The Passion of Christ

Said By ArtemisPanthar

WWJD, man.

He wouldn't go around wearing a braclet with WWJD on it, and wouldn't stop to ask himself what he'd do...

What would Jesus do...he'd probably bitch slap Hiten_Mitsurugi.

Then burn down the Vatican or something. Not hurt anyone, but maybe some of those child molesting priests will "mysteriously disappear".

Yes, but Hiten isn't Jesus and as a Christian he should be following Jesus, not the church. Thus, What Would Jesus Do, not What Would The Church Do.

Said By Hiten_Mitsurugi

Christianity can be considered weird in the sense that it is not like other religions. Other religions say you have to do something (good works, die in battle, etc.) while Christianity says the way to heaven is through what Jesus did, not what you did. There's also religions that believe in reincarnation. Even atheism is a religion. But it's not about religion when it comes to Jesus. Religion can be synonymous with ritual at times. Religion says you can get to heaven, nirvana, or whatever you believe in through works. By the way, if someone told your friend a lie that could do harm to him/her would you tell him/her the truth or let them be hurt. Christianity claims there is one true (multiple truths makes no sense). This is what I believe: If I were to tell you that Hinduism is the ultimate truth, then that would be like tell you the sky is green. I'd be either lying through my teeth or believing it myself but it is not the truth. I seen proof of this by seeing God move in my, and other's lives. To many coincidences to say otherwise.

Atheism isn't a religion, stupid.

Depending on how you define religion, it is. If you define religion as following a supernatural being, it's not...but then Buddism isn't either. If you define it as having a set of beliefs to follow, it is =3 You believe there is no God.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotio

Out of those, only the last one really comes close to making sense for atheism to be a religion.

You can't expect respect from people who refuse to believe. Jesus lost respect from allot of people, and He said to expect the same if you follow Him. I'm sorry for the disrespectful way that I went about this, but I'm not sorry for telling the truth. Anyway most religions that came from Christianity came from twist versions of Christianity. Islam came from the Gnostics (a heretical Christian sect) and from the Roman form of Christianity that executed people who refused to believe. When Mohammad would have his "visions" he would fall to the ground and foam at the mouth. That shows signs of demon possession or some kind of disease. One of his wives was a undevout (possibly Gnostic) Christian, and the other an undevout Jew. He believed he was possessed, but one of his wives convinced him otherwise. There is plenty of scientific proof for the stories in the bible actually happening. Like the great flood, the parting of the Reed (no I did not misspell it) Sea, plagues of Egypt, the Sun standing still, the existance and distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the falling of the walls of Jericho, etc. I'll stop my argument here. We need some new topics.

Allot=two words...a lot. *One thing, you typed (and I quote) "...but I'm not sorry for telling the truth" first of all, this is all based on what you as an individual believe. A belief is not, and I repeat NOT truth...it's mearly a thought made inside your own head that has this sort of trust or confidence that something is true. But, it ISN'T ALWAYS true. You see...I'd like to see things from your perspective, but the thing is...I can't get my head that far up my ass.

You don't know what truth is. You think you know, but you don't. You believe what you believe because it's what you know. A true believer knows the importance of having ANY religion. Yours isn't the right one. It's only the right one for Christians.

There was most likely a devastating flood a long time ago. The bible isn't the only proof of it. Almost every religious book mentions a flood. Ever stop to conceive that belief didn't write the book, that the book wrote the belief? Those things could've happened, and the bible incorporated fact and attributed it to what they believe. It's fact that the sun rises and sets everyday, but in Greece they believed Apollo pulled it along. They observed and applied reason, not the other way around.

...exactly.

Said By Hiten_Mitsurugi

There is plenty of scientific proof for the stories in the bible actually happening. Like the great flood, the parting of the Reed (no I did not misspell it) Sea, plagues of Egypt, the Sun standing still, the existance and distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the falling of the walls of Jericho, etc. I'll stop my argument here.

http://snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm

I can't disprove the other stuff, nor do I have the desire to. But read this, it explains the whole sun thing in detail.

For one thing most of the morals that we as Americans believe in came from Christianity (which came from Judaism). Second, a study was done recently where atheists were hooked up to lie detecters and asked the question, "Do you believe in God." One-hundred percent of them when they said, "No", were lying. So there is something that God put in us that says He exists. Third, the laws of thermo-dynamics prove the existence of God in that one says "nothing can come from nothing", or rather nothing living can come from something dead (ex. gnats don't come from raw beef). Fourth, sin hurts. People involved in sexual promiscuity (i.e. multiple parters), fornication (sex outside of marriage), adultery (cheating on one's spouse), etc. are the ones who wind up into alcohol abuse, drugs, and suicide. The religions that existed before Judaism and Christianity did not include laws against all of this behavior (maybe some of it, but not all of it). The Greeks and Romans were promiscuous inside and outside of marriage and committed homosexual acts, and it was acceptable to them. Rome fell just as Sodom and Gomorrah fell. Many have died from murder, suicide, etc. because of the sins which only Christians and Jews believe are sin. Recently homosexuals had a parade after the sodomy law in Texas was shot down. In this parade they expose there privates in public even with children watching. It good sense (though it appears it's not common) to believe that what the bible teaches is wrong IS wrong. Because sin hurts (emotionally and physically).

Lie detectors are perfect, genious. And show me proof of this, anyway. You could be bsing this.

One of the reasons that monogomy came around wasn't because it led to drugs and suicide, it was thanks to fear of STDs.

Quote

It good sense (though it appears it's not common) to believe that what the bible teaches is wrong IS wrong. Because sin hurts (emotionally and physically).

I don't need a book to tell me right and wrong. That's something that I can figure out for myself. And prove to me that sin hurts physically and emotionally. When I, say, take "god's" name in vain, I don't feel myself getting an ulcer, or feeling guilty.

As for believeing in the existance of God it is difficult to always be a 100 percent sure on either side. It is a fact that the belief in God is decreasing as time passes probably due to science or just because of the harshes of reality. Something from like 98 percent to a small drop of 94 which isnt a lot. Perhaps its the unanswerable questions that many have pondered. Why did God create Man in His own image? What is Man's purpose or plan for Man? Is Man merely a tool of God, to achieve a Higher Purpose for Him? Can God be evil? Why does a perfect God create an imperfect World? Why does a blameless God create a world full of sin and evil? These Kabbalist questions i'm sure has gone through everyones' mind at once. These are just one of the very few questions Man cannot solve, and sometimes it leads them to question God's existance and the role of Man. If God did exist could we just be mere dolls to him like how we play with our dolls (no i dont play with dolls lol, but its a good example). The meaning of life is hard to answer. Yet, there is still a majority (over 90 percent) that believe there is some sort of God or higher being. There was a time in my life when i questioned my true beliefs because of how illogical a God could exist. But i do know then when there are times when i feel down, alone or scared turning towards God's gives myself a better sense or reassurance, like I dont have to face things alone. Thats what made me realize that i really do believe in God because I turn towards him when i feel hopeless. Still there is a bit of doubt that is still within me but I have to say that believeing in a God can't be a bad thing.
There may be numerous amount of religions throughout the world, but they all have one thing in common. The belief that there is something "bigger than Man". Man cannot be the dominant form of life throughout the spirtual and earthly universe.

(I strongly suggest you try watching the anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is a good portrayal of Man's struggle with reality, the psychological thinking of Man, along with Man's relationship to God. Lots or religious symbolism in the series. My favorite Anime actually.)

Said By Pancakes

Who's gonna see it?

My mother wants me to see it,but i really don't.It's pretty much all about the death of Jesus Christ,which i allready know about.So i don't know,i might see it eventually down the road.

Well, I can tell you one thing. There is allot of problems with the theory of evolution. So, if there is something you shouldn't believe in, that's evolution. If you read about the theory of evoluton in its purist form, you'll find that to accomplish evolution new genetic information would have to be created. There is no proof that that is possible. You can destroy and rearrange the existing information but you cannot make more of it. Modern evolutionists try to change the definition of evolution to make the proof against it look like proof for it. The American Civil Liberties Union (they could use a name change) start lawsuits against schools who try to teach the objections against evolution (along with the proof). So, just like the communists, they are trying to make believe there is no objections when there are. They believe that if they reject evolution that they automatically accept the existence of God. Charles Darwin was raised up with Christian beliefs, but after his daughter died he rejected the belief in God. He didn't want to believe that God would let that happen. So he concocted the theory of evolution to go against the creation theory. I think the main theory in that time was called the Clock-Work Theory. An example of proof for this theory is the distance of the earth from the sun. If we were alittle farther from the sun we'd freeze to death; if we were alittle closer we would be burned to death. Symmetry is also proof for the existence of God.
By the way, I did see the last few parts Neon Genesis Evangelion it does mix in a little Jewish and Christian legend. I'm sorry about the rude way that I have gone about this. It is my job as a Christian to tell the gospel, but at times the words come out of my mouth when I should let God speak through me. I can say one thing; the absolute truth does not change. You've got to find that truth. It doesn't change from person to person. If it did it would not be the truth.

>>If you read about the theory of evoluton in its purist form, you'll find that to accomplish evolution new genetic information would have to be created. There is no proof that that is possible.

Your ignorance of modern evolutionary theory could fill a book. Start here. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

>>Modern evolutionists try to change the definition of evolution to make the proof against it look like proof for it

Actually the definition of used by evolution scientists hasn't changed. From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

"Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." " That is the one that evolutionary biologists use. It is the only correct one. You often see it stated differently by creationists for one simple reason. If they change what they claim is the definition they can actually attempt to attack it. Straw man arguments like that are the stock in trade of creationists.

>>The American Civil Liberties Union (they could use a name change) start lawsuits against schools who try to teach the objections against evolution (along with the proof).

The ACLU is an organization created to specifically defend the Bill of Rights. You might go to their website some time and see how often they defend Christians against harassment. You might be suprised at how often they are on the side of YOUR religion. Freedom of religion only works if everyone gets it and the ACLU works to insure that they do. Your ignorance of their purpose and the work they do to insure YOUR religious freedom is telling.

Oh, and every time creationists have brought suit to have creationism taught in schools they have been asked one simple question. Where is your evidence? In each and every case, the creationists were, for lack of a better phrase, "laughed out of court". You might want to peruse this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html 72 Nobel Prize winners spoke in favor of evolution. Know how many spoke in favor of creationism? ZERO. Funny how every time creationists are given the opportunity to prove ANY aspect of their so called "theory" they can't seem to come up with a single damn thing, but still they insist on equal time in a SCIENCE class. Creationists didn't want to give evolutionary theory equal time till they got kicked out of schools. Funny how they changed their tune.

>>Charles Darwin was raised up with Christian beliefs, but after his daughter died he rejected the belief in God. He didn't want to believe that God would let that happen. So he concocted the theory of evolution to go against the creation theory.

Is this coming directly out of your butthole or does it go through your butt via your brain? The old Darwin was angry at god hypothesis. Yawn. Whether or not Darwin hated god or not is irrelevent to the theory. Are you bright enough to understand that statment? Let me try one. I hate god therefore pixies exist. Now I just need a theory of pixieism to prove my point. There are plenty of books on Darwin and his life. What you said doesn't even resemble an accurate portrayal of his life.

>>Symmetry is also proof for the existence of God.

If you think you can prove the fine tuning argument go right ahead. If anything it will be good for a laugh.

>>I can say one thing; the absolute truth does not change. You've got to find that truth. It doesn't change from person to person. If it did it would not be the truth.

The only half-way intelligent thing you said.

I'm assuming this is your first post to ASE, and a good first post indeed. Rate-up and welcome to the site. I respect the amount of of proof you've provided, it's not something I could have come up with.

Glad to see someone debunk that lost day in Joshua post. Most of that other stuff looks like »http://www.aseforums.com/user.php?id=3233 was referring to the work of the late Ron Wyatt. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/ark.asp A little background here. That link is to a creationist site. This creationist site has gone to a great deal of trouble to debunk a fellow creationist. Why you might ask? Because Wyatt was a liar and he made creationists look like bigger idiots than they generally make themselves look on their own. Normally creationists, be they young earth creationists or old earth creationists, will not normally turn on one another because they think that as long as you are working against evolution, you are ok. The problem with Wyatt is he made so many unverified claims over the years and every time legitimate scientists and even his fellow creationists would ask for anything that they could test to verify his claims he could not or would not produce anything. He always seemed to have an excuse.

Essentially, Wyatt seemed to basically operate as a con man for Christ. He relied on that fact that his fellow christians would just take his claims at face value and never even ask for proof. As long as Wyatt's work legitimized belief in the stories of the Bible, Christians weren't too picky about expecting him to actually provide evidence. He went along for years like that. He would take donations from people in order to go to the middle east and do his "research" and he would come back with amazing claims that he would never be able to show any evidence for. The one he is most famous for is his claim to have found Noah's Ark. It was when real scientists started investigating his claims, I believe, that even his own followers started questioning him and then, when they found out he was a fraud, started to abandon him.

When creationists, who aren't exactly famous for having anything resembling intellectual integrity start calling you a fraud, you have serious problems.

Well, it's only normal for Christians to turn on one another, hence the reason they have different sects. All of which say the other is going to Hell. Then there's the ever going argument that Mormonism is or Mormonish isn't a sect of Christianity. But it's true what you say, I've never seen any actual proof of Creationism, everything is circumstantial. Sure, the reason why the Earth is the perfect distance from the sun might be because of God or some higher power...but there's more to believe that it isn't. Evolutionism has a few flaws, because it's only a theory.

Evolution is no longer taught in its original form. And, by the way, most logical people who have extensive knowledge in evolution, when they test this theory in its many points, find evolution to have a lot of inconsistencies. Also evolution is often used to justify racism, because of the theory that the different races EVOLVED SEPARATELY. So who's to say that they won't use that to say there race is more evolved (like the Neo-Nazis say)? I check one of your websites anyway. It's a FORUM site. That means it's all OPINIONS of different people who see evolution in different ways. You're going to trust them? Most of the people on that forum are not scientists.
The ACLU only is on our side when we're on everybody elses side. When we disagree with the none Christians on some legal point, they are against us. Try reading about them in the encyclopeidia. They take the side of the special interest groups (homosexuals, atheists, humanists, etc.) They were on the court's side when they (illegally) had the ten commandments monument removed from Roy Moore's court house, and when they (illegally) charged Moore with obstruction of justice. Also most of the judges involved are members of the A-C-L-U. Oh, about the name change. I'm thinking American Communist Libertine (look it up) Union.

We are all born destined for Hell. That is why Jesus came to this world. When I speak of God as having human like characteristics it's because we were created in His image. Comparison: God: Father, Son, Holy Ghost; Humans: mind, body, spirit. The difference is that God does not sin. He made the rules; He can follow them. 'Course there are rules that He made just for us. Example: "'Revenge is mine,' says the Lord." When God judges someone it is righteous judgement. God does not hate any of us (not even the fallen angels). He hates our sin. When the bible says do not judge, it means "do not judge according to what you see, but by the truth". As a Christian, I believe the bible is true. Who would want to believe that there is a hateful God, but so many believe that. But God wants a relationship with all of us. Who would want to believe there is no God. We would be an accident then, without purpose. There is more than a bible full of proof against evolution.
Please, at least look it over (answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp).
I have been indoctrinated with evolution all my life and I believed it, but now I don't. It not because I'm closed minded, but I've researched this. Answers in Genesis does not just slap things on their website that says things against evolution. They check it out to see if it is plausible. They even have an article about objections not to use against evolution because they can't be proven or they are still being researched. But there is a bible-full of plausible theories and evidence.

>>Evolution is no longer taught in its original form

Hmm, how to answer such an astute observation? DUH! What scientific theory does not undergo changes and revisions to incorporate new information? When Darwin proposed his theory DNA had not even been discovered yet and yet something that had not even been discovered serves as another proof of the validity of the theory.

>>And, by the way, most logical people who have extensive knowledge in evolution, when they test this theory in its many points, find evolution to have a lot of inconsistencies

Really? Would the National Academy of Sciences be made up of "logical people who have extensive knowledge of evolution"? because they seem to disagree with you. http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ You think any of these professional teachers associations have any "logical people who have extensive knowledge of evolution"? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4409_statements_from_educational_or_12_19_2002.asp They don't seem to agree with your statement, either. It's one thing to make an bald assertion like you did. It is another thing to actually provide any actual evidence for it. Do you think any of these professional scientific organizations might have som "logical people who have extensive knowledge of evolution"? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9522_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp Funny, they don't seem to agree with your statement, either. Creationists talking out of their ass make such easy targets.

>>Also evolution is often used to justify racism, because of the theory that the different races EVOLVED SEPARATELY. So who's to say that they won't use that to say there race is more evolved (like the Neo-Nazis say)?

Are you trying to say that we shouldn't believe in Evolution because someone might misuse the information? We call that an argument from bad consequences. Do I need to provide a link to a logical fallacies site so you can understand how ridiculous an argument that is? Tracking of the evolution of our species using mitochondrial DNA suggests that modern humans started in Africa and migrated to different parts of the globe from there. Funny how creationists like you are essentially trying to attack the Theory of Evolution as it existed 100 years ago and try to ignore the past 100 years of scientific research. You have no idea how foolish it makes you look to have so weak a grasp of the subject you are arguing against.

>>I check one of your websites anyway. It's a FORUM site. That means it's all OPINIONS of different people who see evolution in different ways. You're going to trust them? Most of the people on that forum are not scientists.

You must not have checked very hard then if you are referring to http://www.talkorigins.org/. The majority of that website is a collection of articles based on peer-reviewed scientifc journals. If you had actually bothered to read anything there you would have noticed something you don't see on Creationist sites and that is references and citations to actually scientific journals. Saying it is opinions is like saying germ theory is just a snazzy idea. Do you have to work at it to sound this misinformed or does it come naturally?

>>The ACLU only is on our side when we're on everybody elses side. When we disagree with the none Christians on some legal point, they are against us. Try reading about them in the encyclopeidia. They take the side of the special interest groups (homosexuals, atheists, humanists, etc.) They were on the court's side when they (illegally) had the ten commandments monument removed from Roy Moore's court house, and when they (illegally) charged Moore with obstruction of justice. Also most of the judges involved are members of the A-C-L-U. Oh, about the name change. I'm thinking American Communist Libertine (look it up) Union

Which part of civics class did you not understand? Better question might be which part did you understand? Our country and the rights given to us by the Constitution are based on the belief that individuals have rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (might want to take note of the name) is an organization that defends CIVIL LIBERTIES. Gee, they put it right in the name and somehow you missed it. Do you consider Hindus, Christians and Muslims special interest groups? The ACLU has defended them as well. They defend AMERICANS. Not that difficult for most people to understand, but I guess you aren't most people. Oh, and if you care to enlighten us as to why it was illegal to remove the monument instead of just saying it was I would love to hear it. BTW, if good old Roy was so sure he was in the right then why did he sneak the monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night when he had it installed? Why did he not bother mentioning that he was doing it to anyone who was in charge of the grounds?

I've been to Answersingenesis many times. Tell me, do you know what Carl Sagan meant when he was referring to a God of the Gaps?

It is the reason why AIG has their "Please do not use these moronic arguments against Evolution" page at

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

For decades(sometimes longer) creationists have been using these idiotic arguments against evolution. AIG had to put up a page to try to convice their believers to not use them since they are so bad and go against basic and well understood scientific principles that creationists make themselves and their movement look idiotic by using them. Every year creationists continue to publish books with these same arguments in them and christians all over the world are stupid enough to fall for them.

Therein lies the kicker. They will always have to keep adding to that page. Science progresses and builds upon itself as knowledge grows. The God you want to believe created fish and photosynthesis and ribonucleic acid and the planets and stars is slowly being squeezed into an ever smaller gap as scientific knowledge grows. We don't need the god of the bible or the koran or the vedas to explain the world around us anymore. We aren't the primitive, animal fur wearing cave dwellers that needed to believe in a god to explain why cuts heal or grass grows or lightning flashes.

Know what? It's late and I really have no interest in going through that hideous collection of logically fallacious arguments and bald assertions of yours tonight. I may bother with it some time this week, but then again I may not. If you want to believe that the bible has some great scientific truths, fine. Do us all a favor and post a list of gods top ten scientific discoveries and I'll try to come up with a list comparing man's discoveries. Sound fair? I'm sure god will compare very favorably. After all, he is god, right? He wanted to tell us really important scientific stuff in the bible, right? Thought so.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law CONCERNING the establishment of religion NOR PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE thereof." That means congress cannot take prayer out of our schools, they cannot classify preaching against homosexuality as a hate crime, and they cannot prohibit students from taking their bibles to school; because that would be unconstitutional and infringing on our rights. But the ACLU (and/or their supporters) want it that way. They want to take away our rights just to make everybody else happy. Though they might claim it's to protect us from hate crimes. But we must take the risk by telling people the truth. By the way, Answers in Genesis does use creationist and non-creationist sources and give footnotes at the end of each article.
Okay I took a closer look at that site that you believe in. I read the archaeopteryx article and he lied about our beliefs. The archaeopteryx does look like a transitional form. But not many SUPPOSED transitional forms have been found beyond it. There should be thousands (even millions) of transitional forms if in fact the archaeopteryx is a transitional form between reptiles and birds. In fact, plenty of non- creation scientist do not consider the archaeopteryx a missing link (watch Secret, Strange, and True, a non-creation scientific series]). They referred to archaeoraptor as the possible missing link until it was found to be a forgery. The studies scientists have done to prove the link between birds and reptiles can be easily argued against. Scientists found that by moving/removing a certain gene that the could make birds grow scales all over. But they have not tried that one reptiles (or at least the reverse of that). Birds already have scales. So to grow scales all over a bird you use the existing genetic information, which is what they did. Reptiles don't have information for feathers so they can only grow feathers if that information is implanted in them. There has been found "proof" about dinosaurs with feathers. Where were they found? China! Doesn't China have feathered dragons in their mythology? Where would they get this from? Maybe from dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans? This seems proof to me that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago but only thousands. And besides, dinsaurs have been spotted in heavily wood areas by people who have never heard of dinosaurs. Like mokele mbembe (possible apatosaurus?) in Africa and allosaurs attacking cattle in Australia. The book of Job (in the Bible) refers to an animal called behemoth. It is described as being able to stand in the Jordan river and not be washed away. Do you know how deep the Jordan is? They try to claim it was an elephant, wildebeest, etc. But it is also desribed as having a tail like a cedar (tree, not twig). I'd describe an elephant's tail as more like a string with a tassle a the end. This decription sounds to me like a sauropod. It's strength is in its loins. Sounds like it had big muscular legs (like a dinosaur).

I'd rather listen to someone talking nicely than to a rude person who curses at least once per paragraph (if not more). In fact your evolution friends on that website you hold so dear are rude as well. I have watch and read non-creationist sources about the claims of your evolutions and a lot of evolutions would disagree with them for good reason (see Secret, Strange, and True on G4TechTV). They don't argue against evolution but they are truthful (unlike some scientists) about what they found in their research. By the way, most of these old arguments for creation are from world renowned scientists like Gregor Mendel and Lenaeus (or however you spell it) who were creationists. And there studies on genetics are still taught in school textbooks though they disagree with evolution. But evolutionists try to explain that away. I looked in the World Book Encyclopedia at the Evolution article. It states that evolution produces "new characteristics". For "new characteristics" to be produced, new genes would have to be added to the genome of the species in question. There is no proof that any mutation exists that can create "new characteristics" that is new genes. Just the characteristics that had remained recesssive for generations have become dominant (that is visible). By the way, I think I read the article where they mention "God of the Gaps". I don't think they were saying that he believes in God. I think they were saying it was interesting that he used that phrase. Also, do the evolutionists have an article on "arguments not to use against creation"? If they don't, it's because that would be a VERY BIG article.

By that definition that you gave of evolution (the change of allele frequencies over time). Try looking in an old encyclopedia (ex. World Book, 1974). They don't give that definition. The definition that you gave is a new definition of evolution. When I took biology in high school, they never gave such a definition. And by the way, allele frequencies can change over night. For example, I think it was in Africa that a species of frog had a very low population of a certain sex in their species. I can't remember which one (look it up). So some members of the remaining sex began to change their allele frequencies from one sex to another. So they evened out the male/female ratio. Also, the change of allele frequencies can not explain the vast deference in genetic structure between humans and single-celled organisms. And why do humans have less chromosomes than the worm-- a "lower lifeform"?
Look at answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp

>>The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law CONCERNING the establishment of religion NOR PROHIBIT the FREE EXERCISE thereof."

This is what the first amendment says, dimwit. If you are going to quote something like the most important document in American history you might actually try quoting it accurately. Jesus, you don't need me to make you look incompetent, you do it too well all by yourself.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

It has been interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court to mean that government cannot endorse a religion. I'll use small words so you can understand this...TEACHER LED school prayer has been deemed unconstitutional. Students can pray in school all they want. Nobody has EVER stopped them without being ruled incorrect. The ACLU has defended STUDENT LED prayer. You weren't aware of that were you?

>>By the way, Answers in Genesis does use creationist and non-creationist sources and give footnotes at the end of each article.

They quote their own literature the great majority of the time and they rarely if ever quote from a mainstream peer-reviewed journal unless it is to misquote it or take it completely out of context. I would be happy to provide links to their deceptive use of journal references.

>>Okay I took a closer look at that site that you believe in. I read the archaeopteryx article and he lied about our beliefs. The archaeopteryx does look like a transitional form. But not many SUPPOSED transitional forms have been found beyond it. There should be thousands (even millions) of transitional forms if in fact the archaeopteryx is a transitional form between reptiles and birds

Really, did you miss this? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Transitional forms have been found in the fossil record from basically every type of animal on earth. I like the use of the discredited argument, btw. It really warms my heart to see creationists use bad arguments over and over. It makes my job that much easier.

The fact of the matter is that science only needed to find ONE transitional fossil to make the creation model invalid. They only needed to show that species did not spring fully formed from god's hand and with every new transitional fossil found another nail is driven into the coffin of creationism. With every new transitional found, every creationist that continues to say,"there are no transitional fossils" is either an idiot or a liar. Which are you?

BTW, since you are on a bird kick here are some of the recently discovered bird transitionals. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

Continued..

>>(watch Secret, Strange, and True, a non-creation scientific series])

That show is about as scientific as "In Search of" was back in the 70's. It panders to the nutjobs and conspiracy theorists of the world. You should feel at home there.

>>They referred to archaeoraptor as the possible missing link until it was found to be a forgery.

Lovely assertion. Care to prove it? Betcha can't find a single mainstream scientific source that makes that claim. Let me help you dig your own grave.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/olson.html Do a page search for archeoraptor. Prepare to be embarassed.

>>Birds already have scales.

Actually, pinhead, if birds have the capacity to grow scales, but reptiles don't have the ability to grow feathers that implies that one evolved from the other or weren't you bright enough to figure that out? Things evolve through selection and what? Come on, you know it. Say it with me...MUTATION. A mutation that caused the evolution of feathers would not have to be in reptiles, Einstein. It would just need to be in the species that evolved feathers. Need me to draw you a picture?

>>There has been found "proof" about dinosaurs with feathers

There have been at least a dozen transitional bird fossils discovered. Had you actually done any research you would probably be aware of this, but you don't seem to be capable of that, only asserting things you hear from creationists. Here is a shovel you can use to dig that hole a bit deeper. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

>>This seems proof to me that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago but only thousands

BRILLIANT! Using your astute deductions we can then also conclude that Leprechauns existed and fairies and eight armed womed named Shiva and Pegasus must have existed too. My goodness, you have in a single stroke proved the existence of every mythological being ever imagined. NOT!

>>And besides, dinsaurs have been spotted in heavily wood areas by people who have never heard of dinosaurs

Really, care to provide any scientific references? Here is a hint. If you were planning on using a photo you saw on the cover of a grocery store tabloid, that doesn't count.

>>Like mokele mbembe (possible apatosaurus?) in Africa and allosaurs attacking cattle in Australia.

Fascinating. Amazing how this could go on in a country with some of the most accomplished hunters in the world and yet nobody has managed to track it down or snap a picture of it. Is your picture in the dictionary under gullible or perhaps stupid?

>>he book of Job (in the Bible) refers to an animal called behemoth. It is described as being able to stand in the Jordan river and not be washed away. Do you know how deep the Jordan is?

The bible also descibes a talking donkey and a world wide flood. Thus far we have no proof that any of these things existed or happened. Why, pray tell, should we believe the bible about a big monster when it expects us to believe so many ridiculous and unproven claims? Tree rings go back 10,000 years and yet no flood was recorded. Greenland ice cores go back 40,000 years and while a world wide flood would have had to have been noted, yet nothing appears there. If we can't believe the bible about events that you claim are within the scope of modern man, then why should we believe it about anything?

Start making sense. I'll try to get around to the rest of your drivel later this week.

> snipped your usual unsupported blather until...By the way, most of these old arguments for creation are from world renowned scientists like Gregor Mendel and Lenaeus (or however you spell it) who were creationists. And there studies on genetics are still taught in school textbooks though they disagree with evolution.

Mendle proved that traits were inherited, dumbass. This is integral to evolutionary theory. My god, did you even attend biology class? Lenaeus the appelation of Bacchus the god of wine? How is this even relevant?

>>I looked in the World Book Encyclopedia at the Evolution article. It states that evolution produces "new characteristics". For "new characteristics" to be produced, new genes would have to be added to the genome of the species in question.

New genes do not have to be produced. Mutations need to occur. You might try here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=genetic+mutation&topic=all&sort=relevance

>>There is no proof that any mutation exists that can create "new characteristics" that is new genes. Just the characteristics that had remained recesssive for generations have become dominant (that is visible).

See the link above. If you think genetic mutations have not been proven to create new characteristics you are either incredibly ignorant or a liar.

>>By the way, I think I read the article where they mention "God of the Gaps". I don't think they were saying that he believes in God. I think they were saying it was interesting that he used that phrase.

Carl Sagan was an atheist, so no he didn't believe in god. The whole point was that science is causing us to rethink our view of the world. God is no longer neccessary to explain the workings of the natural world. He is occupying a smaller and smaller "gap" in our knowledge.

>>Also, do the evolutionists have an article on "arguments not to use against creation"? If they don't, it's because that would be a VERY BIG article.

I've failed to point out something to you thus far that seems to have eluded even your keen intellect. You haven't put forth a single argument FOR special creation. You tried(pathetically I might add) to disprove evolution, but for some strange reason you have failed to give a single reason why to believe in any of the hundreds of creation myths, yours included. Why do you think creationists have failed to have creationism taught in schools, even when they have gone to court to try to force it? Simple. They don't have ANY proof that special creation occured. Without that single shred of evidence that cannot even begin to call it science. To answer you then, the reason there is no article of things not to use against creation is that you don't have any for creation, dumbass.