OLAADEGBU:

This is a typical example of how evolutionists use bifurcation, an attempt to claim that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities, when they may be three or more options.

What is your answer? Why don't you present the other options and give your answer at the same time.

thehomer:

You now wish to shift gears to the use of the word "race" in the title of the book. Here you go with a fallacy of equivocation. See here for the various meanings of the word race. You're equivocating between the second and fourth meanings.

Here some quotes from the book that shows the agenda of your masters:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens." -- Henry Fairfield Osborn

thehomer:

I shouldn't have to do that if you properly quote people which is what one is supposed to do.

You don't do proper researches by being spoonfed with google.

thehomer:

Yes it is a joke as you keep demonstrating with what you generally post.

You are yet to answer any of the questions posted here since you arrived as the bright and light armour.

thehomer:

How does that miss the point. It demonstrates that you simply lied in claiming that I never asked for you to demonstrate how you came about those figures.

This is what you are known for, accusing others of lying.  What do you base your standard on since you don't believe in absolute authority/morality?

thehomer:

It is meaningless to anyone who understands how probability figures are applied. What you and your fellows demonstrate is that you do not understand how to use the tool of probability calculations.

The questions are still begging for answers and yet you are here bluffing on what you've got no clue about.  What is the ultimate source of the universe and how did life begin are the issues for you to deal with?

thehomer:

I know what 10 e^-50 means what I'm asking is why that figure? Why not 10 e^-40 or 10 e^-60?

With all my explanation you still don't get it, since you are unwilling to learn and unable to answer the question posed what are now saying?

thehomer:

What is the probability of getting 200 atoms of sodium chloride in the formation below?

You are still beating about the bush, answer the questions posed and stop wasting my time.

thehomer:

It's about 1.6069 e^-60. Yet it happens all the time. Note that this is not even up to the 58.5g in my example and this example is in 2 dimensions while the crystal is in three dimensions which means a further reduction in the probability of such an occurrence.

Is this your answer that life originates by chance?  When you don't know what to say you go on saying what is irrelevant.

thehomer:

I never claimed that they were non-random. You need to be consistent. Are the physical laws random or not?

Ask your evolutionist professors.

thehomer:

You really do not know what the begging the question fallacy entails. Do you not see that that is what you do each time you call on the Bible as some sort of source of evidence on why any one else should believe it is true?
Keep in mind that I have not assumed anything. All I do is demonstrate that as far as we know, the laws are consistent. If you wish to claim that they are not consistent, you need to present evidence for this.

You have assumed that God does not exist because of you don't believe miracles can occur and this has been the stance of your evolutionary indoctrination.

thehomer:

What is your answer? Why don't you present the other options and give your answer at the same time.

Since you have refused or unable to answer questions here it will not be wise of me to entertain you with answer any further because there is a saying that says don't teach a pig to sing because it will not only waste your time but will annoy the pig.

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

OLAADEGBU:

Here some quotes that shows the agenda of your masters:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." -- Charles Darwin

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." -- Thomas Huxley

"The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo sapiens." -- Henry Fairfield Osborn  

These quotes and more are the real reason your heroes took it a step further and carried out what is called EUGENICS, the act of cleansing out people groups they considered inferior, and here you are saying you evolved from an animal, why then should you feel insulted if someone says that you are related to a monkey.

I really don't get the relevance of those quotes to anything we've been discussing. You need to note that what Darwin has been saying and what the theory of evolution shows is that all humans are related and are more closely related to chimpanzees and monkeys than to e.g kangaroos. When errors you make are pointed out, you need to admit them.

OLAADEGBU:

You don't do proper researches by being spoonfed with google.

It's not about me researching, it's about you quoting people fully.

OLAADEGBU:

You are yet to answer any of the questions posted here since you arrived as the bright and light armour.

On the contrary, I have answered many of the questions you've posted but all you demonstrate is that you do not understand the arguments that you copy and paste. Put in the effort to understand what you are copying.

OLAADEGBU:

This is what you are known for, accusing others of lying.  What do you base your standard on since you don't believe in absolute authority/morality?

Nice a bait and switch. I've not seen this in a while. Let's go back to your lying. Did you note the numerous places where I asked you the question that you claim I hadn't asked?

OLAADEGBU:

The questions are still begging for answers and yet you are here bluffing on what you've got no clue about.  What is the ultimate source of the universe and how did life begin are the issues for you to deal with?

Another bait and switch clearly demonstrating that you really do not understand the argument by probability that you were copying. Get yourself informed.

OLAADEGBU:

With all my explanation you still don't get it, since you are unwilling to learn and unable to answer the question posed what are now saying?

Yet another bait and switch. You really do not know how the figure 10e^-50 was arrived at do you? This is why you need to avoid copying arguments you do not understand.

OLAADEGBU:

You are still beating about the bush, answer the questions posed and stop wasting my time.

That is not beating about the bush. That is a better formed probability argument based on our knowledge of the structure of sodium chloride.

OLAADEGBU:

Is this your answer that life originates by chance?  When you don't know what to say you go on saying what is irrelevant.

Where did I say life originates by chance? This simply clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the weakness of the probability argument. Get yourself some education.

OLAADEGBU:

Ask your evolutionist professors.

Oooh a straight up evasion when faced with a direct question. A very bad sign.

OLAADEGBU:

You have assumed that God does not exist because of you don't believe miracles can occur and this has been the stance of your evolutionary indoctrination.

What does one have to do with the other? You are clearly grasping at straws here. You do not even understand the fallacies that you accuse others of committing.

OLAADEGBU:

Since you have refused or unable to answer questions here it will not be wise of me to entertain you with answer any further because there is a saying that says don't teach a pig to sing because it will not only waste your time but will annoy the pig.

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

Another evasion. Seems like you're on the run here. Let me give you the question again please do not run away or try to evade because I will get you.

Please tell me, is it immoral for a person to marry their sibling? Please answer with a yes or no. If you feel yes or no does not cover it, then give your answer with a proper explanation.

thehomer:

Another evasion. Seems like you're on the run here. Let me give you the question again please do not run away or try to evade because I will get you.

Please tell me, is it immoral for a person to marry their sibling? Please answer with a yes or no. If you feel yes or no does not cover it, then give your answer with a proper explanation.

You still don't get it. I will rather take the advise of John Paul Getty who said

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

OLAADEGBU:

You still don't get it. I will rather take the advise of John Paul Getty who said

"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

We're now up to pigs singing? I hope you realize the implications of this statement to you because I've been trying to teach you by providing basic information but you seem to be getting annoyed.
Sorry my bad. I guess I'll just have to leave you to your ignorance.

OLAADEGBU:

Thanks for your effort.  Can you kindly tell me the ultimate cause of the universe and how did life originate according to your evolution?

This was the simple question I asked and while Martian tried his possible best to answer them you have not even tried to do the same, whether its because you could not, would not or cannot answer them but rather bluff and blow hot air that impresses no one but you and your folks. It is either you answer them or forever hold your peace.

OLAADEGBU:

To help you understand what we are talking about is that one of the components of life is information.  The common factor in all living organisms is the information contained in their cells.  Can you tell us, where and how did all this coded information arise, if you know?  Tell us how life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information.  Explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome, to start with.

Here are other questions you artfully dodged and pretended to have answered.  Until you have done justice to these questions you should not be taken seriously and it will confirm that you are just an attention seeker.

The Manufacturer's Warning

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20040830.gif[/img]

Fishy Morality.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20100326.gif[/img]

OLAADEGBU:

This was the simple question I asked and while Martian tried his possible best to answer them you have not even tried to do the same, whether its because you could not, would not or cannot answer them but rather bluff and blow hot air that impresses no one but you and your folks.  It is either you answer them or forever hold your peace.

OLAADEGBU:

Here are other questions you artfully dodged and pretended to have answered.  Until you have done justice to these questions you should not be taken seriously and it will confirm that you are just an attention seeker.

Before you finally shift gears, do you agree that you do not understand your probability argument or that that argument fails? I ask because I notice your rapid and recent attempts at distancing yourself from it. I need to know that when these other issues are fully addressed, you will be able to admit when your argument flops.

OLAADEGBU:

Fishy Morality.

Why do you keep changing the Subject line of the thread? Are you being deceptive?

thehomer:

Before you finally shift gears, do you agree that you do not understand your probability argument or that that argument fails? I ask because I notice your rapid and recent attempts at distancing yourself from it. I need to know that when these other issues are fully addressed, you will be able to admit when your argument flops.

C'mon, don't pretend as if you are just seeing the questions, look at the dates they were posted it is evident that you are just playing ignorance and I have learnt my lessons not to teach a pig to sing after teaching you how the probability of evolution is impossible.

OLAADEGBU:

C'mon, don't pretend as if you are just seeing the questions, look at the dates they were posted it is evident that you are just playing ignorance and I have learnt my lessons not to teach a pig to sing after teaching you how the probability of evolution is impossible.

All you managed to show was that you did not understand the argument you were making and how futile it is to teach you scientific facts generally accepted and applied by people.

A young woman teacher with obvious liberal tendencies explains to her class of small children that she is an atheist.  She asks her class if they are atheists too.  Not really knowing what atheism is but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands shoot into the air.  There is, however, one exception.  A beautiful girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd.  The teacher asks why she has decided to be different.

"Because I'm not an atheist."

"So,"

asks the teacher,

"what are you?"

"A Christian"

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red.  She asks Lucy why she thinks she is a Christian.

"Well, I was brought up knowing and loving Jesus.  My mum is a Christian and, my dad is a Christian, I also accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour and I know I'm a Christian."

The teacher is visibly angry now.

"That's no reason,"

she says loudly,

"What if your mum had been a mo-ron and, your dad had been a mo-ron.  What would that make you then?"

After a pause, and a smile.

"Then,"

says Lucy,

"that would make me an atheist."           

-- J. John and Mark Stibbe

thehomer:

All you managed to show was that you did not understand the argument you were making and how futile it is to teach you scientific facts generally accepted and applied by people.

Every reader following or reading this thread can clearly see how I tried to make you understand how the law of probability could be applied to determining the beginning of life as I have reposted below, I am still awaiting answers to the questions I posed which till now you have failed to answer.

OLAADEGBU:

It may be meaningless to you and your evolutionists croonies but not to those with open minds and are ready to learn. To help you understand what we are talking about is that one of the components of life is information. The common factor in all living organisms is the information contained in their cells. Can you tell us, where and how did all this coded information arise, if you know? Tell us how life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information. Explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome, to start with.

OLAADEGBU:

What it was simply saying is that according to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occuring is smaller than 1 in 10^-50 (which I explained as 1 divided by 10⁵⁰), then the event will never occur. What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left handed amino acids? Let me assist you with this, to assemble just 100 left handed amino acids would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 10[sup]30 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times). This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe, even according to your evolutionary time frames for this to happen.

This is a lesson that it is a waste of time trying to teach a pig to sing.

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

Science disproves Evolution

Real scientists easily refute false ideas that does not stand up to scientific laws.  Let us see a couple of ideas which scientific laws can refute scientifically, rationally, reasonably and logically.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O

This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement:

"Man has evolved from a long process of evolution" 

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?  We can know by testing it with the scientific law.  There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life.   All other attempts by evolutionists have been proven to be false.

Lol. Infinite regression aside, how did God create Mr. Adam? Oh, yeah, with sand like Imhotep in The Mummy. Why is it so hard to understand that evolution doesn't disprove God's existence?

OLAADEGBU:

Every reader following or reading this thread can clearly see how I tried to make you understand how the law of probability could be applied to determining the beginning of life as I have reposted below, I am still awaiting answers to the questions I posed which till now you have failed to answer.

No I say that you are unable to make me understand what you think is the law of probability because you do not understand it yourself. This is one of the main reasons why you abandoned that line of argument once you were presented with its implications. You still fail to give your reason why this 10e^-50 would be impossible because the arrangement of 100 atoms of NaCl is even less than this yet it occurs.

With respect to your first question, what do you mean by information here? Keep in mind that you are yet to falsify evolution with your numbers.

OLAADEGBU:

This is a lesson that it is a waste of time trying to teach a pig to sing.

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

Of course I've tried teaching you but it seems you've gotten annoyed. What is the probability of the order found in 58.5g of NaCl?

vescucci:

Lol. Infinite regression aside, how did God create Mr. Adam? Oh, yeah, with sand like Imhotep in The Mummy. Why is it so hard to understand that evolution doesn't disprove God's existence?

Why don't you start by telling us logically and scientifically how your Allah used evolution, since you are infinitely progessive?

OLAADEGBU:

Science disproves Evolution

Evolution is a scientific theory so please demonstrate this. Keep in mind the project Steve that I referred you to.

OLAADEGBU:

Real scientists easily refute false ideas that does not stand up to scientific laws.  Let us see a couple of ideas which scientific laws can refute scientifically, rationally, reasonably and logically.

In Mathematics:

(x + y)²= x²+y²

This is false because the law of Mathematics has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

(x + y)²= x²+2.xy + y²

In Chemistry:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₃O

This is a false equation because the law of Stoichiometry has been violated.  The correct equation will be:

NaOH + HCl = NaCl + H₂O

In Biology:

The statement:

"Man has evolved from a long process of evolution" 

How do we know whether this statement is true or false?  We can know by testing it with the scientific law.  There are at least three realities that we can observe, which are life, information and matter.  Louis Pasteur is the only scientist who has formulated and scientifically discovered the law of life that God originated; that life can only come from life.   All other attempts by evolutionists have been proven to be false.

The above statement is meaningless. That is similar to saying you were born from birth or the horse evolved from evolution.

I'm curious, how do we observe life and information?
I have tried to correct you several times but it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. You just keep getting it wrong leading you to get annoyed while wasting my time.
[size=16pt]Evolution is not about the origin of life but about the diversity of life.[/size]

thehomer:

No I say that you are unable to make me understand what you think is the law of probability because you do not understand it yourself. This is one of the main reasons why you abandoned that line of argument once you were presented with its implications. You still fail to give your reason why this 10e^-50 would be impossible because the arrangement of 100 atoms of NaCl is even less than this yet it occurs.

With respect to your first question, what do you mean by information here? Keep in mind that you are yet to falsify evolution with your numbers.

Of course I've tried teaching you but it seems you've gotten annoyed. What is the probability of the order found in 58.5g of NaCl?

You should be ashamed of yourself.  All you seem to do is to bluff and throw temper tantrums, you have not answered one question on this thread.  How will I make you understand logic and science since your mind is already made up?  Giving you facts would only end up confusing you, hence you get angry and waste people's time here by your rude and illogical remarks.

Ah. I'm rarely speechless. I thought you and the Muslims woulda been on the same side on this. Anyways, carry on. Goodluck ese.

thehomer:

Evolution is a scientific theory so please demonstrate this. Keep in mind the project Steve that I referred you to.

The above statement is meaningless. That is similar to saying you were born from birth or the horse evolved from evolution.

I'm curious, how do we observe life and information?
I have tried to correct you several times but it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. You just keep getting it wrong leading you to get annoyed while wasting my time.
[size=16pt]Evolution is not about the origin of life but about the diversity of life.[/size]

As I said earlier, it is an exercise in futility trying to make you sing but if you insist on singing you will have to start from the basics.  Answer the basic questions first before you jump to the advanced ones.

The question I am asking is:

1.  Where did the matter come from that created the fireball? In order to have a big bang, we need something (matter/energy) to go bang.  --  Where and how did this original matter/energy originate?

2.  How did life develop from non-life?

Answer these first before you begin to bite more than your teeth can chew.

vescucci:

Ah. I'm rarely speechless. I thought you and the Muslims woulda been on the same side on this. Anyways, carry on. Goodluck ese.

I apologise if I misunderstood your statement.  I know that Muslims are intelligent enough to realise that God created supernaturally and not by evolution.

OLAADEGBU:

You should be ashamed of yourself.  All you seem to do is to bluff and throw temper tantrums, you have not answered one question on this thread.  How will I make you to understand logic and science since your mind is already made up?  Giving you facts would only end up confusing you, hence you get angry and waste people's time here by your rude and illogical reasons.

You really like describing yourself without knowing. I also notice how you keep accusing others of doing what you are doing. Though I've answered several of your questions some of them quite meaningless since you do not understand what you post.
No it's you who seems unable to use tools such as science and logic. You keep demonstrating this in the fallacies you make and in the terrible arguments you make like your failed probability argument.

Biblical knowledge verified by scientific calculations

John Heffner, a mathematics professor, puts The theory of evolution to the test, using the human population formula based on the claim that an average birth rate of 2.5 children per family yields and exponential population growth rate. 

Watch him put both the Creation and Evolution Models to the test and see how each would fared under the unbiased scrutiny of Mathematics.  Which one is correct, Biblical Creation or Evolution?

The Evolution Model

[list]
[li]About 15 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 3.5 billion years ago life evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 0.5-1.0 billion years ago humans evolved from ape-like creatures[/li]
[/list]
(By time, chance and natural processes).

Creation Model

[list]
[li]God created the universe and everything in it in 6 (24hr) days, 6,000 years ago[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Sin was the cause of death[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Man was created in the image of God[/li]
[/list]

John Heffner put these two theories to test by using the formula; Growth rate = birth rate - death rate.

According to biblical knowledge;

Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago, and with 4 couples at the rate of 2.5 children per family will result in 6.5 billion people in the world. (6.5 x 10⁹) 

Creation hits the bulls eye

According to the Theory of Evolution

"The evolutionary journey to modern humans ends with the appearance about 500,000 years ago of Homo Sapiens" Biology, Raven and Johnson p.525

That means about 500,000 years of man, at the rate of 2.5 children per family will produce 2.45 x 10⁹⁹⁰ people.  This is more than the number of electrons in the universe!!!, which is in the 10¹³⁰

Watch the whole programme in the videoclips below especially the second link if you can. 

This shows that the Bible is supported by Science or rather that science supports biblical creation and not evolution.

Biblical creation hits the bulls eye

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31t1C8K1r24[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYp7GAE9xQ&NR=1[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_FGtNxd6s&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

OLAADEGBU:

As I said earlier, it is an exercise in futility trying to make you sing but if you insist on singing you will have to start from the basics.  Answer the basic questions first before you jump to the advanced ones.

I understand your inability to sing but it's largely your fault because you choose to be willfully ignorant. What you have also managed to demonstrate here is the widely acknowledged Dunning Kruger effect which makes you think that questions on how life developed and how the universe began are less advanced than other questions being addressed here. I know you're quite confused.

OLAADEGBU:

The question I am asking is:

1.  Where did the matter come from that created the fireball? In order to have a big bang, we need something (matter/energy) to go bang.  --  Where and how did this original matter/energy originate?

What fireball? Who says the Big bang was a fireball? Why do you think the matter had to originate from somewhere or something?

OLAADEGBU:

2.  How did life develop from non-life?
Answer these first before you begin to bite more than your teeth can chew.

I do not know but there are several promising hypothesis.
Are you ready to answer my questions or have you already bitten off more than you can chew?

thehomer:

I understand your inability to sing but it's largely your fault because you choose to be willfully ignorant. What you have also managed to demonstrate here is the widely acknowledged Dunning Kruger effect which makes you think that questions on how life developed and how the universe began are less advanced than other questions being addressed here. I know you're quite confused.

If you cannot answer how the universe and life originated then your evolution myth has no foundation to stand on.  What is the point of building your castle in the air for when you have no intention of starting from the foundation?

thehomer:

What fireball? Who says the Big bang was a fireball? Why do you think the matter had to originate from somewhere or something?

You are still asking questions.  A big bang needs a banger, what is the cause?  If someone knocks on your door would you ignore the knock as if no one is at the door or will you get up and answer it?

thehomer:

I do not know but there are several promising hypothesis.
Are you ready to answer my questions or have you already bitten off more than you can chew?

Evolution is not even an hypothesis as it cannot be tested in the laboratory.  And which questions are you ready to ask when you fail to answer any? do you think you atheist evolutionists have the monopoly to asking questions without answering the ones posed to you?  There is no escaping here as there can only be 3 possible answers as to what caused this universe to be and they can only be one of the following options, what is your pick? Explain your point.

1. The universe created itself;
2. The universe has always existed;
3. The universe had to be created.

OLAADEGBU:

Biblical knowledge verified by scientific calculations

John Heffner, a mathematics professor, puts The theory of evolution to the test, using the human population formula based on the claim that an average birth rate of 2.5 children per family yields and exponential population growth rate.

Watch him put both the Creation and Evolution Models to the test and see how each would fared under the unbiased scrutiny of Mathematics.  Which one is correct, Biblical Creation or Evolution?

Here you come again with your suspicious sources. Who is this John Heffner? Is he qualified to make these tests? How did he perform this calculation? You have started again with your cut and paste without understanding what it is you're doing. What was the death rate? Why did he use 2.5 and not 4.5 %? Do you know that the current world birth rate is about 19.4? So how is he picking the values?

OLAADEGBU:

The Evolution Model

[list]
[li]About 15 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 3.5 billion years ago life evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 0.5-1.0 billion years ago humans evolved from ape-like creatures[/li]
[/list]
(By time, chance and natural processes).

Anatomically modern humans were not present until about 200,000 years ago so, here you go with your outright lying.

OLAADEGBU:

Creation Model

[list]
[li]God created the universe and everything in it in 6 (24hr) days, 6,000 years ago[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Sin was the cause of death[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Man was created in the image of God[/li]
[/list]

John Heffner put these two theories to test by using the formula; Growth rate = birth rate - death rate.

Your so-called Creation Model is not even a hypothesis. How do you scientifically evaluate sin? How about the image of God? The other lines not affected by this fantasy have been demonstrated to be false going by scientific analysis. So, you're just copying stuff that was made up.

OLAADEGBU:

According to biblical knowledge;

Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago, and with 4 couples at the rate of 2.5 children per family will result in 6.5 billion people in the world. (6.5 x 10⁹) 

Creation hits the bulls eye

Your values are simply made up to arrive at our current population. This is a fallacy called a Texas sharp shooter fallacy.

OLAADEGBU:

According to the Theory of Evolution

"The evolutionary journey to modern humans ends with the appearance about 500,000 years ago of Homo Sapiens" Biology, Raven and Johnson p.525

That means about 500,000 years of man, at the rate of 2.5 children per family will produce 2.45 x 10⁹⁹⁰ people.  This is more than the number of electrons in the universe!!!, which is in the 10¹³⁰

Watch the whole programme in the videoclips below especially the second link if you can. 

This shows that the Bible is supported by Science or rather that science supports biblical creation and not evolution.

See the above mentioned fallacy. You have also failed to show how you arrived at your starting figures neither have you shown why anyone should consider the Bible as a credible source of scientific information better than using circular reasoning. This is besides the lies you posted above.

OLAADEGBU:

Biblical creation hits the bulls eye

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31t1C8K1r24[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYp7GAE9xQ&NR=1[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_FGtNxd6s&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

Again with the videos which will be ignored.

OLAADEGBU:

A young woman teacher with obvious liberal tendencies explains to her class of small children that she is an atheist. She asks her class if they are atheists too. Not really knowing what atheism is but wanting to be like their teacher, their hands shoot into the air. There is, however, one exception. A beautiful girl named Lucy has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks why she has decided to be different.

"Because I'm not an atheist."

"So,"

asks the teacher,

"what are you?"

"A Christian"

The teacher is a little perturbed now, her face slightly red. She asks Lucy why she thinks she is a Christian.

"Well, I was brought up knowing and loving Jesus. My mum is a Christian and, my dad is a Christian, I also accepted Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour and I know I'm a Christian."

The teacher is visibly angry now.

"That's no reason,"

she says loudly,

"What if your mum had been a not-so-smart person and, your dad had been a not-so-smart person. What would that make you then?"

After a pause, and a smile.

"Then,"

says Lucy,

"that would make me an atheist."