Evolution is Such a Fraud But The Sophsticates Wikll Browbeat Us Forever Over It

The more I try to think about the strata, those layers of sedimentary rock found all over the Earth that are equated with specific time pderiods of the past, the wackier it all seems that they were ever equated with time periods. The scientific creationists get into the rocks and examine their content and the fossils they contain and can show that way how the facts support rapid deposition of the sediment rather than slow incremental accumulation over millions of years. B But it still seems to me that just looking at the strata either in the reality of the Grand Canyon or any other actual situation, or on that cross secrion I like so much of the Grand Staircase-Grand Canyon area, you have to see with a little thought that it's absolutely impossible that they could ever have existed as separate time periods for millions of years. The idea is ludicrous in the extreme. You'd think a Dawkins or any of the scientists dealing with these things would see it.
]
I always come back to noting that they are individual undisturbed. Whether you are to think of them as havingb been underwater during their supposed time period, as presumably those of the paelolithic part of the stack would have been since they are mostly marine creatures continaed in the ro rocks, or on the surface of the earth, thethey are straught and flat on their surfaces, they usually cover enormous areas, whole contine nts, are found on many continents, yes the same layers, and surely it's not hard to see that they couldn't have surfivied either underwater or on the surface for anyh time at all in that straight falt condition.
]
,br>
RThose observations and the work of the scientists show over and over again that the best explanation for their actual condition is rapid deposition under water and Noah's Flood fits the necessary conditions both for the structure of the rocks and for the condition of the fossils like no other explanation could. ,br>
And yet they are going to go on believing that nonsense aren't they?
]
And the nonsense that
eEvolution by natural selection" explains all the diversityh of life that exists. That phrase was said over and over again in the atheist discussions, lectures and debates I've been watching. And it's always described as a hallmark of intelligence and grownupness to agree with it. I'm not going to lay it out again here because my computer is already straining to hold this much of a post, but sselection requires the loss of genetic diveristy. Evolution can't be the result of selection therefore.

Another Creationist Proof that the Flood Made the FOssil Record

Sometimes I think creationists should just get ver loud and seek public attention because this stuff has been proved over and over again. Here's Andrew Enelling proving it again too:" ,br>

Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath Debate

The debatges between Another debate betwen an atheist and a Christian. Put it this way: these are debates between tghe flesh and the spirit. Hitchesns whole frame of reference is of course the flesh because he's a fallen unreddeemed man. He has no clue about the regenerated spirit. Christians don't argue consistently fro the spirt of course. But that's something to discuss at some latger time.
]

SO mUCH tO sAY aBOUT THE sILLY aTHEISTS tHAT mY hANDICAPS wON'T alLOW

Still wandering in the desert of the atheists at You Tube. Praying for the healing of my eyes and a more reliable computer so I could write something against them with some real clout. That would, or should, take fasting and prayer so it would be in God's will and by His direction. Oh how I'd love to do that.

Here's Christopher Hitchens at his most obnoxious

w

Hard to grasp how obtuse he is in this one when he can be so perspicacious on other subjects such as the rolse of the Roman Church in totalitarian politics. He also said something about modern bible translations I appreciate, I think in a four-way conversation with Dennet, Dawkins, Harris and nhimslef. How they've destroyed the English language. Something that really bugs me too. Not only are they based on bogus gREEK MANUSCRIPTS ABOUT WHICH HE PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW ANTHING, BUT THEY ARE WRITTEN IN ATROCIOUS eNGLISH.

aNYWAY, i'VE GOT ANOTHER OBNOXIOUS PERSON TO POST HERE: rICHARD dAWKINS DOING A ted TALK:

And H4e Flubbed the Cretion-Evolution Topic as Well.

Still talking about the debate between Peter and Christopher Hitchens mentioned in the previous post. Peter missed the whole point of one man's question about how he regards fossils from his Christian perspective. He made an inept affirmation of Intelligent Design but that's the best he could do.

Perhaps it's becamuse he's an Anglican. they are still way to roman ist.

the correct answer to how we should regard a fossil is to say that we see it as a creature that lived before the Flood and that died in the Flood, that the Flood deposited all those sedimentary olayers that are so ludi crously interpreted as time periods of milli8ons of years.

The Brothers Hitchens Debate. How the Real Locus of evil in the West Keeps Getting Flubbed and Muddied. The Roman Antichreist.

Debate between Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter Hitchens, Peter representing religion, mostly Christianity, against Christopher's atheism. Again I'm impressed with Christopher's identification of Roman Catholicism in the murderous totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. tHIS STARTS ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF INTO THE DEBATE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjQs_QjSwc

pETER DID A DECENT JOB OF POINTING OUT THE PERSECUTIONS OF CHURCHES IN THESE REGIMES BUT OVERALL i WAS DISAPPOINTED IN HIS RESPONSES. wHAT IS NEEDED IS A GENUINELY pROTESTANT WORLDVIEW AND HIS POSITION IS FAR FROM SHARP. hE TACITLY ACCEPTS rOMAN cATHOLICISM AS cHRISTIANAND DOESN'T CHALLENGE IT AT ALL. cHRISTOPHER IS RIGHT TO POINT TO IT AS COMPLICITG UIN ALL THESE ATROCITIES, BUT THE MISTAKE IS TO EQUATE THAT WITH "RELIGION." rOMAN cATHOLICISM IS THE totalitarian Antichrist agent in the world and has been for over a thousand years. The Reformation gae it a good punch and weakened it, but now Protestantism has lost its perspective and its comibng back. Peter should have challeneged Romanismm from a Protestant point of view and he did not. That leaves the impression that we're talking about "rreligoin" that includes Protestantism. But we're not.

pROTESTANTISM SOUNDS LIKE JUST ANOTHER SECT BUT THE REFORMATION REINSTATED THE TRUE BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS OF cHRISTIANITY. rOMAN cAATHOLICISM WAS THE USURPER, THE gREAT aPOSTASY, THE REVIVED rOMAN eMPIRE, THE SEAT OF THE aNTICHRIST, WHICH WAS RECOGNIZIED BY THOUSANDS OF cHRISTIANS ALL DURING ITS REIGN IN THE "hOLY rOMAN eMPIRE." tHE rEFORMATION BROUGHT BACK GENUINE cHRISTIANITY. THIS PERSPETIVE HAS BEEN SADLY, TRAGICALLY, LOST

Atheist Christopher Hitchens Takes on the Antichrist Roman Church

If only the Protestant leaders were as indignant against this evil as this atheist is. \,br>