Taking The Battle Across Enemy Lines


Sr Mod/Webmaster
Staff member
Senior Moderator
There has been a bit of an outcry about this video, and the producer has agreed to openly debate the issue, but those who have made charges against him have made it more of an emotional game. It is interesting how the strongest adherents to evolution tend to get very, very emotional despite that they claim a scientifically unbiased stance.
One thought that crossed my mind when the interviewer was challenging a few of the more responsive, and talking about moral accountability was..
As parents, we tell our children what is right and what is wrong. Suppose 8 year old Johnny throws a rock through the neighbor's window. Who is it that must make good that window? Johny would have to forfeit his allowance for a very very long time to make amends. So we the parents pay the price for Johnny's wrong. Just so, we disobey our heavenly Father, and the only one who can make restoration on our behalf is Jesus.
There has been a bit of an outcry about this video
yep sure has
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08 ... d-dawkins/
despite that they claim a scientifically unbiased stance.

IF their stance was scientific, then it would not be built on arbitrary assumptions but rather upon facts ..

genetic mutations delete information and sometimes change it, but NEVER add information ..

adaptation can be reversed and is not hereditary ..

adaptation, mutation and genetic drift are not evolution, but rather natural occurrences within a species ..
all those ALLEGED facts are nothing more then arbitrary assumptions disingenuously presented as facts ..

even radiometric dating is disingenuously presented as a fact ..
indeed, uranium/lead and potassium/argon decay rate is correct, but they will not tell you that their use of it dating an object rest upon 3 arbitrary assumptions which their assumptions have been proven are false, as filmed volcanoes newly created rock was dated as millions of years old ..

here is my rebuttal to Wiki, in which forced them to keep editing their submissions ..

I would adamantly disagree that there is sufficient geological evidence to establish the vast age of this planet .. on the contrary all they have is a (1) circular logic based on (2) faulty and open dating systems mixed with (3) lies and placebo science .. for easy reading / understanding purposes I chose Wiki

(1) Circular Logic
Strata dates are assumed by radiometric dating .. radiometric dates are accepted or rejected depending on strata.. thus to reject a date (often 50% of taken samples) is to create a desired timeline based on an open system of dating to fit their mythical evolution theory, which by the way is not supported by fossils)
(2) Radiometric Dating Methods ..
these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions ..
a) a constant rate of decay
b) an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost
c) a known amount of the daughter element present initially (which is IMPOSSIBLE)

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×109 years). This age represents a compromise between the interpretations of oldest-known terrestrial minerals – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – and astronomers' and planetologists' determinations of the age of the solar system based in part on radiometric age dating of meteorite material and lunar samples.
Interpretation of radiometric age dating of zircons suggests that the Earth is at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites which are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of the Earth. It is assumed that the accretion of the Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of the Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models vary from several millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of the Earth is difficult to determine.

Basically what they are saying is they have made this GUESS at the Earth's age by small crystals (that's a lie, see next paragraph) of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia .. compromised together with the random sample from the moon (which is full of meteorite craters) to get the age of the solar system
If a very old planet explodes and some meteorites hit Earth .. that means that planet the meteorite came from MAYBE old .. nothing to do with Earths age .. and we all know the moon is a magnet for meteors by it's appearance .. now tell me this .. how do they know the "SINGLE found crystal" is from Earth ??? .. if it was wouldn't there be more then just one crystal the size of a grain of sand ??? .. When you draw conclusions from using only ONE sample alone is ignoring scientific protocol and nothing less then JUNK SCIENCE

The new picture of the earliest Earth is based on a single, tiny grain of zircon from western Australia found and dated by Simon A. Wilde, a professor in the School of Applied Geology at Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Western Australia.

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
The quoted age of the Earth is derived, in part, from the Canyon Diablo meteorite for several important reasons and is built upon a modern understanding of cosmochemistry built up over decades of research

Clair Cameron Patterson, in 1953, used samples of the meteorite to measure the age of the Earth at 4,550 million years (± 70 million years).

This gets even easier because here they ADMIT they are using a meteorite (that came form only God knows where and when) to date the Earth .. this is a BIG leap of FAITH that these NOVELIST expect us to swallow with no scientific protocol used WHAT SO EVER .. at least in Creation, we are not the ones who wrote it .. and it predates their version by 3500 yrs (genesis authoring) .. I also do not believe in an illogical Big Bang Myth either .. which actually isn't even a complete theory because it does not explain where singularity came from. Nor does it give a mechanism for the expansion of singularity.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen
HOW can a meteorite from (more then likely) another solar system/galaxy possibly shed light on the age of our solar system ??? .. it cant

that's like saying if I pick up an old rock and hit you with it, you are as old as the rock I threw at you .. now that is STUPIDITY !!!
dating earth by a meteor .. these scientist who try and radiometric date a meteor KNOW that when a meteor enters the atmosphere it ignites which would create a HUGE leakage/loss of uranium/lead and thus KNOWINGLY measure what is left not taking this (unknown loss amount) factor into consideration because they will MISLEAD the public to give a date to what THEY wish it to be .. JUNK SCIENCE !!!
Last edited: