[Aristotle]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Are you equating God with oxygen?

Are you saying oxygen is The Fifth Day?

Evolution says that life made oxygen, so how did the birds breathe when they were created? Were they anaerobic?

There is air in a jar of peanut butter, some scientists claim there to be oxygen in air. Do you deny this?

There is no mortal life in peanut butter, unless the jar is contaminated from the outside. Only GOD can create such life. However, there could be demons, who can live in anaerobic conditions like up the behind and in ocean deep-sea vents.

[DaveTheRave]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

The formation of life required oxygen, there isn't any oxygen in a sealed bottle of peanut butter.

Are you equating God with oxygen?

Are you saying oxygen is The Fifth Day?

Evolution says that life made oxygen, so how did the birds breathe when they were created? Were they anaerobic?

There is air in a jar of peanut butter, some scientists claim there to be oxygen in air. Do you deny this?

[Aristotle]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Don't talk nonsense. The Ubaid Period is dated no doubt using Carbon-14 dating, which among True Christians™ is known for its unreliability.



1. That age is acquired using radiometric dating. This, however, is a lie, as it consists of asking atoms how old the earth is. I'm not making this up, it really is that stupid.
How could atoms know the age of the earth? They're just atoms! They don't know anything!
2. You might want to make yourself familiar with your own Godless, silly theories, which teach that there is no "Archaeozoic" Era, but only a "Proterozoic" and an "Archaean" one. Though, of course, therse ages are an illusion, so you are not lying more when you redefine these.

I always find it amazing that these 'liberals' will believe somebody in a white coat who tells him that these carbon dating instruments 'talk' with atoms while rejecting the BIBLE(KJV) where he can have Jesus talk to him.

[SUV]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

peanut baby bunnys

Sister Dora Denkins, God Bless her Filthy Soul, must have read this thread because she couldn't wait 'til Easter this year to begin her Avalanche of Bunnies onto my Christian front porch. Sometimes I even Wonder if she might be behind instigating RA10....

Would anyone Care to adopt this one? After increasing my Tithe, I find I can no longer afford to keep him in peanut Butter

[True Disciple]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Nope, sir. You're the stupid one. The Ubaid period is apart of Mesopotamian history. It dates back to 5300 B.C. That's about 7,000 years, no? Earth is older than Six thousand years.

Don't talk nonsense. The Ubaid Period is dated no doubt using Carbon-14 dating, which among True Christians(tm) is known for its unreliability.

Also, the Archeozoic Era was dated back to 2 billion years ago...There is no way possible that the earth is a mere 6000 years old.

1. That age is acquired using radiometric dating. This, however, is a lie, as it consists of asking atoms how old the earth is. I'm not making this up, it really is that stupid.
How could atoms know the age of the earth? They're just atoms! They don't know anything!
2. You might want to make yourself familiar with your own Godless, silly theories, which teach that there is no "Archaeozoic" Era, but only a "Proterozoic" and an "Archaean" one. Though, of course, therse ages are an illusion, so you are not lying more when you redefine these.

[:(diversity):]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Also, the Archeozoic Era was dated back to 2 billion years ago...There is no way possible that the earth is a mere 6000 years old.

[:(diversity):]

Re: follow on video

Why are you stupid?

You might want to read this article, typed by Godly Brother David J Stewart, over at Jesus-is-Saviour.com, who effectively destroys your silly argument:

[/I] [/FONT]

Nope, sir. You're the stupid one. The Ubaid period is apart of Mesopotamian history. It dates back to 5300 B.C. That's about 7,000 years, no? Earth is older than Six thousand years.

[True Disciple]

Re: follow on video

And if you knew anything about REAL science, you would know that there were civilization that are older than 10,000 years old.

Why are you stupid?

You might want to read this article, typed by Godly Brother David J Stewart, over at Jesus-is-Saviour.com, who effectively destroys your silly argument:

THE OLDEST PEOPLE

They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia.
The various radiodating techniques could be so inaccurate that mankind has only been on earth a few thousand years.
"Dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude . . Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."—*Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?" Popular Science, November 1979, p. 81.
We have no records indicating human civilization going back beyond a few thousand years.
"Only six or seven thousand years ago . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world."—*Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth (1982), p. 181.
There are no written records before about 3000 B.C.
"In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 1000 and 5000 B.C. . . Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records."—*Reader's Digest, the Last Two Million Years (1984), pp. 9, 29.
Almost as soon as there was civilization, there were towns and cities, and the oldest were in Mesopotamia.
"In most civilizations, urbanization began early. There is little doubt that this was the case for the oldest civilization and the earliest cities: those of ancient Mesopotamia."—*Robert M. Adam, "The Origin of Cities," Scientific American, Vol. 203, September 1960, p. 154.
The earliest king lists only go back to shortly before 3000 B.C.
"The Egyptian king lists go back to the First Dynasty of Egypt, and little before 3000 B.C. Before that, there were no written records anywhere."—*Colin Renfrew, Before Civilization (1983), p. 25.

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: follow on video

And if you knew anything about REAL science, you would know that there were civilization that are older than 10,000 years old.

Well well. Look who was sent back by Satan to continue persecuting us. Were you locked up for solicitation or something?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: follow on video

And if you knew anything about REAL science, you would know that there were civilization that are older than 10,000 years old.

That's ridiculous. The earth is only 6,000 years old.

[:(diversity):]

Re: follow on video

Ha! You ramble on with nonsense like "a billion years" and then try to mock us?!? If you had ANY grasp of REAL science, you'd know that a billion years is impossible because the world is only between 6000-10,000 years old!

And if you knew anything about REAL science, you would know that there were civilization that are older than 10,000 years old.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Now you're just being silly.
I just looked in the Larder and even the Peanut Butter at the back was only out of date by 3 years.
How can ANYTHING be a Billion years old when the Earth is only 6000 years?

Psst . . . It might be rancid. Might wanna toss that, Sister, before you accidentally poison Pastor Zeke!

The formation of life required oxygen, there isn't any oxygen in a sealed bottle of peanut butter.

So you're saying that it's impossible for there to be any life without oxygen? Even, say, anaerobic bacteria?

[True Disciple]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Second, you can't prove Genesis by disproving evolution. You must prove Genesis, all I've seen is you try and disprove evolution.

We do both, of course. However, Genesis is God's Word, and clearly contradicts the evilutionist philosophy. This is definite proof that evilution is a lie.

[Aristotle]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Did you get that from Wikipedia?
Firstly, that's not the theory.
Second, you can't prove Genesis by disproving evolution. You must prove Genesis, all I've seen is you try and disprove evolution.

Of course it proves Genesis when we show, as in the peanut butter example, that Evilution is wrong. Either the life was created by blind chance or GOD did it. There is no third option.

[Petal]

Re: peanut butters prove that evilution not true

Right, it's all a conspiracy...

Where is my tinfoil hat?

here be your hat, Mr.Paper Cut

Second, you can't prove Genesis by disproving evolution. You must prove Genesis, all I've seen is you try and disprove evolution.

but that be how we do thangs, cuz we need to rebukes them evil seckular scientiist folk that discover stuff that not agrees wiv scriptures!