Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category

Coral Reefs Are Satanic Plots

February 4, 2008

CoralYoung Earth Science (true science) is making remarkable progress on a number of fronts. I have yet to see them attack this, however:

We have sourced the latest information avaliable on the age of the Great Barrier Reef. Stay tuned though, because we’re expecting this information to change as more research is undertaken.

These are the significant dates you should be talking about when you explain the age of the Great Barrier Reef:

  • While corals have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for as long as 25 million years, they didn’t form large reef structures like those we see today.
  • The earliest record we have of complete reef structures (like those we see today) is from 600000 years ago.
  • The current Great Barrier structure started growing on top of the old reef platform about 9000 years ago when the sea levels rose at the end of the last Ice Age.

Many of the places that support reefs today were part of the land during the last ice age, which ended about 20000 years ago.

As global temperatures increased, the ice melted and retreated to the poles and mountain tops. Sea levels rose to their present levels about 6000 years ago, creating ideal conditions for corals to develop along the tops of former low coastal hills.

The Great Barrier Reef comprises about 2900 seperate reefs off the coasts of the islands and the mainland, and barrier reefs facing the sea. The outer Reef lies along the edge of the Australian continental shelf.

Turtles and sharks are the marine ‘dinosaurs’ of the Reef. Turtles have been swimming around in its waters for 150 million years, while sharks have been around for about 400 million years _ that’s 100 times longer than humans.

Coral ReefNow I am not a qualified YEC scientist, but even I can see that these ‘coral reefs’ are about as phony as can be. James Ussher accurately _ and biblically _ calculated the following dates:

  • 4004 BC – Creation.
  • 2348 BC – The Great Flood.
  • 1921 BC – God’s call to Abraham.
  • 1491 BC – The Exodus from Egypt.
  • 1012 BC – The founding of the Temple in Jerusalem.
  • 586 BC – The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon and the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity.
  • 4 BC – The birth of Jesus.

This all sounds right to me. But the moonbat Australian government, which calls its birds ‘boobies’, is determined to destroy the faith of billions of Christians around the world with these ‘coral reefs’. When they are presented in the MSM or by some Darwinist college professor, we can easily see through their lives, but an innocent and brainwashed park ranger is much more convincing. Just take a look at a picture of this ‘brain coral’:

Brain coral 2.jpgThe photo looks convincing at first glance. There is no possible way this photo could have been photoshopped. However, the carvings appear too precise and too simple to be made by the LORD. The LORD does not make simple designs. It is obvious that these Darwinists took a bunch of colored rocks and embed them with tiny jacks so that they could expand slowly but surely. The idea that several small organisms formed these ‘coral reefs’ is utterly ridiculous.

Fiji MermaidWhat can you, the average citizen, do to stop this elaborate hoax on par with P.T. Barnum? (Update by Psycheout: Remember the Fiji Mermaid, pictured at right?) One thing you can do is to simply swim around the reef and start bashing it to pieces in areas where the Australian government can’t see it. A far better plan, however, is to get King Brownback to petition the Australian government to demolish these phony organisms. One can only hope that the Darwinists, losing one of their main ‘trumps’ (ha!), will be demoralized and will stop persecuting true scientists like Ben Stein. Then, we can begin the slow, painful process of not only taking back America, but making sure that ‘science’ no longer can even dream of making phony theories.

— Bob Corker

Advertisements

Reflections on Today’s GOP Debate

December 12, 2007

Mike Huckabee on Bass!I agree with much of what was said about today’s debate after I saw a replay. I think it was stupid to have it on in the middle of the day when most people are working. But it didn’t matter much. It was pretty darn boring.

I’m going to have to agree with ABC’s assessment. Mike Huckabee won. He didn’t do anything out of the ordinary, however. He was just himself. The reason I say he won is that he had the momentum, the so-called Huckaboom, going into this debate, and he didn’t mess up. So he still has that momentum going for him.

The very fact that he wasn’t gutted like a fish and eviscerated by his opponents, who were all pretty lackluster, allowed him to win by default. And Huck was actually asked questions beyond the narrow scope of religion and faith today.

Alan Keyes actually came off looking like the fire and brimstone fundamentalist candidate tonight. By contrast, aw shucks Huck appeared more like a friendly next door neighbor guy whose faith is important to him, but not in a threatening way. He wouldn’t have appeared scary even to secular types. I’m sure that reassured moderate Republicans and swing voters.

One thing a lot of people seemed to have missed, however, was how the debate ended. The moderator closed with “happy holidays.” There it was, right in your face, and many seemed to have missed it. If she’d have said as much at the beginning of the debate, her agenda would have been made clear and the candidates could have filed out in unison.

The War on Christmas is real, friends. And unless we stand up for our beliefs, we will lose. Disgusting.

Update: Here’s an outtake from the debate, in which Ambassador Alan Keyes recites Ezekiel 25:17.  I think you also see Ron Paul at the end of the clip.

— Psycheout

Post Debate Observations

November 29, 2007

Red StateThe CNN/YouTube debate aired last night and it was an interesting performance from the candidates, to say the least. I have posted my conclusions about the debate, the winners and losers, over at Red State. So go on over there and read it if you are interested.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that Mike Huckabee won. Even post debate polls give Huck a wide margin. But what did he win? Does the poll measure his performance or his substance? I would argue the former. He did do quite well however, considering that he is quite liberal on many of the issues. He’s clearly running as a “compassionate conservative.” And we’ve already got a pretty good idea of how that turns out.

The real winner, surprisingly enough, is neither Rudy nor Romney. John McCain won. He actually looked the most Presidential. That he did and outperformed his main rivals was a bit of a shock. Perhaps it’s time for conservatives to re-evaluate McCain, despite his “maverick” image. Was Brownback right to endorse the Senator from Arizona after all?

So be sure to read my overview of how the candidates did last night over at Red State and, if you watched the debate, let me know how it lines up (or doesn’t) with your own impressions. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Update: Newshound Michelle Malkin sniffs out several CNN/YouTube plants. Dems abound. Nuance!

Update 2: Jason Coleman finds another and another. Hey! Were any of the questioners not from the Democrat party?

— Psycheout