AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes

First of all, most of your experts are people who have never seen anything other than the inside of a school textbook, not people with doctorates in their field, or even degrees in other fields. Second: I have read over one-hundred biology and physics books from both sides (evolution and creation), and thus think I am a bit more experienced in most sciences than a lot of people here, and the rest obviously won't show themselves. Third: I am philosophically greater than pretty much anyone here, as I have read as many religous/anti-religous books I can find, and have practically grown up in seminaries and philosophical colleges. Fourth: reffering to me as a "dumb-ass" doesn't really help your case, because people generally only resort to insults because they can't respond scientifically and factually, or because they are shameless; it also does not prove that the insult in itself is correct; I have provided many good arguments, and many bad ones, just like anyone else. I also haven'y seen anyone trying to disprove my apollegetic or psychological statements. As per my being smarter than experts; actually, in many areas I am: if I chose, I could be doing advanced college courses in almost any field of science except medical science and computer technology, and my IQ is over 165; anyone here who has that, speak up. Most experts do have schooling and training that puts them beyond me, though. Such as Dr. Tom Hoyle, a creationist who has derailed much of the current evolutionary ttheory, whether anyone will admit it or not. You know, any expert who actually looks at the facts unbiasedly, will deem evolution to be a fallen theory within fifty years. And by the way, if you haven't heard of the weakenning of the magnetic field, you have no business talking about geology. Back to 'dumb-ass': you never saw anything about my scientific abilities but what, two things? One bad argument, one good; one did have the sources, and as per the other, science text books usually don't give sources. Teachers giving science lectures also don't give sources. Oh, and a good source for the magnetic half-life is ninth grade science. The fact that I am in ninth grade and could be doing advanced college science, while you probably would have to review high-school science to even get in is kind of sad. And actually, even if I had been as stupid as you suggest, with my good memory I could easily improve my scientific knowledge by 100x in a matter of months, as could most people if they tried. And Calamity_jones, have you even read evolutionary theory? It does state we supposedly evolved from one-celled organisms, which have no vertebrae, and thus must have eventually evolved the backbone; it also states that birds evolved from reptiles, specifically dinosaurs. But birds have four-chamber hearts, and reptiles have three chambered hearts, and it would be impossible for any organism to increase or decrease the amount of chambers in its heart. You'll find that (the amount of chambers in reptiles and birds hearts) to be true if you ever look at diagrams of their internal structure; I have seen diagrams more than twenty birds and reptiles. What are the X-men? I have seen the powers of two, wolverine and cyclops, but that's all I know about them. I prefer DC comics to marvel (with the exception of spider-man).

And actually, by the theory of quantum physics, time does exist as a dimension, not just human thoughts about the past, present, and future. Source: Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia 2006 (an evolutionist source, by the way).

As per the laws of Biology: Did you know that no evolutionary biologist can explain how evolution took place? Such things as the fact that it violates the law of biogenesis.

Here's an evolutionary flaw I don't need sources for, because everyone who knows anything about science knows the laws of thermodynamics (the most established laws in science). No, this one was not copied from somewhere. The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is running out of energy, or winding down; in light of this fact, it is seen that all energy was at one time usable, or wound up. This time was the beginning of the universe. For evolutionists; the big bang. For creationists; Creation (hence our name). The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed by any means, but can be switched from one form to the other, and thus; from nothing comes nothing, or: the big bang couldn't have just happened, because that would mean that the energy and matter came from nowhere, which is shown to be impossible by the laws of thermodynamics. Where did it come from? The only option is God, because a God would e the only immaterial (non-matter, non-energy) Thing that could have made the matter and energy.

The death of evolutionary theory comes from the fact that it needs a beggining, and that can only be provided by God. so evolution needs God, while God doesn't need evolution.

I actually did copy a good much of that post from books (which is more than any of you can say), and here are a good number of the sources:

The God who sits Enthroned, by Dr. Phil Fernandes.

Under the Sea and in the Air, a lecture by Dr. Tom Hoyle.

Exploring creation with biology; Basic sophmore biology book, offered as an alternative to evolutionary biology in many schools.

Alpha Omega publiching's Switched on Schoolhouse ninth&tenth grade science books, one of the most common programs in home-shooling and in home/public school co-ops, such as Choice (the major one in my community in Washington State).

Research by the Institute of Biblical Defense, available for anyone who wants to look it up.

Here's a quote for you on the false 'evidence' for evolution from Dr Niles Eldredge (curator, American Museum of Natural History; believer in macroevolution): "I admit that an aweful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in [i]his[/i] museum] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook...." As quoted in Darwins Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, 1988, pg. 78. This is about the sequence proposed as macroevolutionary evidence: Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus. This sequence was presented because the legbones progress perfectly from toes to hooves, and the skulls seem to change form from one to the other perfectly. Great evidence, right? Wrong. The first problem is geography; they aren't all found in the same place anywhere on earth. The second problem in the lumbar vertebrae on them varies from 6-8 in no pattern; the ribs vary from 15-19, again, with no pattern. They also don't apper in the strata layers in the right order; eohippus has been found just as near to the surface as equus. Once the evidence is presented, this is just another one of many false proofs of evolution that has been disproved. In the end, one of the most famous of the macroevolutionary 'proofs' is admitted to be false, even by evolutionists; note that it is still presented as fact, even though most evolutionists say that it is false. So far have we fallen. (Facts about horse evolutionary series quoted from Exploring creation with biology, module nine, pg. 288-289; quote is also found on pg. 289 of said book.)

I have more sources, but I need to disconnect; sources list will continue within the week.

Don't know why I'm doing this, but oh well. I have time. Please pardon typoes; I just started a college typing course. Yes, I'm still in high-school, but I got this typing course from my brother.

Athiesm is the belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know whether He exists. Weaker forms of both views exist, but I'm only interested in the more strict, dogmatic versions, because only they can refute monotheism; I may also deal with other forms of deity belief. However, in their strong versions, both athiesm and agnostiscism are self-refuting, and the weaker leave open the possibility of God. In order to prove that God doesn't exist in any form,you wouls have to be all knowing, possessing ll lnowledge of both the physical and spiritual realms. And in order to have this knowledge, you would need to be poweful enough to see all places in all realms, so that nothing could hide from you. In other words, you would have to be God to prove he doesn'y exist. Of course, that's an absurd thought.

Agnosticism also kills itself in basic apologetics; in order to know that you can't know whether God exists, you have to know about Him the fact that you can't know anything about Him. Which is something you know about Him. Which is self-contradicting (that you know the fact about Him that you can't know any fact about Him). That's nearly as apologetically absurd, though not quite. By the way, Apologetics is the scientific and philisophical proving or defense of monothiesm (also the athiests failed attempts to disprove monotheism).

Macroevolution is also a failed attempt at disproving Monotheism. By the way, what we hear about Evolution actually means macroevolution. Macroevolution is the belief that creatures added information to their genetic code, in order to become new organisms, which violates the laws of biology. Mutations have been said to be able to do this, but mutations actually only scramble the existing genetic code, not add or remove information. That, and no positive mutation has ever been recorded. Please don't post about well this one mutation helps people not get these diseases, because 25% MORE of them die prematurely from other diseases they are more vulnerable to, or from not being able to live through their full "old-age" lifespan because of pysical weakness. Microevolution is the fact that an organism can become a more specialized version of the original organism by the abilities already in the genetic code, such as the finches Darwin tried to use to prove macroevolution, or the breeds of dogs, et al.

Also, the holes in the fossil record kill evolution. According to macroevolutionay theory, there should be more transitional forms than there would be completed forms. No transitional forms have been found. Neanderthal and Croagnon man both had the features of modern man. Colorado man was a horse. Java man
(pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelburg man was the lower jaw, and that jaw could have been caused by thousands of diseases, or have been another monkey, not a human and/or link, and you can only guess about the rest of the skeleton. The Piltdown man was proven to be a clever hoax. The Peking man is a large monkey or baboon. The Australopithecus, Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus are all extinct apes. Zinjanthropus was an ape. The Nebraska man was the tooth of an extinct pig. Archaeopterix was a fully developed bird. Eohippus is an extiinct hyrax, not a horse anscestor.
No Transitional form between verterbraes and inverterbraes has ever been found. Reptiles can't become birds because of the differences in the heart, that would kill it if it was to morph. Best of all, the layers of rock that took millions of years to form have formed multiple layers over a tree, in many cases. And guess what, trees can't live millions of years. A T-Rex (which was not dangerous unless it stepped on you, by the way) that was dated at 68,000,000 years old had lasting bone-marrow in it, and bone-marrow won't last more that a few hundred or thousand years, at the most. Also, the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1,400 years, and at that rate, between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago it wouldn't have been able to support life. And back at dating methods, did you know that the people killed at Mt. St. Helens in 1986 died 2.8 million years ago? That's what radiometric dating says. And the Halolou explosian was more than one-and-a-half years ago by radiometric dating (it was going off from 1800-1801). The explosian over in sicily that flash-fossilized an entire town mas 300,000 years ago, and the Arizona Crater explosian from about 1076 275,000 years ago. It seem to be going backwards! The explosians from the past are switching places! Oh no, what happens when one from the future gets to the present! No!!! We'll all be killed!!!!

And they have the gall to say their dating methods are accurate.

Pantheism is the belief that all life and all the universe is one being, so every one is God, because God is everything, and that life is an illusion since we're all one being. That's the stupidist thing (next to macroevolution) that I've ever heard. First problem: there's more than one being, and we all say and believe differently. Now, by pantheism, no-one really exists. But if I were to argue that I don't exist, I must first exist to say that I don't exist! Only some thing that exists can deny that it exists. Therefore I am the only existant being since I'm here to deny my existence, and only one being exists. And if I try to convince others that they don't exist, all they have to do is agree and we start all over again (only an existant being can deny its existence).

Panentheism is the belief that the universe is God's body. It states that God has two poles; His eternal, infinite side; or His potential pole; and His termporal, finite pole; His actual pole. Well, which is it? In one, He is finite, temporary, and changing, and in the other, He is infinite, immutable (unchanging), and eternal. Well, that's self-contradictory, in that something can really only be one or the other. Panentheism also teaches that God brought Himself into existence. But something have to pre-exist the other thing to bring it into existence, and something can't pre-exist itself, since the first moment you exist is when you are brought into existence.

Deism believes that God brought the universe into existence, but won't touch it anymore. First problem: Deists say God can't perform any miracles, but didn't he perform one of his greatest when he made the universe? And second, it says that God stays out because He doesn't care. But He cared enough to create us, so why won't he care enough to remain involved in it? And third, the deist says that God can't intercede against natural laws. Well He made the laws of nature, He can break the laws of nature.

Finite godism says that God exists, and made the world, but no longer has the power to intercede. Adherents differ as to how He is limited; some say in power, some in knowledge and/or goddnes, some say both. This is mainly adopted by people to solve the problem of evil, in that God does not have the power to intercede. First problem: all finite beings need a reason for continuing existence, e.g. humans need air, light, water, and food. So this finite God has to depend on something for continuing existence. An infinite God, maybe? Second, an finite God deserves no worship; only an infinite, all-powerful being deserves worship. Third, evil doesn't prove God to be limited; evil is not something in itself, but more it is the lack of goodnes, just as dark is absence of photonic light. God made the world with free choice; we can either do what is right, or not do what is right. God didn't create evil, for an all-good God can't. But he can make the possibility of evil; free-choice.

Polytheism is an almost non-existent view nowadays, but once upon a time... But polytheism is holed in that there can't be more than one infinte being, or they limit each others power, and are not infinite; thus they are finite, and have to be kept in continuing existence by an infinite Being: God. Christianity states that God is one infinite being, just in three persons. Modern Judaism and Islam state that there is one infinite being, period.

The big bang is holed scientifically in that it states that the universe was once all in one point of infinite density; but it is scientific fact that a point can only be so dense. It says that the universe began with that explosian, but that explosian had to come from somewhere, for from nothing nothing comes. First law of Thermodyamics; matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, but can be converted from one to the other. From nothing, nothing comes. So the big bang needs something to create it: God.

As per, where did God come from? Well, physics states that time is a dimension, made at the same time as the dimensions of the x axis, y axis, and z axis. PS: if the big bang happened, then they had to pre-exist it; how could that be, since the big-bang was supposedly the start of everything? Well, God made time, so nothing could pre-exist Him to make Him, so that explains that there is no time outside of the world; or that God just is. Hence the name YHVH (or Yahweh; which is not derived from Jeh-havah, by the way), which means "I AM THAT I AM". Jehovah is the Name when translated into Greek, not the derivative of some name of whoever like the Da Vinci code says. Did you know that the Da Vinci code could be sued by whoever wants to, because of its false claim to be historically, linguistically, and artistically correct?

God is, for time only exists in our world and whatever other worlds He has made, was, for time doesn't exist for Him, and go on forever, for He doesn't have time, so He can't end.

Mine is a picture of me, but soon I want to upload a screenshot I have on my computer.

I can't think of nything stupid to do to numbers or after them, so:

1476

What is your favourite weapon?
[.]Longsword

In my other hand I would have:
[.]Oval Shield

This test is irrellavent. I am a crack shot and am trained in the first level of Jujitsu. I can draw and fir in 0.32 seconds. I am an expert commander. This test is irrellavent.

So you have the Longsword in your first and second hand and the shield in the third?

I don't have a problem drawing and fireing in 0.32 seconds. Aiming is the hard part...

I aim and hit the target perfectly. Oh, and anyone who knows about swords knows that the term "longsword" is a very broad term, but that most of the time it means a long broadsword, which can generally be handled one-handed by anyone with any skill whatsoever. I know; I have one. And I am not that cocky . Prideful about accomplishments, maybe. But not cocky. Plus, if they find me, what then? Plus

"[.] Stealth"

I would not be that worried about being found.