[Wide-Open]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

who made you the people of god I thought that where the jews?

They KILLED God. Sheesh!

BTW, ehm, that "person" in your avatar... is that pic taken before or after his hand fell off?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

so can comment with authority on the bibble?
or you can interpreted it and I can't?

all those comment on the pope(not that i like him) bud wasn't petrus the first pope? and he's in your bible, isn't he?
who made you the people of god I thought that where the jews?

We don't interpret anything in The Bible

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

No interpretations of scripture, even correct ones!

[Alsnoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

They KILLED God. Sheesh!

BTW, ehm, that "person" in your avatar... is that pic taken before or after his hand fell off?

did they Jesus himself was a jew (ok you think not; wich is absolutly inpossible) why else would he have had the last supper with his 12 apostels? it was to commemorate the last night in egypt by the jews.

sorry to brust your bubble

and what is funny about this dissues? Pater Damiaan was a true christian by helping his fellow man! he's wasn't choosy like you guys.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

all those comment on the pope(not that i like him) bud wasn't petrus the first pope?

Where in the Bible is Peter called "pope?"
Cathlycks claim to be Christians. They are not.
Cathlycks claim to worship Jesus. They do not.
Cathlycks claim they will go to heaven. They will not.
Cathlycks claim that Peter was the first pope. He was not.

Do I make myself clear?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

did they Jesus himself was a jew (ok you think not; wich is absolutly inpossible) why else would he have had the last supper with his 12 apostels? it was to commemorate the last night in egypt by the jews.

He was celebrating when He, as God, (remember that Trinity thing?) SAVED(r) the Jews from the Egyptians. Who else to you except the Word Made Flesh(r) to celibate friend? An act of Man?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

so can comment with authority on the bibble?
or you can interpreted it and I can't?

all those comment on the pope(not that i like him) bud wasn't petrus the first pope? and he's in your bible, isn't he?

Where is the word "Pope" in the Bible? Peter was never the Pope. That position was not invented until hundreds of years after Peter died.

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Pastor Ezekiel invited me to come here and try to answer some of these questions and as I am making fast friends around here I might as well do it. I have looked at some other peoples answer already but not many. But I did get my signature from something Bobby Joe said on page 2. And I will answer these questions without using the internet to research unless I specify that I do so most likely not everything in here will be 100% accurate. I am not wanting another debate as we saw from the great cucumber incident of 2010 but I thought this would be fun.


Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;


Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?
I would say that this is because sharks and other creatures simply do not NEED to get out of the water for any reason. As of course this happened a long long time ago and there were no witnesses of the event there are several possibilities include, the need for some species to get food that were being overpowered from larger fish. Perhaps it is more of a defensive reason, maybe an ancient Lobster kept seeing his brother get eaten so he decided to leave the water for part of the day to survive and simply adapted to it. So the species that needed food and searched out of the water for it, or the ancient Lobster that left the water for safety would survive while the others who didn't do this died off. There are several other reasons but I do believe there would be a reason for it.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?
I am unaware of a flood on Mars and am researching this online before I answer.
Ok, after researching this for about 20 or 30 mins from a few different websites (obviously not enough for a 100% positive answer, but I am not going to spend a week on this ) I can make a decent stab at this one.
It can be assumed that when Mars was first starting out as a planet that it had a thicker atmosphere than what it currently is and may very well have been a very warm planet (due to the atmosphere) with a ton of water on it. And because Mars is a smaller planet (1/9th the size of earth based on one of the sites) with less of a gravitational pull, there would not be enough gravity to hold in the lighter water molecules but instead keep the heavier ones such as carbon dioxide. So over the course of millions or even billions of years, this (probably blue planet) turned red due to the water rusting the iron molecules, and lost the majority of its atmosphere because the water molecules would float off into space. So the only water remaining would be the ice that would be heavier, and it wouldn't get warm enough to thaw. Highest temps of the planet gets to is only about 50 degrees Fahrenheit for a couple of hours throughout the entire year. Which is indeed warm enough to thaw ice if it weren't under surface which acts as an incubator.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?
Lol, I like this one. But the answer is simple enough, human are social creatures. Alone we are fairly weak and defenseless in the world but together especially if we use our brains we hold our own very very well. Even stupid humans are smarter than animals, and as long as humans travel in packs (which we do) the smarter humans look out for the dumber ones. you can see this especially today. (hold the dumb Atheist jokes )

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?
We don't NEED third arms, our survival didn't require it, and if our survival required a third arm then we would simply die off. You can't just need a third arm and get one, but lets say there were an extreme shortage of food in the whole world and everybody were on the brink of starvation. The smaller people would long outlast the big football linebacker people of the world since the big linebackers would need more food to survive. So if this happened for a few centuries and we then got plenty of food back, we would no longer see the big linebackers we see today for a long time.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?
It truly saddens me that you use the word "desire" here. Nobody has a desire to have an abortion (unless they are SERIOUSLY mentally disturbed) but are often times forced into it. I would say the biggest problem today (in America at least other countries I could say some different reasons for) is the money factor. Without looking up statistics I would guess that the majority of the people who get pregnant and get abortions are lower class people with no money and no education. And also without looking it up I would guess that more infant are given up for adoption then there are fetuses aborted. There are of course almost limitless reasons as why people feel the need to have an abortion, but I would say that no pregnant lady has a "desire" to destroy her unborn fetus.

Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?
Because things decompose and the Earth recycles everything. Dinosaurs, and a lot of other things have decomposed deep beneath the earths surface to make oil. I am not going to research the rate at which something decomposes, or other examples of how the Earth works and recycles things but you get the idea.

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?
I don't think I fully under the question here but I will take a stab. First of all they don't believe in Angels or Demons. But the earliest common ancestor I would guess is some sort of sea creature (or even a few different sea creatures) before it/they came onto land for whatever reason. But since we will never see the remains of the first creature that came onto land (see above post as to why) we can only really have faith on our logic. Yep, a monkey lover used the word faith, haha.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.
Ok, I think I see where this, and the last post are going. Evolutionists (most of the time anyway) do not believe in God and therefor do not see the Bible as a book of truth as you do. If you can provide a fossil of a snake with a voice box then ok, we'll talk. Besides that I am ninjaing away from this . (Woot, always wanted a reason to use that smiley. Even though it's meant for fear I think it looks like a ninja)

Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me
I did use the internet to research more about this then the little bit I already knew.
Again, just turn around and walk away, I am going to let my friend Bigfoot handle this one. (Yeah, after all the shots taken at me on the forums I get this one, get your mouse away from that stupid infraction button Ezekiel)

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.

If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben
Good question, and so I can reply with a good answer, I turn to the internet.
Ok I found a couple different sources that told me about the same thing and here is an excerpt from one of them.
"In search of the answers, Koch et al. climbed and studied the tallest trees on Earth, redwoods in the wet temperate forests of northern California. At the top of these trees they found leaves that reflect a level of water stress similar to that seen in plants in extreme deserts."
So after reading this and the rest of the article around it and finding a couple other sources to help confirm I can safely say that I believe I know that answer to this. Water can only be transfered through trees so quickly, so even if a tree base were in a perfect climate with tons of water around it without it being to much, it could still only get water to the topmost part of the tree so fast. And while the water is being transfered to the top to reach the top leaves and branches, the lower leaves and branches will take what water they want first. So the factors around how tall a tree can go would involve...
A) The type of tree and how quickly it is able to transfer water throughout itself.
B ) The moisture levels in the soil it is rooted in.
C) The amount of rain the tree is exposed to.
D) The year round humidity.
There could be other factors also I cannot think of. Also with this you have to remember it takes a very very long time for trees to grow and so if there were say a 3 month time period consistantly every year where it is dry then the tree would only get as tall as it can to sustain itself during that time period where conditions are worst for it.

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better
Well that would be because we evolved. Human grew more and more intelligent and the intelligence of a creature of course changes its behavior since it thinks more before it acts. And we don't throw our feces around anymore most likely because we don't like having smelly hands as where our dumber ape friends don't care. It is also socially unacceptable for us but is the norm for them.

Why are there still monkey?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier
I don't know why it would predict that, we live together on this would and there is no reason why we can't. If humans weren't the ones populating the earth and say cougars, tigers, or some other dumb carnivore was then I could see your point. But even though, as food would get low more of the carnivores would starve to death and die off while more monkeys and weaker creatures could repopulate. That and of course weaker creatures have there own defenses whether it be speed to escape like a deer, or antelope, a shell to hide in like a turtle or snail, or the ability to hide in trees like monkeys or birds.

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.
This is another thing I am going to have to look up. And although I am truly enjoying most of these questions I must sleep now and post the rest of my answers tomorrow. Just a couple quick points while I am away though.
1) I said earlier that Evolutionists most of the time do not believe in the Bible, so therefore they simply do not believe there was a talking snake because outside of what it says in the Bible there is not proof of this. I am not trying to prove anything from the Bibles stand point, only my own and the answers evolutionists generally say in response to these (rather good) questions.
2 ) I am very tired (which is why I am going to bed) and it is very late so I am sorry for any typos are sentences that don't make sense although I do try to proofread everything before I post it. I just have a feeling a missed a few things since I kept finding more typos, and sentences that don't make sense than usual.
3) I am not looking for a debate so please try not to turn it into one of you respond, since you and I both know that is will just end with both of use thinking the other is closed minded and not coming to any real conclusion. If you do have a legitimate and intelligent comment though, then please do reply with it.
4) Lastly, if you want to argue that Evolutionist DO in fact believe in God and the Bible then please just ignore this whole post and pretend you never saw it, because I am answering from a standpoint that they don't.
K, I think I have my bases covered, good night until tomorrow.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

-Boring nonsense cut-

Too long, didn't read.

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Too long, didn't read.

So if somebody can answer your questions then you just don't even care what the answers are anyway? If you don't want answers then don't ask questions. Common sense.

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So I have received an infraction from Heathen Basher for answering your questions. I would like to humbly apologize for answering the questions that you say scientists have no answers for, I know this makes you look weak because you thought you TOTALLY stumped us with these genius questions, but I am going to go ahead and finish answering anyway since I said I would. Not to mention, I was invited to this thread from Pastor Ezekial AND if you read the post it welcomes people to try and answer these questions. Next time heathen Basher you might want to read my post, you might even learn something.

Now, with that being said it is time for my little disclaimer, I am going to try to answer some of these questions and as I am making fast friends around here . I have looked at some other peoples answer already but not many. But I did get my signature from something Bobby Joe said on page 2 I thought was pretty funny. And I will answer these questions without using the internet to research unless I specify that I do so. Most likely not everything in here will be 100% accurate. I am not wanting another debate as we saw from the great cucumber incident of 2010 but I thought this would be fun. And in addition I would like to point out some things that I said at the end of my last post.
1) Evolutionists most of the time do not believe in the Bible, so therefore they simply do not believe there was a talking snake because outside of what it says in the Bible there is not proof of this. I am not trying to prove anything from the Bibles stand point, only my own and the answers evolutionists generally say in response to these pretty good questions.
2 ) I am not looking for a debate so please try not to turn it into one of you respond, since you and I both know that is will just end with both of use thinking the other is closed minded and not coming to any real conclusion. If you do have a legitimate and intelligent comment though, then please do reply with it.
3) Lastly, if you want to argue that Evolutionist DO in fact believe in God and the Bible then please just ignore this whole post and pretend you never saw it, because I am answering from a standpoint that they don't.
K, I think I have my bases covered here I go.

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;
PROOF I was told to try and answer so an apology would be nice, Mr. Basher. But I doubt you will, you are WAYYY to holy to apologize to a heathen like me despite whether you are right or wrong.

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.
As I said at the end of my last post I am going to research this a bit before I answer.
The Dodo was alive and went extinct about this early to mid 1700, and this is proven through the journals that the sailors kept that helped killed them off. The dodos were able to evolve on an isolated island without any natural predators, and so they evolved into flightless birds that weighed approximately 50 pounds with short legs. Since they had never known any natural predators for who knows how many centuries they were not at all afraid when humans came to the island which they lived. The humans of course hunted (and I lose this term very loosely because there would be no challenge) and ate them, but that was not the only problem, they also introduced dogs and other animals that would eat them as well. But since the Dodo was in no way evolutionarily prepared for a Predator, it didn't take to terribly long for them all to die off.


Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?
I would say the lack of fossils for these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.
It is believed by evolutionists that they never actually existed outside of the Bible. But if one is ever actually found, it is going to bring up one heck of a converstation between theists and evolutionists.

Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.
Again, you either believe the Bible or you don't. You can think that the remains and the dig sights they came from are from some elaborate Atheist conspiracy that has been successfully covered up OR you can believe The Bible is the made up one.

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.
Alright a another good question!
I would say that this is because as I stated in my last post answering the question about why humans don't have three arms. It is that you cannot simply say you need something and get it through evolution. It doesn't work like that. And this does not happen to all spiders, I would guess it only happens to a small amount, and if a wasp is caught in a spiders web then the wasp will be paralyzed and eaten alive.

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.
This is because that although there is a higher chance of a birth defect, it is not a guarantee. It is hard to explain this without taking up to much room as I would like to move on but basically it is far better for a child to be bred outside of a direct bloodline because of the different genes involved. Say the mother and father both have some bad and good genes, when they mix the good genes basically block out the bad ones and are whats used for the fetus. But with inbreeding the mother and father both often have the same good and bad genes, and the apparency of this gets worse with further generations of inbreeding.
This of course still has questions to it and there are answers that I could sit and look it up and explain everything more thoroughly but biology is boring, that is the basic, "Hey I think I get it now" explanation. Feel free to do more research on you own, the info is out there.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09
So we meet again Heathen Basher. I see no question here on this thread that is suppose to be a list of questions but I am assuming you are putting this in as proof that Adam and Eve are the first two on the planet. I could be wrong but with no question mark one can only assume.
But once again you are only going off of the Bible, and once again, evolutionists do not believe the Bible is a book of truths. And if these scrolls are not going off of information from the Bible then we have even more problems that I think would be pretty obvious but I can further explain if needed.


Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09
Show me unicorn remains and we will talk, but outside of the Bible, they do not exist, so therefore it is not something evolutionists need to explain.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09
I turned to the internet for this question and found very very quickly that there ARE multicellular organisms. Unless I am misunderstanding the question, because it sounds like it is saying that there aren't any.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09
Well, evolutionists don't exactly think it happened overnight as you make it sound for starters. And mud is still around because it is wet dirt, and not much of our bodies are made out of dirt. And babies don't have tails because we have evolved and are no longer monkeys, we don't need then anymore, we stop using them, so over the course of a very long time, we lose them.

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10
This is a good question and I will turn to the internet for the sake of trying to find a good way to explain this.
I knew this would be a tough one, but I will do my best.
Your brain is made up of living tissue which would be the main difference, chemicals such as gasoline and bug spray are not living, and are not tissue for that matter. Your brain is a complex, highly organized organ, and different parts of the brain control different things. You have a part of your brain that controls your balance, a part for needs, a part for emotions, so on and so forth. The reason, animals with tiny brains are not as intelligent as humans is simply because their brains are not as developed as ours are. I personally do not fully understand how the brain works as it is very complicated but you are welcome to of course research it, I that this at least tells you why gasoline doesn't ever get sad .

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10
Well, people do have hair, which is there both for warmth and cellular waste disposal. Although we don't need hair so much for the warmth anymore due to much better clothes, fire, and heaters. If you are asking why we aren't born in blue jeans and a dress shirt I would have to say that there is not enough room in the womb for the sewing machine. That and honestly we don't NEED clothes to survive anymore because of the other things that keep us warm. But it isn't as socially acceptable to go walking around naked.


[/INDENT]

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.
More PROOF that I was asked to answer these questions Heathen Basher, now where is that apology for the infraction I got from you?

Some of these were very good questions btw and I enjoyed answering them, I wish I could have explained the brain a bit better but I think I answered the question there anyway.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

---Long, delirious rambling---

My dear friend, Pastor Ezekiel invited you to come to this forum to see what holes there are in evolutionary theory! What do you do? You come here, that's true, but then immediately start posting whatever pops up in your head first. If you had read the thread, of which you already admitted that you didn't do it, you would have seen that each and every objection you have raised has been answered already.

We aren't here to convince you of anything, we are here to congregate with True Christians(tm), to give Praise to Jesus. We have been very friendly in answering you quite a couple of times. You can't honestly expect us to explain yet again why you are wrong. We have more urgent matters on our mind.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?
And because Mars is a smaller planet (1/9th the size of earth based on one of the sites) with less of a gravitational pull, there would not be enough gravity to hold in the lighter water molecules but instead keep the heavier ones such as carbon dioxide. [...]

So basically you believe that water is less dense than Carbon Dioxide...

Son, even I don't believe that.

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So basically you believe that water is less dense than Carbon Dioxide...

Son, even I don't believe that.

Thank you for actually taking the time to read my post Ezekiel Bathfire

The molecular weight of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is 44.01 g/mole
The molecular weight of H2O (water) is 18.0152 g/mole

So yes, I do believe that water is less dense then Carbon Dioxide, why don't you? Besides thinking that science is just a big hoax.

My dear friend, Pastor Ezekiel invited you to come to this forum to see what holes there are in evolutionary theory! What do you do? You come here, that's true, but then immediately start posting whatever pops up in your head first. If you had read the thread, of which you already admitted that you didn't do it, you would have seen that each and every objection you have raised has been answered already.

We aren't here to convince you of anything, we are here to congregate with True Christians™, to give Praise to Jesus. We have been very friendly in answering you quite a couple of times. You can't honestly expect us to explain yet again why you are wrong. We have more urgent matters on our mind.

Whatever pops in my head first? Only for the questions which I already knew the answers to, and I admit that I didn't know the answers to all of them right away and told you which ones I had to research before posting my response. But if you would have read it then you would have known that.

You are trying to convince people that evolutionists do not have answers to your questions, and no I don't expect you to prove anything to me, I already stated in my post (if you would have read any of it) that I am not looking for a debate, AND that I am not going off of the Bible or scripture to support what I say because Evolutionists do not believe in the Bible. My posting these answers show that Evolutionists DO have answers to these questions and not that they are something scientists try to sweep under the rug.


And if you still think that for some reason I was not meant to answer these questions.........

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;
----------------------------------------------------
Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

So back off, if you don't want to read my answers then don't I am not trying to prove anything to you other than we CAN answer the questions.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The molecular weight of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is 44.01 g/mole
The molecular weight of H2O (water) is 18.0152 g/mole

Atoms do not exist, stupid boy. They are a liberal hoax in a desperate attempt to cover up Biblical Truth™:

Colossians 1:16-17:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Matter consists of Christium, not atoms. They knew this already in 1611, so if you had done some research, you would have known.

Whatever pops in my head first? Only for the questions which I already knew the answers to, and I admit that I didn't know the answers to all of them right away and told you which ones I had to research before posting my response. But if you would have read it then you would have known that.

What I meant was that you didn't bother to check True Christian(tm) rebuttals of answers given in this thread earlier. You weren't saying anything new.

I already stated in my post (if you would have read any of it) that I am not looking for a debate

No, of course you are not. You always listen to our explanations, and never keep obnoxiously repeating the same argument over and over again.

AND that I am not going off of the Bible or scripture to support what I say because Evolutionists do not believe in the Bible.

Well, I do not believe in evolution. And yet you keep using evolutionary arguments for your opinions. On the other hand, you don't want me to use Biblical arguments, because you do not believe in the Bible? Those are double standards, friend.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Satyrs, unicorns and dragons are mention in other sources beyond The Bible. Pliney the Elder, hardly a Christian mentions them in his Natural History.