Encyclopaedia of World History", "are excellent to identify cultures, but their use to designate periods of time has led to much inaccuracy and confusion, as the dates of the cultures to which they refer differ widely in different parts of the world". That is, societies using iron were contemporary with other societies using bronze or only stone. Most ancient societies used stone and bronze and iron. Today one may see backward tribes with a stone culture in New Guinea, Australia, areas of India, Africa and South America side by side with highly industrialized civilizations. These tribes are not "prehistoric." They are contemporary. Throughout history they have paralleled contemporary higher cultures, not ancestral to higher cultures as anthropologists assume. Even the Bible makes special mention of some of these degenerate tribes who anciently lived in Palestine and Sinai. The reference is found in Job 30:1-8. No evolution here. Only degeneration. civilized man did not descend from degraded, "primitive" tribes. But degraded tribes did descend from civilized men of low birth and degenerate habits. They were anciently driven out from the Middle East with its rising civilization, only to be rediscovered in tropical forests in recent centuries! These facts make it clear why evolutionists are forced to admit: "Evolution is in the last analysis not a matter of evidence, but a matter of inference" (from "New Views of Evolution" by George Perrigo Conger, pp. 91).
  2. Cassiterides

    The Ancient Chinese And Genesis

    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.''
  3. Just recieved Ussher's The Annals of the World today. There are two editions, the one i got was the special edition pull-out hardback (960 pages) with a CDROM. The book is a modern English translation of Ussher's 17th century original ''Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world''). Ussher dated creation to 4004BC (Masoretic). Other notable authorities who dated creation with the Masoretic around the same figure: 4192 BC - Marianus Scotus 4060 BC - Isaac Newton 4051 BC- Henri Spondanus 4002 BC - Augustin Calmet 3992 BC - Johannes Kepler 3984 BC - Petavius 3966 BC - Christen Longomontanus 3964 BC - Melanchthon 3951 BC - Martin Luther 3952 BC - Venerable Bede 3949 BC - Joseph Justus Scaliger 3761 BC - Hebrew Calander 3751 BC - Seder Olam Rabbah 3616 BC - Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller The last three figures above come from Jewish sources. The Hebrew or Jewish Calander* within Judaism dates creation to 3761 BC, the 2nd century AD Jewish chronicle 'Seder Olam Rabbah' to 3751BC and the earliest recorded date of creation comes from Rabbi Lipmann (d. 1654). *Note: 3924 BC is usually given as the revised Jewish Calander date of creation. The Septuagint (LXX) gives slightly different dates, but still supports Young Earth Creation and dates creation mostly around 5,500BC: 6984 BC - King Alfonso X of Castile 5592 BC- Clement of Alexandria 5586 BC - Septuagint (LXX) 5600 BC - Augustine of Hippo 5555 BC - Josephus 5509 BC - Byzantine Calander 5501 BC - Julius Africanus 5500 BC - Hippolytus 5492 BC - George Syncellus 5493 BC - Ethiopian Church 5490 BC - Early Syrian Church 5311 BC - William Hales 5270 BC - Septuagint (LXX) Vatican 5228 BC - Early British Church 5199 BC - Eusebius 5199 BC - Pope Gregory XIII 5199 BC - María de ÃÂÂgreda There is also the Samaritan date of creation, at 4305BC (other Samaratin sources provide a closer figure to 4000BC). Apparently the ancient Mayans also gave a young age for creation, their calander only began in the 4th millenium BC. Difference in age of creation to the flood: Hebrew: 1,656 years Samaritan: 1,307 years Septuagint: 2,242 years Masoretic (Hebrew): Adam -- 130 Seth -- 105 Enos -- 90 Cainan -- 70 Maleleel -- 65 Jared -- 162 Enoch -- 65 Mathusela --187 Lamech -- 182 Noah -- 600 ---------------------- To the Deluge: 1656 years The date Flood is derived using the genealogical lists provided in Genesis 5, and 7, called the ''generations of Adam''. James Ussher's dating in his World Annals: 4004 BC - Creation 2348 BC - Noah's Flood 1921 BC - God's call to Abraham 1491 BC - The Exodus from Egypt 1012 BC - Founding of the Temple in Jerusalem 586 BC - Babylonian Captivity Most of the above dates are accepted by non-religious scholars, since it is now an accepted fact abraham existed around 2000BC, the Babylonian Captivity is also accepted to have occured in 586BC (other place it 588BC). And the above took me a long time to type out. Now where did old earth age estimates come from? There is a direct link to old earth estimates and atheism. It all started with men who began to reject the Bible and proclaim themselves as 'naturalists' like Georges Comte de Buffon in the 18th century. Comte de Buffon estimated the earth to be 78,000 years old. By the 19th century, men like Charles Lyell had added hundreds of thousands (and later millions) to this figure, this theory of an old earth or universe became known as ''deep time''. However all the adherents of ''deep time'' and an old aged earth were charlatan geologists or uneducated scientists. Charles Lyell for example had no science or geology education but was a lawyer by trade, James Hutton was a docter and even admitted having no science education. William Smith who produced one of the earliest maps of geology in Uk, attributed rocks as being millions of years old. However there was a problem well adressed at his time, Smith was unemployed with no education in geology or science whatsoever. John Playfair, who alongside Hutton founded the theory of ''deep time'' was not a geologist or a scientist, his only training and education was in maths. Therefore the men who invented great ages for the earth, were indeed poorly educated charlatans (con-men who tricked others into thinking they knew more than they did ) or fraudsters. Research has also revealed, that all these men were atheists, or in some way connected to attacking the Bible. In fact Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda is now well known  he wanted to ''free science “from Moses''. You can read more about this on the link below: http://creation.com/charles-lyell-free-science-from-moses What followed these conmen in the 19th century, was greater ages being added to their ''deep time'' and old earth theories. In the early 20th century Arthur Holmes claimed the earth was 1.6 Billion years, this figure grew to 3 Billion, then now to 4.5 Billion years old, while the universe stated to be billions of years older. So what do you want to go with? I stick with what the Bible says and from what from honest historians and chroniclers calculated hundreds of years ago.
  4. 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.''
  5. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.
  6. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    Ancient literature is filled with catastrophism.
  7. Cassiterides

    Redwood Trees Can Evolve Into Squid!

    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.
  8. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    Atleast try to make your lies coherent.
  9. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.
  10. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.''
  11. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.
  12. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.
  13. Cassiterides

    Creationism And Astrophysics.

    The earth is not the Earth. The earth capitalized in the sense of the planet or whole world only came about in the 14th century. The 'earth' described in Genesis is only the dry land (see Genesis 1: 9) - ''dry land (earth) appear''. The earth therefore is seperate from the water. This is one of the main reasons why i believe in creatio ex materia and also because contemplating nothing is impossible. I'll get back to you on your other points.
  14. Cassiterides

    Redwood Trees Can Evolve Into Squid!

    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.
  15. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    ''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.
  16. Cassiterides

    Redwood Trees Can Evolve Into Squid!

    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.
  17. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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.’’
  18. Cassiterides

    Theory, Law, Fact - Do You Know What They Are?

    Interesting statement. Are you aware leading evolutionists themselves have actually admitted evolution is not observable and rests entirely on faith? Richard Dawkins: ‘‘Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening.’’ G. Ledyard Stebbins: ‘‘… the major steps of evolution have never been observed.’’ Stephen Jay Gould: ‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation'' All of these men are/were leading evolutionists and they admit evolution is not observable - therefore evolutionists have admitted themselves evolution is far from fact.
  19. Cassiterides

    Theory, Law, Fact - Do You Know What They Are?

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the first website you linked to is not a dictionary source either but some evolutionist website attacking intelligent design. A few examples of actual dictionaries: The Chambers Dictionary Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Collins English Dictionary Your links where you are defining words are from anti-creationists sites and wikipedia not dictionaries.
  20. Cassiterides

    Now We Evolved From This?

    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?
  21. Cassiterides

    Noah's Ark Treasure Hunt.

    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.
  22. Cassiterides

    The Hebrew Word Behema...

    Why would a JW be asking this when you have your own bible translation/edition?
  23. Cassiterides

    Theory, Law, Fact - Do You Know What They Are?

    Right, and the shape of the earth is just entirely theoretical as well. I believe the earth is spherical (like most) however i can't prove this. The shape of the earth is therefore just another scientific theory which can't be proven. Have you ever debated flat earthers before? They reject all photos or videos from space and claim they are faked. Can we disprove these claims (as absurd as they appear)? The answer is no because there is actually no way to prove the photos or videos from space are real. Confirmed ''scientific facts'' are incredibly limited. Most is all theory, and theories are not proven facts. The theory of evolution, is just one of many theories which has not been proven. For something to be a 'fact' and proven we would have to be able to directly observe it etc, evolution though is non-observable, it's theoretical.
  24. Cassiterides

    Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use

    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).
  25. Cassiterides

    Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use

    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.
×

Important Information

Our Terms