RSS

If You’re a Creationist, You’ll Love this Video

29 Aug

This video appears to be legit.  If it is, it indicates that “fossilized” dinosaur bones may be no older than Egyptian mummies.  That would be the biggest story of the past century.

Paleontologists are finding carbon-14, blood vessels, and flexible, stretchable tendons, DNA and soft tissue within dinosaur bones.  The findings are happening all around the world.

Evidence is being uncovered that dinosaurs that were previously believed to be tens of millions of years old, may be less than 10,000 years old.

The findings are controversial, but if the evidence is true, Darwin’s theory of evolution will be discredited and perhaps even destroyed.  Creationism will become the accepted and even “scientific” truth.  Atheism will suffer a mortal wound.

We live in truly exciting times.

video      00:32:21

 

Tags: , ,

37 responses to “If You’re a Creationist, You’ll Love this Video

  1. Erin

    August 29, 2016 at 10:13 PM

    Fantastic!!

     
  2. Adask

    August 29, 2016 at 10:33 PM

    Yes, indeed. It makes my eyes mist over. I see a kind of hope right now that I couldn’t see two hours ago.

     
  3. Jerry

    August 30, 2016 at 3:42 AM

    The be4thefire.com sure makes your eyes opened!

     
  4. Tony

    August 30, 2016 at 6:54 AM

    Yeah, that is fantastic stuff!!!

     
  5. dennis_usnat@startmail.com

    August 30, 2016 at 10:22 AM

    Thanks Al – A Great Audio / Video – Dennis On Monday, August 29, 2016 10:04 PM, Adasks law wrote:  

    > Adask posted: “This video appears to be legit.  If it is, it > indicates that “petrified” dinosaur bones may be no older than > Egyptian mummies.  That would be the biggest story of the past > century. Paleontologists are finding carbon-14, blood vessels, and > flexible, str” > >

     
  6. Samuel

    September 2, 2016 at 2:12 AM

    Everyone is forgetting one thing. How long does it take for the stone to form around the dinosaur bones. That should also be a factor in determining age. The minerals around the bone could be acting a time capsule or preservative.

     
  7. Darbet

    September 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM

    The Bible teaches that the earth was created 13,026 years ago in 11,013 BC. The flood of Noah was poured out in 6,023 years later in 4990 BC. In 4900 BC, many dinosaurs were destroyed by the flood and their remains were fossilized. Nonetheless, a few dinosaurs were preserved by Noah in the ark.

     
  8. Roger Hammack

    September 2, 2016 at 12:49 PM

    God has warned about this>

    “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall THEY EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THEIR OWN WAY, AND BE FILLED WITH THEIR OWN DEVISES. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.”
    [Prov 1:24-32]

     
    • Adask

      September 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM

      Amen.

       
  9. cathy baldwin

    September 9, 2016 at 1:05 AM

    I love it, thank you for the always awesome information~~~~.

     
  10. moon

    September 11, 2016 at 11:40 AM

    A rule of mine, concerning this blog, is to read and/or watch a post completely before commenting. Now that I’ve read and/or watched completely, my eyes are not misty and my excitement level is about the same as before.

    Would someone please explain to me why this post is so earth shaking? I didn’t get it.

     
  11. Adask

    September 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM

    Evolution is a foundational concept for the New World Order, global government, secularism, atheism, etc. If the video is correct, confidence in the the theory of evolution is diminished and confidence in the idea of Creationism is increased.

     
    • moon

      September 12, 2016 at 8:02 AM

      Al, thanks for your quick reply and your attempt to aid in my comprehension.

      Evolution is a matter of fact, not fiction or theory. The universe, this planet, our bodies are in continuous evolution even as we speak. It’s real, it’s happening. The disagreements come into play concerning how and why that process started and continues.

      Darwin admitted that his survival of the fittest idea did not hold together as fact. However, some continued to espouse his idea for their own purposes. The creation idea is stated in a book and the rest is a matter of believing. Neither of these ideas has much basis.

      As for the video, even if true, how would proof of a different time line do all you want it to do?

       
  12. Adask

    September 12, 2016 at 11:07 AM

    First, so far as I know, evolution is an unproven theory rather than a proven fact. Who has ever actually seen a less complex organism evolve into a more complex organism?

    Second, even if evolution is true, it only accounts for change. “Evolution” means “change”. Organism #1 changes/evolves into organism #2 which later changes/evolves into organism #3, etc. That process might be happening. But the problem for evolutionists is where did you get organism #1 in the first place? What CREATED organism #1?

    Evolution theorizes that organism #1 was created by a lightning strike on or near oceans that somehow gave “life” to what had been inanimate minerals. That theory is, so far, unconvincing. Evolution offers a plausible explanation for change, but it has explanation for the original creation of life that’s any more credible than that provided in Genesis.

    Third, another problem for evolution is its reliance on DNA. Evolution presumes DNA is essential for the evolutionary process to occur. But, so far as I know, DNA cannot exist, let alone change to a more complex form outside of the walls of a biological cell. The problem here is Which came first–the DNA or the cell walls? The cell walls must be present for DNA to assemble, divide, replicate, etc.–which implies that the cell walls must exist before DNA can “evolve”. But you need DNA to create the cell’s membrane walls–which implies that DNA must exist before it creates cellular walls/membrane.

    Fourth, if evolution is real, it should not only be occurring on earth but also on other planets throughout the 200 billions of galaxies that scientist say comprise the universe. There could be trillions of planets other there that are capable of not only supporting life but also supporting evolution. Nevertheless, the SETI project (which traces its origins as far back as Nichola Tesla in A.D. 1899) has been searching the skies without success for signs of other “highly evolved” beings.

    For most of a century, astronomers have been unable to find evidence of “higher intelligence” in the universe. If evolution is real, why can’t we find evidence of evolved beings from other planets?

    Evolution (change) may be true. But it does not explain creation. It does not explain how an inanimate rock “evolved” into a living organism.

     
    • moon

      September 12, 2016 at 11:39 AM

      Hmmmmm…Al, that sounds like a government answer…you said essentially what I said, but didn’t address my question.

       
  13. Adask

    September 12, 2016 at 4:21 PM

    That sounds like a government criticism. . . . you didn’t repeat your question.

    Lemme hear it again and I’ll see if I can answer it.

     
    • moon

      September 12, 2016 at 4:34 PM

      Furnished here as a copy from above at your request:

      As for the video, even if true, how would proof of a different time line do all you want it to do?

       
  14. Adask

    September 12, 2016 at 5:26 PM

    The theory of evolution is based on the idea that small changes take place slowly, randomly and “naturally” over a period of tens of millions of years.

    However, if most dinosaurs died out 10,000 years ago (or less) rather than 66 million years ago in the Cretaceous period, the time line ascribed to evolution would be challenged and even false.

    More, the opinion that the earth itself was 4.5 billion years old would be challenged.

    If, whatever evolution is alleged by scientists to have taken place since the dinosaurs’ extinction, took place in 10,000 years rather than 66 million, the rate of evolution would not be painfully slow but would instead move so quickly that we could see actual evidence of evolution happening and continuing, right before our eyes. Evolution could no longer rely on millions of years of random, “natural selection” to cause species to become more complex and/or intelligent. The glacial rate of evolution that currently argues that rodents evolved into lemurs that evolved into monkeys that evolved into apes, that evolved into homo sapiens sapiens would have to be compressed into 10,000 years or less. That would be about 6,600 times faster than is currently supposed under the theory of evolution.

    At that rate of change, grandchildren and even children might be so significantly evolved/changed from their parents/grandparents as to constitute brand new species.

    The current theory of evolution can’t work as advertised in if 66 million years of change is crammed into 10,000 years. That would be evidence that the theory of evolution was false.

    If theory of evolution is false, what’s left besides Creationism to explain how we got here?

     
    • moon

      September 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM

      Evolution is change, as you have agreed. There is change, so evolution is a matter of fact. Survival of the fittest and natural selection are what you’re describing, not evolution. Darwin has already discounted those ideas.

      So, you’re going for the old “what’s left” question.

      I don’t know what’s left. I’m not convinced, though, that a suggestion in a book plus one’s belief is sound basis for a creation theory. That’s how the natural selection theory came to be.

      Also, the excitement and misty eyes apparently brought on by the video still eludes me.

      Would you like to give it another shot?

      Does anyone else have a suggestion?

       
      • moon

        September 13, 2016 at 2:55 PM

        Yep, just as I suspected: when one separates from the cult mentality, the creation idea doesn’t hold water either.

         
  15. Adask

    September 13, 2016 at 7:54 PM

    Creationism doesn’t have to “hold water”. Creationism is not merely associated with a “cult”. God is “god” precisely because he CREATED the universe as well as you and me. Creationism is an essential and fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian religions. There is no Jewish or Christian religion without God being our Creator. There is no Jewish or Christian faith without Creationism. As such, Creationism is protected by the freedom of religion guaranteed in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 section 6 of The Constitution of The State of Texas.

     
    • moon

      September 14, 2016 at 9:47 AM

      Your statements remind me of the defense some used for the flat earth idea. In essence: if enough people believe it, then it must be true.

      Give me substance, not fluff.

       
  16. Adask

    September 14, 2016 at 11:39 AM

    The 1st Amendment is substance.

     
    • moon

      September 14, 2016 at 1:56 PM

      It’s substance that upholds your right to express your thoughts and ideas among other things, regardless of whether your thoughts and ideas are true or not. It does not prove that the creation theory is true. Please stay on topic.

       
  17. Adask

    September 14, 2016 at 2:06 PM

    You might try to follow some of your own advice. The THEORY of evolution has never disproved the religious principle of Creationism. The simple truth is that, unless you were there when creation began with a big bang or an Act of God, you don’t actually KNOW which of those two explanations (or a host of other explanations) is true. Without direct knowledge of the event, you only have a BELIEF. You have your belief. I have mine. One difference between your belief and mine is that mine is protected by the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Yours is not.

     
    • moon

      September 14, 2016 at 2:54 PM

      So, it’s as I mentioned earlier: the theory (no need to raise your voice) of creation is only a suggestion in a book plus belief, correct?

       
      • moon

        September 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM

        Incidentally, what makes you think you know what I believe concerning this topic?

         
  18. Adask

    September 14, 2016 at 4:13 PM

    I wasn’t there are the time, so I have no direct, personal knowledge as to whether Creationism is a fact or a mistaken belief. I choose to believe that it is a fact. My choice is beneficial to me and is protected by my freedom of religion. The theory of evolution is another system of belief which I’m inclined to reject because it reduces all people to the status of animals and thereby causes me harm.

    As for your beliefs, it’s true that I don’t know what they are. Based on your preference for evolution apparent in your writings, I have so far assumed that you supported the theory of evolution and rejected Creationism. I assumed that your comments were a sincere expression of whatever it was that you believed. You now imply that you’re wasting my time with comments that are not sincere, but may be only intended to get a rise of me.

    If that’s true, I’m done wasting my time responding to your comments.

     
    • moon

      September 15, 2016 at 2:10 PM

      Al,

      As for my “writings” on this particular post, you either have not read my writings or your reading comprehension is lacking. Therefore, your assuming is another tangent into irrelevancy. Mostly, my writings have been questions, except for explaining the reality of evolution (change) vs. survival of the fittest/natural selection, where you seem to have an issue visualizing the difference. If Darwin decided his own research didn’t hold together as plausible, I see no reason for me to believe it or promote it as rational fact.

      Other than your off topic ramblings, what you’ve said appears generally to be the same thing I’ve said: that the idea of creation/creation ism is a mention in a book plus belief.

      Now, it appears you want to accuse me of being less than sincere, trying to get a rise out of you, and wasting your time. For more than 60 years, I’ve been sincere in discerning the truth of Genesis 1:1 (uh-oh, you got me to cite a passage in the cult manual…wonders abound, don’t they?). Over the years, discussions and research ultimately have come to the simple essence expressed in the previous paragraph. Then, creation advocates want to end conversations just as you seem to be doing now, with false accusations, insinuations, and ridicule…even after you stated it’s true you don’t know what my beliefs are. Seems to be a pattern. If you have nothing more to say, we can certainly end this conversation right now. However, I still don’t comprehend the misty eyes, hope, and excitement suggested in the initial comments.

      As I look back over all the comments for this post, I observe the thumbs up, high fives, fanny pats, and cheers about the video and comments…until my first comment. Then, no thumbs up (or down), high fives, fanny pats, or cheers, not even any other comments than yours, Al. Just wondering if other readers on this blog are uninterested in discussion of this topic, think yours and my conversation is too obtuse for comment or rating, or are so surprised that anyone would question the mysterious (to me) conclusion reached by everyone but me. Seems as if I came to a party and nobody offered me Cool-Aid.

       
  19. Adask

    September 15, 2016 at 4:04 PM

    Bitch, bitch, bitch. Somebody’s always picking on you little guys. And when you get cornered, all you have to offer is your insults.

    If you think I’m jumping to conclusions and making false accusations against you, how could you expect me to do otherwise if–as you imply–you haven’t yet told me or anyone else on this blog what what you truly believe? If you won’t expressly tell me (and other readers) what you believe, you leave it to me (us) to infer your beliefs from your comments. If you won’t tell us exactly what you believe in this matter, you can’t blame me for not knowing what you believe. In order to reply to your comments I need to have some idea of your core beliefs. Are you a Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, communist, troll or government agent? I need some idea of your core beliefs because the very same words written by a Christian, Muslim or atheist can sometimes have three completely different meanings. If you won’t tell me/us what those beliefs are, you have no grounds to complain if we’ve jumped to the wrong conclusions about you, your intended meanings or your belief.

    If you want to remain a “man of mystery,” fine–that’s your choice. But you can’t reasonably bitch that people are guessing improperly as to who/what you are if you make it your business to conceal your fundamental identity.

    As for your claim that my “reading comprehension is lacking,” I’d say this blog is decent evidence that I can read. If there’s a problem with my “reading comprehension,” I’d say that problem is caused by your own failure or refusal to expose whatever it is you truly believe. The problem is not that I’m failing to read. The problem is that you’re failing to write openly and instead choosing to remain “mysterious” by writing to conceal rather than expose yourself.

    The problem is even more complicated by sentences or phrases of yours like the following: “the idea of creation/creation ism is a mention in a book plus belief.” “a mention in a book plus belief”? I guarantee that I do not comprehend whatever meaning was intended by that text. I’ll also bet that very few others understand it. Your text might be genius or it might be gibberish, but it seems to me that if you want to be “comprehended,” your first duty is to write in a way that your audience can understand. You have a duty to write clearly if you want to be “comprehended”. You don’t always do so. But, then, you want to accuse me of being an incompetent reader because you are an incompetent writer. That’s not reasonable.

    As for your failure to understand the “eyes misting over” observation, I can understand that any atheist would be unmoved by the ideas heard in the video on creationism. For people who don’t believe in God or religion, the ideas in that video would be unremarkable and perhaps even incomprehensible.

    But people who believe in God and the Christian faith have been brow-beaten by the theory of evolution for most of their lives, any evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong, is indirect evidence that Creationism is true. For such people, any evidence that Creationism may be true may be greeted with tears of joy–or at least misty eyes.

    Your inability to comprehend some people’s emotional response to video implies that you’re something like an atheist. It’s like listening to the National Anthem. Hearing that song, some American patriots are moved to tears. People from other countries, hearing that song, feel no emotional response. Figuratively speaking, in regard to this video, you and I are from different “countries”. The ideas in the video move me towards tears because I really do love the Good LORD. The ideas in the video do not move you to an emotional response because, apparently, you do not love the Good LORD.

    You could fairly say that I’m jumping to conclusions that might be mistaken. But if I am, is that fault caused by my over-active imagination or by your determination to remain the mysterious “Mr. Moon”?

    If you want to write on this blog you can either tell us what you really believe or you can conceal your beliefs and leave us to guess, perhaps incorrectly, as to what those beliefs may be. If you insist on concealing your spiritual identity and I or others guess wrong about who/what you are, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

    As for your being slighted by this blog’s failure to give you any Kool-Aid, this is a BYOB blog.

     
    • moon

      September 16, 2016 at 10:38 AM

      Don’t hold back, Al. Get it all out…you’ll feel better. You’re accusing me of bitching? Ever since you got pregnant, all you want to do is go steady.

      I’m guessing you’ve said all you want to say in this conversation.

       
  20. Adask

    September 16, 2016 at 12:22 PM

    I never wanted to say any of it.

    You started this conversation . . . and now, you’d apparently prefer to end it.

    Of course, I’m just guessing your preferences. After all, I can’t know your preferences since you prefer to remain cloaked as the “man of mystery” who is eager to share his criticisms but won’t tell us who he is or what he really stands for.

    If you won’t say who/what you are, you leave it to others to guess.

    Judging from your last comment, you’re the guy who makes snide remarks when he runs out of substantive things to say.

     
    • moon

      September 16, 2016 at 12:53 PM

      Yea, boy, lots of love flowing. When you think of something worse to say about me, let it fly. It’s not good to hold that rage inside.

       
  21. Adask

    September 16, 2016 at 1:59 PM

    It’s not rage, it’s disdain. If your intelligence matched your arrogance, you might be a dangerous adversary. So far, however, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

     
    • moon

      September 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM

      At a boy, Al, get it out! That nastiness will fester and destroy you if you don’t get it out. Are you going to bring my mother into it next?

       
  22. Adask

    September 16, 2016 at 4:19 PM

    I’m not bringing in your mother unless you do so first.

    (Are you talking about your mom’s “combat boots”?)

     
    • moon

      September 16, 2016 at 4:40 PM

      LMYIAO…for clarity: laughing my young, immature ass off.

      Al, happy full moon to you and yours!

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s