I was thinking more along the lines of Fireproof. 

 Bill Maher thinks he's funny mocking Christians.  He pushed himself into the Creation Museum by sneaking in with cameras  and wouldn't leave when it first opened making a jerk of himself.  Ken Ham  was very gracious to Maher spending time speaking to him even though what he did wasn't right. 

 He's probably the most vicious anti-Christian out there.  So why would Lula want to see that movie?  I sure wouldn't spend my dollars on that stuff.   To me it's worse than going to a Michael Moore film. 

KFC POSTS: #14

Yes, absolutely...since Adam was the first there were no human beings before him.

ICECERO POSTS:

No, they aren't prototypes and they aren't proto-humans either. All the fossils that have been found so far are just only apes or just only humans. None of them are inbetween stages. Fossil hunters find regular distinct species that exist today, plus some that are extinct, like the large dinasaours which were distinct species which became extinct after the Flood.

Granted, of fossils, we didn't know back in the 1800s what we know today...some ape fossils were found and believed to be part human and vice versa. Today, we know beyond doubt whether a fossil is an ape or a human. We know by shape, DNA, cranial size, teeth, etc.

Every grade school student is taught about "cavemen" and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are taught about the bones and skulls of our supposed "ancestors". Artist drawings and depictions based on speculation certainly greatly influenced them. Google Nebraska Man and you'll most probably see a drawing of a naked ape-like man walking kinda hunched over but straight and carrying a club.  Turns out Nebraska Man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig! In 1922, the London News published the picture showing our supposed ancestors and even though no fossils could support the image, many believed for years and years, that Nebraska Man was our ancestor.

Many anthropologists believe that those primitive "stone age" people aren't evidence of earlier ape-human life forms, (what you call proto-humans), but rather they are tribes or groups that migrated away from advanced civilizations with larger populations. Hunting tribes in Africa, South America, and across Europe and the Western Pacific aren't relics of the Stone Age, but instead are "wreckage" of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to leave and over time become isolated.   

Now when a population of people, or any other form of life for that matter, are set apart, isolated, on an island for example, then over time, they will have a smaller set of genetic potential. As a result, the subsequent generations will have quite a different set of traits from the original population that they separated from.

Some wandered from warm climates to colder ones and lived in caves. But the fact that they lived in caves doesn't prove evolution from one species to another. Diodorus Siculous writing in 60 BC described people living in caves along the Red Sea. And archeologists tell us that in Palestine there were people who resembled Neanderthals living in caves while not too far away people lived in Jericho living in well built houses.

Homo habilis is an ape. In 1960, Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments and he dated them at 1.8 million years old and decided they belonged they were human and named them homo which is people who are classified as homo sapiens. Experts later clearly have shown that habilis was nothing more than a large brained Australopithecus, the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa, the most famous is named Lucy. Australopithecus is an ape and not human and not a transition between the two. So habilis was a large ape and should have never been classified as Homo (man).

The homo erectus is also now considered to be a category that never should have been created. homo erectus walked just like us while their skulls have prominient brow ridges, like Neanderthals, their bodies are just as modern man. Both cultural and archeological associations agree that homo erectus was fully human, and should be included in homo sapiens.

For about 100 years, the world was led to believe Neanderthals were apemen. This was based upon their appearance as being stooped over and ape looking. Neanderthals are homo sapiens, fully human, able to speak, and artistic. The reason they were stooped and looked as they did was due to disease like rickets which is lack of vitamins.

The bottom line is all the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one conclusion which is that man did not evolve from any lower form of life. Also, if man was supposed to live here a million years, why do historical dates, artifacts, and archeological finds only date back 5,000 years?

Archaeopteryx fame is assured, not as a fossil between dinosaurs and birds, but as a forgery. The hoax lasted for 125 years, but in 1986 the definitive tests were performed. The motive was money and lots of it...the Birtish Museum gave life to the deceptions and some scientists who are too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework helped spread the decption.

this is, quite frankly, lies. The fossil record is not devoid of records, there are tons of them and they are very detailed. It was devoid of records many years ago, and since then those records were found.

There is a clear ongoing chain of development, there is clear genetic evidence, there is clear fossil evidence. If you decide to pretend it does not exist and then based on that decision claim that there is no scientific proof (because you decided not to look at the proof shown to you), then so be it. Far be it from me to force someone to beleive in the truth.

Ignoreant =! religion, despite the straw man argument you placed. Many religious people are ignorant, those who aren't just say "god created and supervised" evolution instead of maintaining their ignorance.

You need to get out more and stop spouting talking points.  this has already been demonstrated to be a lie.  But I would not expect any better from you anyway.

Well, I can see your irrational hate is still going strong.  I guess it will not matter who wins next month.  The lunatic idiots will still be foaming at the mouth.

Yeah, and we all know that once such changes would make two species out of one, G-d sends an angel who kills the animal in question. And hence there is a definite line between micro and macro.

At least Creationists see that line. Scientists, who don't believe in angels, don't see it. But it's so easy.

We will just teach school children that animals' children are slightly different from their parents and over generations become more different, but not too different because our religion won't allow it and G-d gets angry when generations of animals accumulate more than X changes.

I tell you a big secret, as I have before: "within species" is meaningless in the context of evolution. All changes are always "within species" for the simple reasons that "species" do not have defined borders that fall exactly in one generation.

The entire differentiation between "micro" and "macro" is meaningless; but that fact is only evident to those who actually understand the theory of evolution.

Over time, with many changes, one species can evolve into two distinct species (whose individuals cannot interbreed with the other species any more). And over time those two distinct species can become quite different from each other. G-d doesn't stop them from doing that, and neither does any law of nature we have discovered so far.

The supposed law that stops evolution from making changes that create two distinct species out of one exists only in the minds of those who don't understand evolution.

(I still believe American schools should teach Hinduism. Teaching Creationism in science class is so Saudi Arabia.)

That's a big "IF" considering that Darwinism doesn't claim that evolution ever produced anything by "random chance".

I don't understand why Creationists keep resorting to that particular lie about Darwinism.

If they had a point, the Creationists, could they not make it without lies?

(What about the "Christian Principle of Honesty"? Did all these people get a special dispensation when it comes to statements about Darwinism?)

My son emailed me this morning about Scientists and how they vote. 

He said McCain will continue where Bush left off and reduce funding to NIH which is where they get all their grant money from.  That's not good for him or any in the Science field.  He said he understands why most Scientists are Dems.  The Dems love to give out the money.  This funding is very important, of course, to their research. 

So he feels if he votes for Obama he's voting against morality.  If he votes for McCain he's voting against funding as it looks like McCain most likely will suspend alot of excess government spending.

It's hard but he's voting for McCain. 

I think all the government yahoos who allowed us to be in this mess should take a reduced paycheck until the bailout money amount is reached and leave the rest of us alone.  We didn't cause this mess.  We shouldn't have to clean it up. 

Yes, and frankly, THAT is a very good reason to vote Democrat.

But you and I probably agree that Obama is bad news for morality. His stance on abortion is not even "pro-choice", he supports what I would call plain murder. That alone is reason enough for me not to support him. Not that I don't have enough other reasons.

I didn't have that problem with Hillary. I also thought and still think that a woman President would send a strong signal to the world. There are not many powerful women out there in politics and international diplomacy. It's a boys' club, seriously.

tALTAMIR POSTS #79

TALTAMIR POSTS:

I said the fossil record is devoid of evidence of macro -evolution....Let me put it this way....the fossil record contains zippo, nada, none, no intermediate creatures between ape and man. If ape to man Evolution occured the fossil record should have an abundance of creatures as they grew into other creatures...THERE AREN'T ANY.

The fossils of mankind's supposed pre-human ancestors like Neanderthal man, Heidelberg Man, and Cro-magnon man were totally human, not half-ape and half-human. Java Man, the Australopithecines, Ramapithecus, Homo habilis, and Peking Man were either large gibbons or apes. Nebraska man was based upon an unusual tooth which turned out to be that of a wild pig's and Piltdown man was a hoax. Yet, science and biology textbooks still use these as "proof" of Evolution theory.  Taltamir I assume you're an adult and if you want to persist in believing this as true, then fine, but duping unwary students into believing these lies is tantamount to abuse.  

Taltamir posts:

Yes, most certainly there is and they all support Biblical Creation and the Flood. Modern science is shooting down Darwinism  and undermining Atheism. Those who dismiss God just have not come to terms with modern science. Even Einstein the universe points to an intelligence without limit, "a superior mind".

Macro-Evolution is not true because neither matter nor life can create itself. Reason alone tells us that great complexity in cells requires an intelligent Being, Creator God. We know now that DNA cannot of itself give rise to truly, new "higher" genetic information. The chance of just one cell coming into existence spontaneiously is impossible. Becasue molecules are incredibly complex "machines" which cannot work unless all parts function. Such great complexity rules out the possibility of intermediate stages. Mutations over time do not create new species of life forms. In fact, mutations under natural conditions are so rare aso often harmful that when they do occur they aren't of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole tends to be unaffected.   Now, becasue of modern science, we know that our cells, DNA, the workings of those overwhelmingly point to Creator God.   

TALTAMIR POSTS:

AND THEN POSTS:

TALTAMIR POSTS #79

You evidently cling desperately to Evolution Theory not becasue it's observable, verifiable, scientific, or reasonable, (it fails on all counts), but becasue you refuse to accept the alternative, Creation by God. It takes much greater faith to believe in Evolution theory than Biblical Creation and the Great Flood.  

Leauki posts:

We've been over this time and again. I thought of you after reading an article from the American Enterprise concerning a prominent scientist ANthony Flew who is Atheist. The article concerned how he came to change his views and that the latest science has convinced him God exists after all.

I'm thinking I can best respond to your question by quoting from the article...

Many people assume that somehow intelligence somehow evolves out of non-intelliegence, given chance and enough time. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligent systems come fully formed from day one. Matter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly sophiticated symbol-processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding , and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance.

Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought, appeared out of the blue, again with its infrastructure of snytax, symbols, and semantics intact from the start. Modern science has shown that "mindless matter" is in fact a network of precise and exquisite processes, laws and structures. It has demonstrated that living beings are imbued with ingenious architecture, databases, and operating systems that construct, repair, and replicate themselves.

Discovery of these algorithms induced Anthony Flew to infer therefrom the existence of an intelligent Source.  The critics who protest that he hasn't consulted the most recent speculatons on the origins of life miss the point. No scientific work can ever address the question of how intelligence arose in a universe of undifferentiated matter.

Three central facts of our existence simply cannot be explained by science: the laws of nature, the presence of intelligent, autonomous agents, and the existence of consciousness and conceptual thought irreducibly different from material reality.

The evidence shows there was no progressive, gradual evolution of non-intelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life, or self-conscious mind. Each had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time it first appeared.

We can if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact that there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg, andmost recently, ANthony FLew.

"Macro-Evolution" is a Creationist lie. No Darwinist believes in the concept of "Macro-Evolution" as Creationists understand it.

Evolution consists ONLY of what Creationists call "Micro-Evolution". There is just no limit to the number of times such micro-evolution can happen, and that is what creates the diversity we see in nature.

Every time a Creationist mentions "macro-evolution" or "random chance", the Creationist is lying. And they know it because people keep telling them.

IF Creationist were true, Creationists wouldn't resort to lies.

But no Creationist has ever managed to say anything that contradicts evolution without resorting to at least one of the two lies about Darwin's theory.

(The term "macro-evolution" appears in biology only as a reference to a method of viewing lots of changes. It does NOT describe a class of change.)

No, it merely takes knowledge of biology to understand evolution and knowledge of ancient Hebrew to understand the "great flood".

YOU, as I noticed again and again, have neither.

Faith is not an excuse for ignorance.

LEAUKI,

I'M SO VERY GLAD TO FINALLY REALLY, REALLY AGREE WITH YOU.    N'  BAMA.

Don't know about that.

No, she doesn't. In fact she has said the opposite.

Yes.

Science is one thing, murder is another.

What I read about Obama's positions on "late" abortions is simply scary.