My Debate with an Atheist on Sodahead- PART 3

“prove this god exists without any biblical references or any writings by others! 

go ahead. i will be waiting.

and again with the insults from a fake minister.”
You don’t understand the Laws of evidence do you?

You cannot prove something spiritual to a NON spiritual mind, What I can do is present proof from existing evidences in nature and history that his existence is indeed possible, the rest is based upon ‘knowledgeable understanding’ through faith as it should be. YOU REFUSE TO SEE IT SO HOW IS THAT MY FAULT EXACTLY?

Atheists created an impossible idea and called it PROOF, because they know the same thing, proof is in the eyes of the beholder and anything can be denied so all you have to do is deny everything without explanation and the Christian is left with nothing!

The truth though is the opposite, the PROOF is there and ABSOLUTE, it never changes, it never goes away, its your understanding of it that changes and morphs not the evidence of God. You simply change the rules of interpretation of the evidence to suite you any time it gets close…BUT ITS STILL THERE NONETHELESS!

The ONLY reason the Bible bothers Atheists is because the witness to truth cannot be refuted, therefore its easier to eliminate the evidence than to deal with it. They would rather take their chances with the secondary proof….Nature, History, and Science because they can confuse the ignorant and create skepticism.

It is you who must PROVE HE DOESN’T EXIST since the evidence from smallest to greatest indicates he is indeed possible! I will be waiting as I have for over 30 years now!

We know that we exist because . We are irrefutable evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe, give or take a few of us.

So, is it really that much of a stretch to think that there might be intelligent life capable of creating a universe with form, structure and physical laws that always seem to remain constant? Just as its not a stretch to think that a Car that’s designed might just have a designer.

The fact that we live in a universe with reliable physical laws is a bit ironic, don’t you think? Considering that many scientists believe the universe evolved by random processes that had no intelligence of their own.

How could INTELLIGENCE come from nothing colliding with nothing over millions of years? Life comes from life, that’s simple science but you think that life came from non-life…who’s got more faith? Me or you?

To prove the existence of a higher power, we can begin by assuming there is no higher power.

What kind of universe would we have?

A random one, of course. Everything would happen without a purpose.

Nothing could be predicted; nothing could be relied on.

Mathematics and science would have no value because nothing could be reliably measured or have regularity, that’s what random means and without God everything in life if life could finally come together right would be a mixed up puzzle WITHOUT A SET PURPOSE.

A belief that there are NO ABSOLUTES only leads to disorder [Chaos] not order therefore Evolution cannot be true simply because absolutes are not allowed, the universe is FINE TUNED and even its chaotic elements obey certain order. LAWS are proof absolutes exist, evolution obeys PHYSICAL LAWS so it must have absolutes to function though it denies them outright!

And please, stop with the nonsense about insults, you OF ALL PEOPLE cannot talk, you trample peoples beliefs and feelings with each response here and then cry when your told your ignorant about something, that only means you don’t know as much as you think you know, NOT that your stupid or dumb! I stated before that you ARE smarter than your acting on here, I know that’s true!

the only reason the big book of fairytales bothers us is because the believers think its true and throw it in our faces as fact all the time!
bible  writing cartoons

We do what? I didn’t know you existed before you opened YOUR TEXT to insult my beliefs, so I guess I can use that same excuse on why I find Atheism repulsive?

Your religion is just as bad as all religion so stop pretending to be pure apart from religion, your in the same ‘UNHOLY BED’ with the hypocrites you hate!

ITS THE LAW OF THE LAND, if you deny it, well how can you, you have become your enemy….now what?

Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate’s right to start study group.…

Atheism Is Protected As a Religion, says Court.…


I know, I know, you have heard it all before.

I read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it. Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock ( and he did a post discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.

We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there.

For Atheists to attempt to claim “neutrality”, in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidential to their presuppositions.

Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.

Childs makes the case:

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it.

I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)

A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless.

Consider this:

They have their own worldview.

Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

They have their own orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

They have their own brand of apostasy.

Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified.

Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

They have their own prophets:

Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.

They have their own messiah:

He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

They have their own preachers and evangelists.

And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

They have faith. That’s right, faith.

They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or dis-proven.

To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask:

Why do we have self-awareness?

What makes us conscious?

From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong?

They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

I posted this [With Credit to the Author] to prove to others that your as phony as any hypocrite you’ve accused because its really sickening how much contradiction there is in your postings.

You see after becoming a Christian after being Atheistic in thought for years, I used to live and let live UNTIL a group of hit and run Atheists wouldn’t let well enough alone on the insulting and moronic comments THEN I decided from that moment on never to let ignorance rule a conversation. I, like most people get SICK of the crappy presentations by those who hate God!

What should bother you is that pic you used looks exactly like every Dr. of Atheism I’ve ever heard speak along with quite a few dumb religious leaders as well, and that’s a lot! Atheism and Religion without relationship offers us nothing in return for our souls, nice trade off!

Atheistic Moron

“the fact that you think atheism, no belief in a god, is a religion proves once again how ignorant you are.

we don’t think about proving anything or care about a god. so again you lose.”
Part 3- Freedom FROM Sin and INTO New Life!


I proved it was and is a RELIGION LOGICALLY its not MY BELIEF its the facts presented, but instead of proving it you insult me and my Lord? A religion doesn’t have to believe in a god at all as was stated, you DO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, Evolution, Survival of the fittest, Mother earth and the Universe are your god because you exalt them as I would God. THAT’S A BELIEF SYSTEM PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

It is impossible to prove that there is no God. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at the nature of the statement, “God does not exist.”

Back up for just a minute and think about the difference between positive and negative statements of fact. The difference can be illustrated by a simple example. Suppose there are 10,000 clovers in a field. Person A declares, “There is a four-leaf clover in that field,” while Person B objects, “There are no four-leaf clovers in that field.” Now, how many clovers does each person have to observe and know about in order to be certain that they are correct?

Since Person A must find only one single four-leaf clover in order to be correct, in theory he could prove his statement after observing only one clover, provided that it had four leaves on it. But Person B, in order to know for a fact that she is right, has a lot of work to do! That’s because until all 10,000 clovers have been inspected, there would still be the possibility that among the clovers which remained “unknown” to her was one which boasted a fourth leaf. She could never be certain that she was right until she knew everything there was to know about that field and the clovers it contained.

The same principle holds for statements such as, “There is a God,” and “There is no God,” only this time on a cosmic scale. In order to prove the claim, “There is no God in the universe,” one would have to know everything there is to know about the universe. As long as some body of knowledge remains unknown to anyone making that statement, there will always be the possibility that sufficient evidence for the existence of God is out there, despite the individual’s ignorance of it.

And since no one can seriously claim to know everything, anyone who is honest will admit that they can never prove there isn’t a God. One Christian author put it this way: “Somewhere, in the vast knowledge you haven’t yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist. . . . If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, ‘Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.'”**

It is the word “believe” in the above quotation which brings us to the assertion made in the title of this article: “Atheism is a faith-based belief system.” To be an atheist, you have to have to rely on belief, not factual knowledge. You could never amass enough knowledge to prove the nonexistence of God, so you must place your faith in the improvable assumption that there is no God. My Christian brothers and sisters, do not ever let an atheist deride you on the basis of your faith in God (as if “faith” were a dirty word!), because atheism is no stranger to the concept of faith, either. Ask your atheist friends what it would take for them to accept God’s existence. Then pray that the Lord will open their spiritual eyes to see the beauty and glory of Jesus Christ, as well as the depravity and hopelessness of their current situation, guilty as they are of sin against a holy and just God. May the Lord grant repentance to those who are strangers to His mercy and grace!

**Quotation taken from Ray Comfort’s book, God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists (1993), pp. 14-15.

“you do realize that your fanaticism is BORING?????? or maybe you don’t.”

Hey! I gave you a way out a long while back……STOP ANSWERING ME AND I’LL NOT ANSWER BACK. It can’t be all that boring to you or you’d have blocked me a long time ago? Right?

Guess that lack of real knowledge is getting you down? Don’t feel bad we’re all in that boat together, the Atheist just spends their time in the boat ALONE BY CHOICE!

If you desire to talk I’m here if not STOP ANSWERING ME, its that simple….no compulsion on my part!


“the lack of knowledge is all yours. since this is my poll,why don’t you stop answering me? you are the guest,and they definitely stink after 3 days.”


I will not stop answering until you do, your current poll has NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION!

You’ll notice I said plainly that we are ALL in that boat together you simply choose to be alone with your little bit of understanding. I choose to learn more and grow.


But know I will not block you, I believe blocking UNLESS FOR PERSONAL HARASSMENT is the Cowardly way out! Anyone is allowed to attack a point made on either side, that’s the point of Sodahead in the first place.



“wow, a liar too! typical of fanatics,they go on and on after anyone has lost interest. you must have a sad boring little life.”



I beg to differ with you, and consider this my last response sense I’m bored with your lack of Interest!

You have no interest?
You can’t lose what you never had!, which brings me to the question WHY FIGHT IT IF ITS NOT REAL. There’s something real and you can’t prove it’s not, so it bothers you, get over it you’ll never prove God isn’t there!


My life is full of Joy because of Christ, and I’m CERTAIN with absolute certainty that he is real. That’s something you as an Atheist cannot say about ANYTHING, if you do you have to admit that Absolute truth exists and if it does that it points to an absolute idea in life.

Because you reject the idea of a personal maker you must believe that an impersonal one — chance — has determined your reality, that is truly sad and boring!


1. There are no absolutes that define reality. Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality. There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative; right or wrong.

2. There are absolutes that define what is real and what is not. Thus, actions can be deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against these absolute standards.

Hence, the chance that forms your reality (which by definition has no standard or objective sense) is the only “real” thing in the universe.

Everything is a chance occurrence, including your ability to understand who and what you are talking about!

Your “Meaning” is a fantasy. There is no way to derive a standard of truth that has any authority. Anything goes!

Because I believe that a personal God created all things, I can know:

–I was created for a purpose

–My level of fulfillment in life will be based on how well I accomplish the objectives (“will”) of my Creator.

–Some actions are right, while others are wrong. I can discover this difference by learning about the Creator’s plan.

–I am accountable to the Creator for my behavior.

Because you believe that “forces” of chance [Evolution] randomness created all things, you can know:

–That nothing is truly knowable, since there is no standard by which to define reality or by which to measure the factual nature of any given idea.

–That no action is any better than another, hence, all actions are meaningless.

–your then life has no value or purpose, because, in a very real sense, it is an accident

–you are not accountable for your behavior, because nothing you do matters.


My Debate with an Atheist on Sodahead- PART 2

Moses was raised Egyptian, or did that escape you? Of course his NAME would be Egyptian….Duh! Really another Straw-Man? What does that prove?

“Hyksos were not slaves, but wealthy merchants and rulers of Egypt. The Hyksos, in fact, ruled Egypt for 108 years. They built palaces and temples at their capital city of Avaris, and had far-flung commercial operations.” Hardly what the Bible describes in any way

Multiple Land bridges? Wow!, you insult the man who discovered the one Land bridge right where the Bible says the Hebrews crossed, then put on your other mask and state there ARE multiple Land-bridges no one knew about until he found that one. His theory isn’t the be all end all, never said it was. Science disagrees though and states there is a LACK of Land bridges in the area, no multiples around ever!…

Science seems to agree it happened but wrongly assert something never said, Moses was never said to have done the parting, God did the work since he is master of physical laws that control nature.

“Winds may have parted the Red Sea, and not the biblical and Koran’s account of it, according to a team of researchers. Based on computer simulations, the famous “parting of the Red Sea” could have been caused by a strong pattern of winds and other land phenomena supported by the theory of “wind set-down” based on the laws of physics.”

What they missed was that the Bible said the SAME THING just not according to their VIEWPOINT! The point is there is great president to prove it occurred, and if it occurred then the Bible’s description has as much a chance of being the way as any other!

 Your Idea of the Biblical accounts dates and times being wrong, based on what? The History channel video, which I do not completely agree with proved that the date of tradition could be wrong but that’s not the bibles fault that’s a man made mistake.

Debunking “The Exodus Decoded” This is a very good rebuttal, I always look at both sides of an issue.




I’m not saying its all perfectly in line we’re still laying out the understanding, some have one part, others get other parts of the puzzle and its interesting to study!

Yes they were meticulous record keepers about their GREAT HISTORY, but like all mere men of mortal weakness they were PROUD and unable to record that slaves beat them down. If The Egyptians were so proud, would they have admitted they were beaten by their own slaves? Striking things from public record isn’t a modern occurrence only!

Here’s an answer from Yahoo Answers:

Given that the Egyptians were excellent record keepers, where is their account of the parting of the Red Sea?

“Would you chronicle how the God of slaves defeated your multitude of gods and wiped out your entire army? Here is how they documented this event……

The Egyptians picked and chose what they wanted to record. If you read the account of the Merneptah stele, it notes that “Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more.”. True?

They do the same thing today. I went to Egypt and was shocked to discover that they actually won the Six Day War.

In the ancient Egyptian days, yes, they were meticulous record keepers. But they carried these records into the next life. Do you really think they would carry an immense defeat–from SLAVES–at the hands of one single God over their own myriad of gods?

A papyrus called the Admonitions of Ipuwer describes a catastrophe like the Exodus. The author of Admonitions complains of a lack of authority, justice and social order as if the central authority no longer had the will or power to keep control. He also complains about barbarians and foreigners as if the country has been invaded. Nobody is planting crops because they are not sure what will happen. The southern most districts are paying no taxes.

He complains that the Nile has strangely turned to blood and “If one drinks it, one rejects it as human (blood) and thirsts for water.” He wrote, “Grain is perished on every side.” Gardiner dated its events to the FIP but it is conceded that the language and orthography belong to the Middle Kingdom [Wilson, 1969c, p 442]. 

Velikovsky noted the obvious similarities with the plagues of the Exodus and pointed out that, contrary to Gardiner, Sethe dated the Ipuwer Papyrus to the SIP [Velikovsky, 1952, p. 48-50]. Van Seters also argues for an SIP date [Van Seters, 1966, p103-120].

There are also records beyond the written letter you know. Ancient chariot parts were discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba. The city of Python has lower bricks with straw, mid bricks with stubble, and upper bricks with anything they could get their hands on. Exactly as the event of Exodus chronicles.”

There is historical evidence that they tried to wipe out evidence of things that the newest Pharaoh didn’t want remembered. (i.e., Akhenaton and Hatshepsut) So much for HONESTY in reporting!

You put so much faith in the Egyptians record keeping when they had the most to lose by being honest? All that pride and all. And despise Jewish record keeping and they INCLUDE their own shortcomings along with the fact they experienced God’s miracles…..hmmmm! Seems like you don’t like where it all leads?

Your statement about the wheels is silly, really, it means nothing, is that your story? Their trade routes did go up through the sea and they wouldn’t just throw away their chariots or give them to other nations in trade, they traded food and supplies for slaves not weapons.

Why is there no Egyptian record of a LOSS of a whole armies Chariots in the sea? I’ll tell you, because they had their butts handed to them and pride has stricken it from the records!


“there was NO MOSES! get it? it seems you really are desperate to prove the book of tall tales is true. “
 bible  fairy tales
Why am I not surprised that you have nothing to back up your lame claim, is denial your only recourse?

Your still stuck on this crappy accusation? Well get ready to be owned again, Oh! I mean deny again, because that’s all you do!

Funny how I can find so much evidence of a non-existent person and non-existent Exodus without a sweat breaking out isn’t it? THIS SITE IS AWESOME!

FROM: http://www.biblicalchronologi…

ABOUT Dr. Aardsma: In case you want to study his credentials.

Ph.D., Nuclear Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1984

M.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1979

B.Sc., Physics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 1978

NSERC (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada), Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1984-85, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1979-84, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

NSERC Postgraduate Scholarship, 1978-79, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

E. C. Stevens Scholarship, 1983, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Gordon Ferrie Hull Fellowship, 1982, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

E. F. Burton Scholarship, 1981, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

J. C. McLennan Award, 1979, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario

Copernicus Award, 1977, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario


Is there evidence of the Exodus from Egypt?

The following article is based on the book A New Approach to the Chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2, Number 2.


Further details and references can be found there.

A Long Reign

Before the account of the Exodus itself, the Bible tells of the enslavement of the Israelite’s and the first 80 years of the life of Moses. One remarkable feature of this story is apparent from the following sequence of events:

A new king comes to power in Egypt who “did not know Joseph.” (Exodus 1:8)

This king orders the death of all newborn Hebrew boys. (Exodus 1:22)

Moses is born into this regime. (Exodus 2:2)

Moses is adopted by the Pharaoh’s daughter. (Exodus 2:5)

Moses grows up, murders an Egyptian, and flees the country. (Exodus 2:12,15)

Moses marries Zipporah and they have a son. (Exodus 2:12,15)

Eventually, “in the course of those many days”, the king of Egypt dies. (Exodus 2:23)

God meets Moses and sends him to the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 3,4)

Moses is 80 years old when he stands before the new Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:7)

The Bible indicates that the same Pharaoh whose daughter adopted three-month-old Moses died when Moses was nearly 80 years old! This Pharaoh must have reigned for a very long time.

Pepy II

Only one pharaoh in the history of Egypt can meet this Biblical requirement—Pepy II.

Pepy II is traditionally thought to have governed the country for ninety-four years… (Grimal, page 89.)

Pepy II’s Successor

From the Biblical account we would expect the reign of Pepy II’s successor to be quite short. This pharaoh had to deal with Moses and the plagues, and the Bible indicates that he drowned in the “Red Sea” with the rest of his army. Grimal makes this mention of the pharaoh who followed Pepy II:

The exceptional longevity of Pepy II resulted not only in the gradual fossilization of the administrative system but also in a succession crisis. The Abydos king-list mentions a Merenre II (also called Antiemdjaf), who seems to have been the son of Pepy II and Queen Neith.

This very ephemeral ruler, who reigned for only a single year, would have been married to Queen Nitocris, who according to Manetho was the last Sixth Dynasty ruler. (Grimal, page 89)

So there is a good fit between the secular history of Egypt and the Biblical account with these two pharaohs; an extremely long reign is followed by a very short reign, as required.

More Evidence

The Biblical account of the ten plagues is quite detailed. It describes the pollution of the water supply, and devastation of the livestock and vegetation of the land. The Israelites left, depriving the land of its slave labor, and they carried away much of the land’s wealth in the form of silver, gold, and clothing (Exodus 12:36).

Also, the army and the Pharaoh were drowned in the “Red Sea,” leaving the country with weakened defenses. The Exodus must surely have left a bold signature in Egyptian history. What do the historians find following the reign of Pepy II’s successor?

Pepy II’s successor was the final Pharaoh of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.

Grimal says: “The Old Kingdom ended with a period of great confusion.” (page 89). Summarizing an ancient Egyptian literary/historical work called Admonitions, which comments on Egypt following the reign of Pepy II’s successor, Grimal says:

It was the collapse of the whole society, and Egypt itself had become a world in turmoil, exposed to the horrors of chaos which was always waiting for the moment when the personification of the divine being – the Pharaoh – neglected his duties or simply disappeared. (Grimal, page 138)

This time period was characterized by famine, an expected result of the plagues described in the book of Exodus. This famine was limited to the Nile valley (Grimal, page 139)—as the Bible’s narrative would lead one to expect.

There was anarchy and a struggle for political power. Egypt’s foreign trade ceased and Egyptian mining in the Sinai peninsula “also seems to have been abandoned” (Grimal, page 139).

The nation of Egypt had obviously suffered a severe blow—as one would expect from what the Bible tells us of the events accompanying the Exodus.

The match between the Bible’s narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom might possibly be brushed aside as coincidence were it not for the fact that this match happens at the right date according to modern Biblical chronology.

Dr. Aardsma’s chronology places the Exodus 2447+/-12 B.C. The current “standard” chronology of Egypt places the end of the Old Kingdom—when the evidence discussed above says the Exodus happened—around 2200 B.C.

The difference of 247 years between these two dates is close enough for such ancient times to regard the dates as the same. Uncertainties of a few hundred years in historical/archaeological chronologies are normal at such early times in the history of civilization.

Nicholas Grimal notes that “The chronological span of the First Intermediate Period [which must be known to date events in the Old Kingdom accurately] is also a problem.” Haas et al. have suggested, based on an extensive suite of radiocarbon dates (totally independent of Dr. Aardsma’s work), that the First Intermediate Period should be lengthened by about 260 years.

This would push the secular date for the end of the Old Kingdom back to around 2460 B.C., indistinguishable from Dr. Aardsma’s Biblical date of 2447+/-12 B.C. for the Exodus. Pottery analysis in the Sinai Peninsula by E. D. Oren and Y. Yekuteli is also supportive of this adjustment.

Thus the qualitative match between the Bible’s narrative of the Exodus and the secular history of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom is supported by quantitative chronology.

Evidence for the Exodus from Egypt is plentiful—as long as one has their Biblical chronology right, and thus knows to examine Egypt’s history around 2450 B.C., rather than around the traditional 1450 B.C.


Grimal, Nicolas A History of Ancient Egypt Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1993.

Pyramid of Pepy II Pyramid of Pepy II….  Pepy II

” ho hum! i see you still prefer biased sites.

[Its interesting how every site I go to, too find answers from is biased but hers, which are Atheistic thought are right on accurate]

No direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 400-plus years in Egypt, or the Israelites’ miraculous exodus from slavery.
No physical trace has been found of 40 years in the Sinai wilderness, and nothing outside of the bible shows Moses existed. The exodus cannot be treated as history because there is no support for it except the bible. 
The authors of Exodus would have been familiar with Egyptian conditions if the book had been written in Egypt, and exodus first appeared when the Ptolemies in the third century BC translated the scriptures into Greek for the library of Alexandria. 
The exodus was then composed from a Persian account of Jews being Egyptian slaves because Canaan had been an Egyptian colony for centuries. Israelite settlements showed no Egyptian culture in their archaeological remains. 
They were uniform with those of the Canaanites, so they were not immigrants from Egypt but native Canaanites. A reply to Christians who seek to justify the biblical exodus.”
 Excuse me,……. that’s the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard, as if you regularly read from Christian sites, YOUR BIASED! YES IT HAS ARE YOU JUST IN DENIAL OR WHAT, I’VE PROVED IT OVER AND OVER.

Atheists are simply avoiding the evidence by denial, your not even fair in your criticisms….WOW its mind numbing how blind you are!

You just argued before, that Orthodox [RELIGIOUS] Jews would not be secular in their practices under penalty of death TO PROVE YOUR ISSUE ABOUT PALESTINE, NOW YOUR SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE EGYPTIAN PRACTICE AND CULTURE WHICH WAS AGAINST THEIR GOD, IN THEIR REMAINS? That is insane rambling at best!



“The Evidence

From 1972-1982 the Ben-Gurion University (in Israel) conducted an extensive archaeological survey of the northern Sinai area. They documented 284 sites in northern Sinai where pottery shards and other remains of ancient occupation were found. These sites were arranged in groups with larger sites in the center and smaller sites on the outer edges of the group.

They found that the larger center sites were “base sites” where central activities (such as buying and selling) occurred, that the medium-size sites were family living areas, and the small outer sites were encampments for shepherds. They found that the people who lived at these sites were nomadic, wandering from place to place. They said “In most of the sites there is no evidence of solid building, and it looks as if the inhabitants lived in booths, tents, or lean-tos.”


Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., showed back in 1995 that these encampment sites were made by the Israelites early in the Exodus. They reveal, in fact, the first three stops along the route of the Exodus: Succoth, Etham, and Pi-hahiroth. These Sinai sites fit the Biblical account very well.


Chronological Issues

So why do most archaeologists say the Exodus never happened? Because the pottery they’ve found in the Sinai is from about 4,500 years ago, while the traditional date for the Exodus is only about 3,500 years ago. They assume that this pottery must not be from the Exodus because of its date.

But the traditional date for the Exodus is wrong. Dr. Aardsma has shown that a full millennium has accidentally been overlooked by biblical chronology scholars in the past. (See What is the missing millennium discovery? http://www.biblicalchronologi… When the overlooked millennium is restored to biblical chronology, the problem of the missing Exodus pottery shards disappears.

Because the archaeologists have been looking for the Exodus in the wrong time period, they haven’t found it. Unfortunately, they have then gone on to conclude that the Exodus must never have happened. This is the wrong conclusion. When you look in the right time period, there’s plenty of evidence to show that, in fact, the Exodus did happen, just as the Bible describes it.
The foregoing article was based on research reported on in The Biblical Chronologist Volume 1 [http://www.biblicalchronolog… Number 6 and The Biblical Chronologist Volume 2 [http://www.biblicalchronolog… Number 1. Full details and references to the scholarly literature can be found there.”

What’s amazing to me is that you REFUSE to believe even though I’ve proven it over and over again to you, this man is so much smarter than both of us, you saw his credentials! This is the answer you needed but you refuse to look at from a scientific mind, your mind is drowning in unbelief of even solid evidence.


Exo 17:3-7

” And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?

And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not? “


About 3,000 years ago someone put up pillars at the site marking the place of the crossing. It was King Solomon’s pillars, he was very aware of the site and it says it in the bible here: “In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD near its border.” Isaiah 19:19.


You can see the shadow on the Egyptian Side Here: 28°58’11.58″N – 34°38’32.86″E The pillar on the Saudi side was removed after Ron Wyatt showed the authorities where it was. Why? Because it proved Israels crossing there, talk about biased?

There is a place marker there set in concrete. There were inscriptions on that pillar that said: Pharaoh, Mizraim (Egypt), Moses, death, water, Yahweh, Solomon, Edom



The Evidence is overwhelming against your claims YOU KNOW IT and I know it, but you’ll do what you always do DENY, DENY, DENY its all you have! THESE EVIDENCES ARE PHYSICAL THINGS FOUND ALONG THE EXODUS ROUTE AND THERE ARE MANY MORE!

I mean really what are the odds that The name Nuweiba is short for Nuwayba’ al Muzayyinah which means “Waters of Moses Opening” wow they named it after a non-existent man? Amazing! At the exact spot where the crossing took place, we have the site confirmed by maps.……

Funny how historical physical remains don’t match your mental picture of things but that’s life! Denial has its problems when you don’t have an open mind, but that’s expected from a closed universe of the Atheist.


“wrong again. you deny reality and live with fantasy. how sad for you.…

top Israeli archaeologists contest Jewish ties to Jerusalem
[ 08/08/2011 – 05:43 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)– Top Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has denied the existence of Jewish roots in the city of Jerusalem, contrary to Israel’s claims that have prompted continued Judaization of the city.

Finkelstein, a professor at Tel Aviv University, said Jewish archaeologists have failed to unearth historic sites to support some of the stories in the Torah. Among those stories are the Jewish Exodus, the forty-year wandering in the Sinai desert, and Joshua’s victory over the Canaanites.

He also said there was no archaeological evidence that concludes that the alleged Temple of Solomon ever existed.

For his part, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University Raphael Greenberg said that the Israelis should have found something after digging for six weeks in the City of David in East Jerusalem’s Silwan district, but have found nothing in two years of continuous excavations.

Prof. Yoni Mihrazi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Finkelstein’s findings, saying that top settler organization Elad had not stumbled upon even a banner saying “welcome to the city of David”, given that claims were made to have been relying on sacred texts to guide them in their work.


Moronic, just moronic, I just proved that every thing contained in your rant was not so, proved it by thousands of proofs and all you can do is RE POST the same nonsense, over and over again.

The mounting evidence against your thought process is getting high but still no proof against it only hearsay evidence from self hating Jews and Atheists who have a vested interest in keeping it under wraps.

Of course their are Jews who have vested interest in selling out their own country, its as simple as ‘Goggling them’ but it proves only that. There is little evidence for completely different reasons that you imply.

The Muslims, that you love so much are destroying thousands of priceless artifacts all the time, but no response from you except defending their cowardice on that I’m sure.

They don’t want the evidence to surface and neither to these archeologists you mention here, even if they did they know full well the difficulty digging in those areas and that they may never move beyond a small area where they are now, its insane to take the word of people who know that what their saying is greatly qualified by circumstances beyond their control.


“Piecing Together The Holy Temple

SINCE 1999 THE MUSLIM WAKF, which was granted de facto day-to-day control of the Temple Mount by the Israeli government in 1967, has been conducting illegal construction of an underground Mosque on the southern third of the Temple Mount. In the course of this illegal construction the Wakf has been using heavy tractors to excavate the earth. Both the construction and the excavation have been conducted without any archaeological supervision, rendering both aspects of this violation of the holy site illegal.  The stated purpose behind the Wakf’s actions has been both to “create facts” on the ground, rendering the Mount a “Moslem only” site, and to destroy any archaeological evidence of the first and second Holy Temples which stood on the Mount. This is part and parcel of a consistent policy of the Palestinian Authority to deny that the Holy Temple ever existed.

Although many have protested the brazen assault on this holiest of sites, the Israeli government has consistently followed the policy of acquiescence. Even the archaeological community which has been outspoken in its protest, has done little more than throw up its arms in resignation. A young archaeologist by the name of Zachi Zweig, however, refused to stand idly by. Led by Dr. Gabriel Barkay, Zachi organized and oversaw the transfer of the debris from where it was dumped, (illegally), in the Kidron Valley to an alternative location, where a crew of volunteers under Dr. Barkay’s supervision have been painstakingly sifting through the dirt and rubble looking for signs of the past. This constitutes the first archaeological “dig” on the Temple Mount in history. Ironically, archaeological research has been forbidden on the Mount due to the sensitivity of the location for religious, (read, political), reasons.

The Moslem attempt to obliterate any remaining physical evidence of the Holy Temple has actually enabled Zachi and Dr. Barkay to uncover priceless links to the past. It must be kept in mind, however, that the wanton Wakf destruction has severely impaired the ability of archaeologists to properly analyze the discoveries, due to the fact that they were removed from their original location.

And, of course, the archaeologists are not able to study those remnants that were pulverized into dust by the Wakf bulldozers. Yet, despite the adverse conditions, significant discoveries have been made of artifacts from both the first and second Temple era.

Bronze coins dating from the Great Revolt against the Roman authority in the year 70 CE. have been uncovered. Below are three other fascinating discoveries made by Zachi’s crew. Those of us who believe in the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible do not require archaeological evidence to bolster our convictions, just as those that are willing to employ any and all methods in an attempt to pervert, deny, and obliterate the truth certainly won’t be moved by a few archaeological finds, however startling they may be. Yet these discoveries, as you will see below, can bring us tantalizingly close to a period in human history of nearly a thousand years, when the Holy Temple stood on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem.”

“In an unbelievable disregard for holy respect, scientific principles and simple decency, see what is permitted to go on at the Holiest site on Earth!”


Muslims KNOW that this site is Jewish alone and fear that it can and will be proved someday so they do what all cowards do they bully and intimidate those who look for that proof!

“Despite Israel’s victorious return to the Temple Mount in the miraculous Six Day War of 1967, Moslem authorities have embarked upon a campaign to destroy the Jewish people’s historical and Divinely-appointed connection to this holy site. Their efforts have reached a fever pitch, and nothing is being done to stop them!”

Each place you mentioned unsurprisingly like  East Jerusalem`s Arab village of Silwan which is called by Israelis “The city of David” are in dispute so excavations are difficult if not impossible. And with Arab sanction to destroy anything that would prove the Land belongs to the Jews how can anyone expect to get to the truth?

Its interesting how you find the only places where there are no freedoms to dig without great issues being raised, but avoid the obvious evidences I’ve presented. You quote moronic people with little self respect or historical method but avoid dealing with those whose credentials are solid. Interesting but not surprising to anyone!

But things are found nonetheless:
“Salvage excavations

Prior to any construction, laying of infrastructure or development in an area designated as an antiquities site, the developer must underwrite a “salvage excavation”. The purpose of such an excavation is to reveal archaeological remains and document them before they are destroyed or covered by modern construction. By contrast, research excavations are undertaken in order to address specific research issues at sites that may not be in danger of destruction. A dig undertaken for tourism development is termed salvage work, because although some of the remains are preserved and accessible, the motive for excavation and the methods used are often not oriented toward research.

Occupation layer

An archaeological site is composed of superimposed deposits or layers. Layers containing remains of material culture such as pottery or stone vessels, especially when they can be related to structures, are identified as occupation layers, i.e. strata that represent daily human activities. The term distinguishes it from layers of earth that piled up over this layer after it was abandoned.

A floor that abuts a wall and does not cover it or is not cut by it may reasonably be assumed to date to the same period as the wall. Finds on this floor would therefore serve to date the walls that it abuts. Finds made on, in or beneath floors are archaeologists’ main dating tools.
In situ finds

A find discovered in its original location. Often, archaeological artifact are displaced by human activity or natural processes. In order to associate an artifact with the place in which it was found, it is necessary to confirm that it is “in situ” (in its place). If it is not in its original place due to past events such as erosion, theft or an unsupervised excavation – the significance of the find is compromised.”

Get real here even if half of this is the case it is clearly done to block, obstruct or otherwise slow down evidence from surfacing and ANYONE JEWISH OR ARAB SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN!

Archaeological and Historical Evidence of Jews in Jerusalem:



“you have NOT proven anything.
tel Dan Inscription of the Aramean King Hazael?

Three fragments of a 13-line Aramaic inscription discovered by archaeologists of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology in 1993/4 purportedly refer to the “House of David.” One interpretation is that stele records King Hazael’s 842 BC killing of “Jehoram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of the House of David. I set their towns to ruin, their land to desolation.”

The inscription appears to confirm that a chieftain called David was not pure invention yet even so, it contradicts the biblical story that it was Jehu who assassinated the tribal leaders in Jezreel.

“And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot … But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in the chariot.” – 2 Kings 9:24,27

But this interpretation of the fragments has been challenged, both by a realignment of the 3 fragments and a corrected rendering of the word “BYTDWD” – not “House of David” but a place-name meaning “House of Praise”.

One problem with the early Aramaic of the inscription (which pre-dates the adoption of the square-form developed in Babylon) is the absence of a dot separating words. “DVD” could mean many things, including, for example, uncle, beloved and kettle.

“The desire to read the letters bytdvd as house of david is … a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence.”

– M. Sturgis, It Ain’t Necessarily So, p129.

“This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel … the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.”

(Ha’aretz Magazine, October 1999)
In contrast, to the myth of the Israelite empire, the cities of Assyria, Phoenicia and Nabatea have left extant and extensive ruins



I DON’T DISAGREE that the evidence SO-FAR is sparse, but it is nevertheless there with more to be found as time goes by! You say in Contrast as though there has been NO DESTRUCTION of important artifacts by rival Nations around Israel which if you honest you know IS AND HAS HAPPENED.

This evidence is only a small fragment of the total evidence and will no doubt bring out the nay-Sayers in herds, but its only their desperate attempt to save their secular view from banishment!

“House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription

A new restoration of a famous inscription reveals another mention of the “House of David” in the ninth century B.C.E.

The recent discovery at Tel Dan of a fragment of a stela containing a reference to the “House of David” (that is, the dynasty of David) is indeed sensational and deserves all the publicity it has received.a The Aramaic inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., was originally part of a victory monument erected at Dan, apparently by an enemy of both the “King of Israel” (also referred to in the fragment) and the “[King of the] House of David.”

The inscription easily establishes the importance of Israel and Judah on the international scene at this time—no doubt to the chagrin of those modern scholars who maintain that nothing in the Bible before the Babylonian exile can lay claim to any historical accuracy.

This so-called evidence by you proves little as well, its conjectural at this point not PROOF.

“The desire to read the letters ‘bytdvd’ as house of david is … a classic example of scholars working backwards from the Bible rather than forwards from the evidence.”

This alone is suspect because it can be said of their results as well, they are working backwards from a secular base instead of a Christian or Jewish one.

So that being said your statements are biased in your favor since it is interpretative at best! I NOT SAYING IT ISN’T TRUE, I’m saying its not in any way a fact as yet so stop using it as a fact.

The House of David Inscription

The House of David Inscription (also known as the “Tel Dan Inscription”) was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the “House of David” discovered outside the biblical text.

The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David” (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

House of David Inscription

Was king David’s name inscribed on this black stone slab?

An inscription containing the words “house of David” was found on a black basalt stone slab called the Tel Dan Stele, from Tel Dan, Israel, 9th Century B.C.

It was a victory stele erected by an Aramaean king north of Israel. The inscription contains an Aramaic writing commemorating his victory over Israel. The author is most likely Hazael or his son, Ben Hadad II or III, who were kings of Damascus, and enemies of the kingdom of Israel. The stele was discovered at Tel Dan, previously named Tell el-Qadi, a mound where a city once stood at the northern tip of Israel.

The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
House of David Inscription, Biblical Archaeology

1 Kings 2:11 – And the days that David reigned over Israel [were] forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.

Material – Basalt Stone Stele
Israel Period of the Kings
Date: 858-824 BC
Language: Aramaic
Height: 32 cm
Width: 22 cm
Tel Dan, Galilee
Excavated by: Avraham Biran 1994
Location: Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Excerpt

The Aramaic Stele

Fragments of the Aramaic stele

Fragments of a large inscribed basalt stele were found in the square located in front of the Israelite city gate complex. The largest of these fragments measures 32 x 22 cm. and, of the original inscription, thirteen lines have been partially preserved. The language is ancient Aramaic.

The 9th century BCE and the beginning of the 8th century BCE were marked by military conflicts between the kings of Israel and the expanding kingdom of Aram-Damascus. (1 Kings 15:20) Thus the stele was erected by one of the Aramean kings of Damascus who captured Dan – although which king cannot be ascertained as yet. It is probable that in lines 7-8 two kings of Israel and Judah, who ruled at the same time, are mentioned: Jehoram, king of Israel and Ahaziah, king of Judah, referred to as a king of the House of David. These two kings were allies and were defeated by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus. (2 Kings 8:7-15, 28; 9:24-29; 2 Chronicles 22:5)

The stele describing Hazael’s victory over his enemies was, in all probability, erected by him when he conquered Dan in the mid-9th century BCE. It is reasonable to assume that Jehoash, king of Israel, who fought the Arameans three times and defeated them (2 Kings 13:25) recovering territories previously lost, including the city of Dan, symbolically smashed the stele erected there by Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus.

Although the broken stele raises serious historical problems, it is one of the most important written finds in Israel and the first non-biblical text which mentions the House of David by name. It is hoped that more fragments of this unique stele will be uncovered in future excavations.

A line by line translation by André Lemaire is as follows (with text that cannot be read due to being missing from the stele, or too damaged by erosion, represented by “[…..]”):

1′. […………………]…….[……………………………..] and cut […………………….]
2′. [………] my father went up [………………..f]ighting at/against Ab[….]
3′. And my father lay down; he went to his [fathers]. And the king of I[s-]
4′. rael penetrated into my father’s land[. And] Hadad made me—myself—king.
5′. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from ………..[……………..]
6′. of my kings. And I killed two [power]ful kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]
7′. riots and two thousand horsemen. I killed Joram son of Ahab
8′. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram kin]g
9′. of the House of David. And I set [……………………………………………….]
10′. their land …[……………………………………………………………………………]
11′. other …[………………………………………………………………. and Jehu ru-]
12′. led over Is[rael………………………………………………………………………..]
13′. siege upon [……………………………………………………]

 Look, I know you don’t agree but I am compelled to try to convince you, NOT TO AGREE WITH ME, but with the point and purpose of Jesus’ life and death.

Because he did not come to ARGUE about anything he came to seek you out and save your essence from destruction and death. He did not have to do it but wanted to leave glory to be born in this mess so that God could experience what we have to go through.

His love for all of us is so much greater than our hatred for him and not until we open our hearts to see it can we experience that love.

I remember well sitting in a church back in 1979 Drunk and High out of my mind, immersed in the Darkness of Witchcraft, not having any thought about a god existing, I had wandered in at the behest of two Christians who lived in my Dorm with me.

At some point during the service some spiritual force overwhelmed my mind in an envelope of light, a warmth of Love I had never felt before. I am certain that the drugs and the Booze didn’t affect me during that time because seconds after I was totally sober of both, that was my first miracle from that God I didn’t believe cared at all.

For the first time in years I could think clearly and understand God’s care and Love for me, tears fell from my eyes and I weep for a long time, getting out all the abandonment and pain that I had built up in my soul.

I’m not SELLING anything, its a free service that God provides and you keep the power to reason and think for yourself, God requires you to choose for yourself, he requires thinking, skeptical Human beings to come just as they are without giving up anything but their dark souls to him so he can give them light.

If you wish NEVER to speak again I’ll fully understand and respect your choice. But please know that I care about you from my heart, you matter in the larger scheme of the universe. I will leave you with this FINAL PLEA!

“well your compulsion will get you nowhere! nada ,zilch ,zero! you cannot convince me of what i KNOW is a lie!

love?? love doesn’t create a world such as this with hucksters and shysters sucking the life out of people so they follow what you claim without proof. there never was any proof and there never will be any proof. thats why its called FAITH! because you want to believe its true.

see your problem is you are desperate to convince someone,me,of something i absolutely KNOW is false. i KNOW this as surely as you don’t know it. a creator would not create a soap opera for anyone to follow. what ever created this universe has moved on.”
 You know very little if anything at all, what you do is a disservice to Atheism, you prove nothing, you present NO evidence to prove it and then CLAIM you know something, that’s called circular reasoning my friend and your infested with it!

circular reasoning

In order to prove the assertion ‘No God exists’ experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality.

Comprehensive knowledge which you claim to have because you said you knew ABSOLUTELY that God didn’t exist, that’s called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God!

According to Atheism THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH which would include Atheistic thought which means you know NOTHING absolutely!

So, based on empirical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself! Pesky fact if you ask me!

Atheism exalts reason, but it is actually irrational.

Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the empirical method and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the empirical method.

You might reply: “But I can’t disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either.”

Granted, one can NEVER disprove anything exists. The atheistic position of denying God’s existence, if based on the empirical method, is absurd…plain and simple, its a ‘Straw Man’ builder nothing else.

And just so you know I am not the desperate one here, judging from your lack, complete and utter lack of proof [Because insults are no substitute for substance] Its simply a matter of my evidence vs your accusations and which one wins in the minds of those who see these comments!

Your right its not love that made this world the way it is it was DISOBEDIENCE TO THAT LOVE that God gave. The ‘hucksters and shysters’ you speak of are human beings WITHOUT God’s love in control of their lives that’s just plain fact, no matter what they claim to be.

You cannot prove God at fault at all, it US NOT HIM, so where do you go with this lame excuse against God? Atheists have always used FALSE religious principles as an evidence against God but that is utter nonsense since the Bible speaks about these people NEVER HAVING BELONGED TO HIM in the first place.

People who speak in his name CANNOT disprove what is already clear in black and white, they represent NOT GOD but their own agendas, false religious people are not in ministry to acknowledge themselves at Gods expense.

Job 8:13

“So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite’s hope shall perish:”

Isa 9:17

“Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.”

Pro 11:9

“An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered. “

God hates hypocrisy NOT the person but the act!

What is hypocrisy? It is acting like one thing while claiming something else as your intention, kind of what you did pretending to be sympathetic to the plight of the Orthodox Jew to advance an agenda of Palestinians.

One of the ways that Atheists TRY to disprove God is the riddle of Epicurus a simple straw man creation.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

In its first step, Epicurus states, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.”

God is either able to prevent evil, or He is not, this is one of those paint a Christian into a corner arguments that fizzles out once certain facts are seen.

# 1 You are presupposing that there is a God who can’t do everything, that seems strange since he doesn’t exist to do anything in the first place!

# 2 You assume that God IS willing to eradicate Evil AND THAT GOD MUST DO IT THE WAY WE THINK HE MUST DO IT! How arrogant of the Atheist with no understanding of God whatsoever to predetermine how to deal with evil in a world looking for a way to do it. LET’S HEAR JUST HOW TO DO THAT FROM ATHEISTS IF YOUR SO SMART?

God’s way is nothing like our way, we do not and will not get it, so who are we to know the WAY of God plainly shown in scripture and how do Atheists know it isn’t working?

The second step says “Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.” this is another bad reasoning on your part, that God could but won’t deal with evil.

Malevolent means wanting to cause harm: having or showing a desire to harm others, harmful or evil: having a harmful or evil effect or influence hence according to Atheists God is Evil. Again they ignore the Devil in scripture who is plainly that very thing.

NOT TRUE on any count, the Bible reveals that God hates evil and that he made a place for evil to be SELF tormented, no different than our prisons which were built to KEEP EVIL FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD.

Hell is not a torture chamber that God uses to ‘get off’ torturing us forever. The torture of hell is SELF INDUCED BY US KNOWING THE JUSTICE OF GOD FOR SIN. We would truly be tortured if we went to heaven instead of hell, because Hell was created for the specific of keeping evil within its hold, hence God is both willing and able and IS ERADICATING EVIL! In fact God is the sole eradicator of evil in existence.

Step three of the riddle states, “Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil?”

A straw man argument in the making, the bible clearly states that EVIL came from the heart of Lucifer, the first lawbreaker, evil is disobedience to the Laws that God created to contain creation within its perfect operational function, NOT TRAP IT AS EVIL DOES IN A DYSFUNCTIONAL TAILSPIN!

This argument only works with those who can’t think their way out of a straw-man creation, it assumes to much is true without proof that this is how God acts against evil!

The Bible is completely ignored with this argument, the chief evidence to refute it, how typical. Its obvious to anyone that you have to assume to much so what is the point here?

The FORTH and last part of this nonsense riddle [Straw Man] “Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” For one thing Why not knowing this is based upon faulty reasoning and character assassination, totally against the facts of scripture!

This was enough to disprove God to the unintelligent listening to the so-called intelligent?, in the arena of human reason and logic that’s amazing!


Part 1- The Response to the Atheist Essay! is the beginning of a response to the above ‘Atheistic Essay’ in Full context, click the Tab to read it in full before starting this series of responses!
“This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my atheism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.” 

Most of this essay is ” Strawman Theology” at it’s best, BUT it is also “Riddled with GOOD QUESTIONS that need VERY GOOD ANSWERS.” must be very careful when answering this type of QUESTIONING of PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS A “MENTAL TRAP” to get emotional and Reactive to their “VITRIOL VENOM” of hate speech. What she totally misses is the FACT that without FAITH NOTHING HAPPENS one way or the other, that’s a FACT. 

Unless a person accepts the FAITH OF GOD to start with the Evidence available will never become the PROOF that Atheists require. 


That is exactly why I asked that no one comment on these blogs with “LIKE HATRED OF, BECAUSE IF YOU RETURN EVIL FOR EVIL then you prove her point and make God look bad.
” So I will begin where SHE BEGAN…The Idea that REAL SCIENCE does not support a Living and Active God.
WHAT SHE REALLY MEANS IS,THAT EVOLUTION: { The act of unfolding or unrolling. A series of things unrolled or unfolded }DOES NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOD!
This is true, BUT we must understand what this so-called science is before DISMANTLING IT’S ATHEISTIC PREMISE! 
Does everything have a natural cause?
Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. 
However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally., atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.
Do skeptics have beliefs?
Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.” However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work.
Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. 
Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.
ARE YOU JUST MISSING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT GOD? “The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.
“Tonto, look up and tell me what you see.”
Tonto replies, “Me see millions of stars.”
“What does that tell you?” asks The Lone Ranger.
Tonto ponders for a minute.“Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it’s evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?”
The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.
“Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent.”
The above joke is a good lesson in missing the obvious. Chances are that you were surprised by the Lone Ranger’s response. However, the first sentence of the joke tells you that the Lone Ranger and Tonto were camping in a tent. It should have been clear at Tonto’s first response that he was missing the obvious.
Likewise, those who have already decided that God does not exist and that all processes must have a naturalistic explanation, do not see the obvious evidence that the universe was designed, rather than happened by chance. 

“Design by an intelligent being”

“Happened by random chance”
What are the differences between the two creators? 
Both creators must possess certain characteristics in common, such as being eternal and being transcendent to this universe. However, the naturalistic creator must be “stupid” and must have created our exquisitely-designed universe through some sort of random process.
For some reason, the atheist chooses to believe that the universe arose randomly by the action of a stupid creator called Evolution, instead of seeing the obvious – that a well-designed universe would most likely come into being through the actions of an intelligent designer. 
Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:
Designed and put together by intelligent human beings or…. computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.
Well, its your choice. Have you checked your tent lately? 

“Improbable things happen all the time” is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

SCIENCE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE “BIG BANG THEORY” Many scientists recognize two facts:
(1) There is no real evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, and….
(2) there is very definite evidence against it. But, complicating the matter, there a strong effort is being made by the establishment to muffle opposition. The following statements will provide you with a better understanding of this.
“The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place. . .
“Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.
” `The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,’ says Joseph Silk, `is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.’
“This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinites in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:
” `If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?’ This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms.”—*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.
“The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed.”—*W.H. McCrea, “Cosmology after Half a Century,” Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
“Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little.”—*G. Burbidge, “Was There Really A Big Bang?” in Nature, 233:36-40.
“This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930′s. It can be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. 
As is well-known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target—a building for example—that anything happens . . But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. 
There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), pp. 521, 523.
THE ATOMIC GAPS The initial Big Bang explosion is said to have produced hydrogen and helium, which, through later explosions, changed into the heavier elements. But the atomic gaps would forbid this from occurring.
“In the sequence of atomic weight, numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? 

The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.” —*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

“There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules.”—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
Why is our earth and the other planets full of the heavier elements, whereas the stars are not? This is a mystery the Big Bang theory cannot explain.
“Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about one percent of the total mass . . The contrast [of the sun’s light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.
“First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector’s piece.” —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.
When large stars explode, they are termed supernovas. Theorists tell us that supernova explosions of Population III stars produced the stars we now have. Yet it is a scientific fact that supernova explosions rarely occur.
“A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so.”—*Reader’s Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.
“In a typical nova explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .
“A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently.
A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies.”—*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.
“The explosion named Supernova 1987A in February 1987 was the first reasonably close one since the invention of the telescope. [The telescope was invented in 1609; that super-nova occurred in 1604.] . . [Astronomers] estimate that one goes off somewhere in the Milky Way every 50 to 100 years.”—*Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 34.
“Although supernovae may provide enough matter to form some new stars, whether there are enough of them to significantly forestall the [eventual] extinction of the galaxies seems doubtful. In the Milky Way, for instance, stars massive enough to go supernova make up a scant 4 percent of the galaxy’s stars and contain only 11 percent of its total stellar mass.
Many galaxies may be similarly proportioned. Ellipticals, for example, much like the globular clusters at the Milky Way’s outer edges, tend to consist of less massive, slower-burning, and hence, older bodies . . Galaxies are basically dependent on their original supply of gas.”—*Op. cit., 71.
The Big Bang theory requires the existence of a theoretical “Population III star,” yet no such exist. (A “Population III star” is theorized to have hydrogen, helium, and essentially no other elements.)
“Are there any stars older than Population-II? There should be, if our ideas about the early history of the universe are correct. The immediate result of the Big Bang is hydrogen and helium with very little, if any, production of heavier elements. 

To provide the chemical composition observed in Population-II objects requires a previous generation of stars to perform the necessary nucleosynthesis. Such primordial `Population-III’ stars would contain vanishingly small abundances of heavy elements.”—*”Where is Population III?” Sky and Telescope, 64:19 (1982) [Nucleosynthesis”=production of heavier elements by nuclear fusion].

“There appears to be no observation evidence for the existence of true Population III stars in our Galaxy which formed in the denser regions of space, such as the Virgo cluster.”—*J.G. Hills, “Where Are the Population III Stars?” Astrophysical Journal, 258:L67 (1982).
Few non-mathematicians realize how narrowly the calculations have been made to arrive at a theoretical Big Bang. (Yet, as we learn from other statements by scientists, the theory is still a failure. There is too much it does not explain.)
“If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less, then the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-2 gm / cm3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would have existed long enough to form stars.”—*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
“The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole.”—Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter’s calculation].
“It seems, for instance, that altering the rate of expansion at the Big Bang very marginally would have made our universe fall to bits too fast or undergo recollapse too quickly for Life to stand a chance of evolving. Persuading expanding gases to form themselves into galaxies of stars and planets requires an adjustment of gravitational and explosive forces quite as delicate as that between the two halves of a pencil in balance on a razor’s edge.
“. . Even as matters stand, it is hard to see how galaxies could have formed in a universe which is flying apart so fast—and an early speed increase by one thousandth would quickly have led to a thousandfold increase. Again, very slight reductions in the smoothness with which matter is distributed . . would apparently have multiplied the primeval heat billions of times with disastrous effects.”—J. Leslie, Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to explain Life,” in N. Rescher, (ed.), Scientific Explanation and Understanding (1983), pp. 53-54.
There is not enough matter in the universe to fit the Big Bang requirements.” `Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.’ McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this `missing mass’ is `perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.’ “—*W.H. McCrae, quoted in H.R. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
“Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass of galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden source of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:
“Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements, and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy”—*P.V. Rizzo, “Review of Mysteries of the Universe,” in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.
The outward-flowing radiation from an initial Big Bang would have kept moving outward forever. The universe should not be filled with anything; it should have all gone outward!“With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever.”—*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.
“The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was then much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct.”—A.W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].
Many stars rotate too rapidly to have initially collected any nearby gas, much less be formed by compressing gas. By the way, thin hydrogen clouds would not push themselves together, and even if they could— what would start the balls twirling?
“There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process. 
In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulation motion without collapsing into stars.”—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.
“Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the `known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.’ “—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.
“Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Doppler-shifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades.”—*D.E. Thomsen, “Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage,” Science News, 125:388 (1984).
Whenever matter comes into existence, half of it is our kind of matter and the other half is “antimatter”—which immediately flies to the matter and destroys both. The Big Bang would produced equal amounts of both, and they would have quickly destroyed one another. Yet the universe has almost no anti-matter.
“Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge.”—*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.
“Antimatter: It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence of antigalaxies.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), p. 2.
“We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter.”—*Victor Weisskopf, “The Origin of the Universe,” in America Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.
“What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere.”—*F. Wilczek, “The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter,” in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.
“The principle is clear, however, and no physicist doubts it. Antimatter can exist.
“But does it exist in actuality? 

Are there masses of antimatter in the universe?

. . If they encountered ordinary matter, the massive annihilation reactions that result ought to be noticeable. It ought to be, perhaps, but it is not. Astronomers have not spied any energy bursts anywhere in the sky that can be identified unequivocally as the result of matter-antimatter annihilation.
Can it be, then, that the universe is almost entirely matter, with little or no antimatter? If so, why? Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force that would create one [such as a Big Bang or steady state theory] would have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each.
“This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there; and observation refuses to back it up.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 343.
“That the moon and Venus are made of ordinary matter is clear from direct observations. That the solar system in general contains no antimatter follows from the lack of solar-wind induced annihilation gamma rays. An `antiplanet’ [a theoretical antimatter planet], for example, would have been the strongest gamma-ray source in the sky.
Similarly, gamma-ray observations show no nearby star is an `antistar.’ Indeed, that the Galaxy can contain no interesting amounts of antimatter is strongly suggested by the absence of antinuclei in the cosmic rays, by the observations of Faraday rotation, and by the observations of galactic gamma rays.”—*Gary Steigman, “Observational Tests of Antimatter Cosmologies,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14:339 (1976).
“Even more fascinating was the realization—confirmed by a series of experiments during the 1950′s and 1960′s—that the electron-positron relationship is standard in the subatomic world. each type of matter particle there is an antimatter equivalent that is opposite in electrical charge or some other fundamental property . .
“Although the symmetrical creation of matter and antimatter is common in such experiments, the universe outside the physics laboratory is dominated by matter—an asymmetry cosmologists find baffling.
“The implication was obvious: Extremely energetic processes that create matter should just as easily create antimatter. One such process, of course, was the formation of the universe, in which matter and energy came into being. Given the dynamics of the forces at work shortly after the Big Bang, antimatter should be just as abundant in the cosmos as matter. Where then is it?”—Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
“Clearly, no antimatter exists in any appreciable amount on Earth; if it did, it would readily come into contact with matter and vaporize [both of them] in huge explosions. And since Earth is made of matter, the Solar System must be also . . As for the entire galaxy, if there are such things as antimatter stars, some would already have gone supernova, pouring vast quantities of antiparticles into the interstellar medium and thereby producing almost constant matter-antimatter annihilations and their telltale bursts of energy.”—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 98, 100.
Scientists tell us that the universe has “lumps” (stars) and “clumps” (galaxies), when, according to the Big Bang theory, it should be totally smooth (only have floating gas).
“The large-scale distribution of matter is strikingly clumpy; we see stars in galaxies, galaxies in groups and clusters, and clusters in superclusters.”—*P. Peebles, “The Origin of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies,” in Science, 224 (1984), pp. 1385-1386.“Theorists are particularly disturbed by the growing evidence of large-scale inhomogeneity in the universe’s structure, which conflicts with the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation.”—*Horgan, “Big-Bang Bashers,” in Scientific American, September 1987, pp. 22.
“[The lack of homogeneity] is in fact one of the major unsolved problems of cosmology.”—*Waldrop, “Delving the Hole in Space,” in Science 214 (1981), p. 1016.
“It is questioned whether the homogeneous four-dimensional big-bang model will survive in a universe of inhomogeneous three-dimensional structures.”—*H. Alfven, On Hierarchical Cosmology (1982), p. 24.
“The standard Big Bang model does not give rise to lumpiness. That model assumes the universe started out as a blobally smooth, homogeneous expanding gas. If you apply the laws of physics to this model, you get a universe that is uniform, a cosmic vastness of evenly distributed atoms with no organization of any kind. `No galaxies, no stars, no planets, no nothing.’ Needless to say, the night sky, dazzling in its lumps, clumps, and clusters, says otherwise.
“How then did the lumps get there? No one can say—at least not yet and perhaps not ever. The prerequisite for a cosmos with clusters of concentrated matter is inhomogeneity—some irregularity, some departure from uniformity, some wrinkle in the smoothness of space-time—around which matter, forged in the primordial furnace, can accrete.
“For now, some cosmologists all but ignore this most vexatiousness conundrum. They opt, instead, to take the inhomogeneity as given, as if some matrix of organization, some preexistent framework for clumping somehow leaked out of the primeval inferno into the newly evolving universe. With lumpiness in place, the laws of physics seem to work fine in explaining the of the cosmos we’ve come to know.”—*Ben Patrusky, “Why is the Cosmos Lumpy?” Science 81, 2:96, June 1981.
“Over the last 300 years, we have repeatedly discovered ever-larger inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter: stars, clusters, galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters of groups, and clusters of clusters.”—*R. Oldershaw, “The Continuing Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology,” in Astrophysics and Space Science, 92 (1983), p. 349.
“This peculiarity of the initial state of matter required by the standard [Big Bang] model is called the smoothness problem.”—*Guth and *Steinhardt, “The Inflationary Universe,” in Scientific American, May 1984, p. 119.
Background radiation and the redshift are said to be two primary “evidences” that a Big Bang occurred.
Background radiation does exist. It is a low-level microwave radiation, and is said to be the remnants of the Big Bang. But scientists tell us it does not provide the needed evidence. It is the wrong temperature, there is not enough of it, it does not come from only one direction, and it is much too smooth.
“Perhaps the most significant objection to this cosmology [the Big Bang], stems from the presence of the cosmic background radiation.”—*J. Silk, the Big Bang (1979), p. 321.
“The observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which has a high degree of spatial isotropy . . is generally claimed to be the strongest piece of evidence in support of hot big bang cosmologies by its proponents . . [But] the claim that this radiation lends strong support to hot big bang cosmologies is without foundation.”—*Hannes Alfven and *Asoka Mendis,“Interpretation of Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” in Nature, April 21, 1977, p. 698.
“Cosmologists would like to believe that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, that it is relatively smooth over-all and the same in all directions . . Our evidence for isotropy [a single-direction radiation source] is the microwave radio radiation, the so-called 3K black-body that pervades space and seems to be a relic of the very beginning of time. It used to seem to be the same in all directions.
“Not anymore. Five or six years ago we began to hear of a possible dipole anisotropy [two-directional source]. Then at the beginning of 1980 came hints of a quadruple anisotropy . . A quadruple anisotropy [radiation coming at us from four directions, each at right angles to the other] has to belong to the substance of the radiation of the universe itself.”—Science News, 1981.
“The Big Bang theory includes a microwave background . . but this success is tempered by the fact that it was expected to be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than is actually the case.”—*Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 181.
“The latest data [on background radiation] differ by so much from what theory would suggest as to kill the big bang cosmologies. But now, because the scientific world is emotionally attracted to the big-bang cosmologies, the data is ignored.”—*Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” in New Scientist, 92 (1981), p. 522.
“Recent measurements of the density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation show no fluctuations greater than 2.5 parts in 100,000. No galaxy could grow from a fluctuation that small—even in 15 billion years.”—*William R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 185.
The redshift is said to be the other “evidence” that a Big Bang occurred. But this is not true There are three possible explanations to the redshift seen in the spectra of more distant stars, Evolutionists declare that the speed (Doppler) redshift theory is the only cause of the spectral redshift. They say this because, if that is true, then the universe is expanding outward—which they say is caused by an earlier Big Bang.
But there are two other causes of redshifts, which have been proven by science, and these better explain the various oddities associated with red shifts:

(1) The tired light redshift: Light gradually slows down as it travels over long distances. 

(2) The gravitational redshift: Light loses energy as it passes the gravitational fields of stars.

“The year after Sirius B was found to have its astonishing properties, Albert Einstein presented his general theory of relativity, which was mainly concerned with new ways of looking at gravity. Einstein’s views of gravity led to the prediction that light emitted by a source possessing a very strong gravitational field should be displaced toward the red (the Einstein shift). 

[Walter S.] Adams, fascinated by the white dwarfs he had found, carried out careful studies of the spectrum of Sirius B [a dwarf star] and found that there was indeed the redshift predicted by Einstein.

“This was a point in favor not only of Einstein’s theory but also of the superdensity of Sirius B, for in an ordinary star such as our sun, the redshift effect would be only one thirtieth as great. Nevertheless, in the early 1960′s this very small Einstein shift produced by our sun was detected.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 50.
“[Speed or Doppler redshifts] are caused by recession of one object in relation to another, and are similar to the Doppler effect of a car rapidly driving away and causing the sound heard by an observer to shift from treble to bass . . [In contrast] A gravitational redshift is the shift to longer wavelengths of light passing through a large gravitational field.”—*American Institute of Physics, Glossary of Terms Used in Cosmology (1982), pp. 17-18.
“P. LaViolette has compared the tired light cosmology to the sandar [Big Bang-Doppler effect] model of an expanding universe on four different observational tests and has found that on each one the tired-light hypothesis was superior.”—*W. Corliss, “Tired Light Revived,” Science Frontiers, 47:2 (1986).
“Redshift observations are, of course, crucial to our modern view of the evolution of the cosmos. Usually, it is assumed that the observed redshifts are entirely due to the Doppler effects. If this assumption is incorrect, our cosmology [matter and stellar origins theories] must be drastically revised.
“At least five major classes of observations exist which tend to undermine the Doppler-effect assumption: 

(1) Laboratory measurements of spectral noninvariance; 

(2) Astonomical redshifts that can be correlated with large-scale mass distributions; 

(3) General comparisons between Doppler-redshift (expanding universe) cosmologies and cosmologies based on other redshift phenomena, such as `tired light,’ showing the inferiority of the Doppler hypothesis; 

(4) Observations of redshift differences between objects thought to be at the same distance; and 

(5) Observations of quantized redshift.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 148.

“When we observe galaxies with redshifts greater than z=1, the redshift-distance relationship tells us we are seeing stellar systems more than 10 billion light-years away. Since the universe is thought to be 16-18 billion years old, these distant galaxies must be only 6-8 billion years old, for we are looking back into time. 

The anomaly here is that these young galaxies do not seem much bluer than nearby old galaxies, 16-18 billion years of age. One would expect the younger galaxies to be much hotter [bluer] and more active.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 185.

“A massive quantity of data has been accumulated for galactic clusters, galaxy pairs, stars, and other objects, primarily by W.G. Tifft and his colleagues. Although the catalogs of data on galaxies is not suspect, the analysis of those data in a way that supports redshift quantification has not been well-received. Supporting studies by other astronomers would generate more confidence in the reality of this phenomenon . .
“In clusters of galaxies the spirals tend to have higher redshifts than the E galaxies.”—*Halton Arp, “Three New Cases of Galaxies with Large Discrepant Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, 230:469 (1980). [This is because the spirals are exerting more gravity on the outflowing light.]
“The concept of an expanding universe hinges on the astrophysicists’ assumption that no change occurs to the galaxies’ photons on their long, undisturbed trip from the galaxies to us.”—Russell Akridge, “The Expanding Universe Theory Is Internally Inconsistent,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1982, p. 56.

“A photon’s energy loss is counted twice in the Big Bang expanding universe theory:

[1] In the Big Bang theory, free photons must lose most of their original energy as they travel for vast times.

[2] In the expanding universe theory, free photons must not lose any energy as they travel for vast times.

Talk about “Having your cake and eating it too! }

“A free photon cannot do both at the same time.
“If a free photon loses energy, the Big Bang theory may [or may not] be correct, but the universe is not expanding. However, if the universe is expanding, free photons do not lose energy, because any photon loss is due to the expansion of the universe . . “If either the Big Bang or the expanding universe is true, the other cannot be true. Yet, they are both part of the same evolutionary scheme. Both must be true for either to be true. Therefore, the Big Bang expanding universe theory is false.”—Op. cit., p. 58.
Halton C. Arp, a careful astronomer and astrophysicist, has compiled a remarkable collection of facts which negate acceptance of the speed theory of redshift. But the establishment had him fired for doing so, because his discoveries disprove the expanding universe theory, a primary “evidence” that a Big Bang once occurred.
“The astronomer, Halton Arp, has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts. Occasionally there seems to be a bridge of gas and dust and stars connecting them. If the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe, very different redshifts imply very different distances.”—*Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980), pp. 255.
“In case the thesis of this book is correct, we want to know what the factors are that led to this long, implacable rejection of new knowledge, the wasted effort, and the retardation of progress.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987), p. 5.
“There is massive, incontrovertible evidence for important phenomena and processes . . which we cannot currently understand or explain.”—*Op. cit., p. 2.
“It is of profound importance to recall now that for a number of classes of . . objects, there was never any shred of evidence that they obeyed a Hubble relation . . The assumption that . . objects obeyed a redshift-distance relation sprang simply from the feeling that if one kind of object [Sb galaxies] did, all objects must do so. Such a generalization is an example of the oldest of logical fallacies. Nevertheless, it has become an article of faith despite many examples of contradictory evidence.”—*Op. cit., p. 178.
“As with the statistical association of quasars with galaxies, the implication of physically interacting objects with different redshifts is revolutionary. The redshift distance relationship is a pillar of modern astronomy, and this pillar would be shattered if paired objects had different redshifts.”—*W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1985), p. 100.
“It cannot be stressed too strongly, however, that these discordant redshifts are not discovered in just one or two isolated cases that have no relation to each other. But in every case we can test—large clusters, groups, companions to nearby galaxies, companions to middle-distance galaxies, companions liked by luminous filaments, galaxies interacting gravitationally, chains of galaxies—in every conceivable case, we come out with the same answer: This same discordant redshifts for the same general class of younger, fainter galaxies.”—*H. C. Arp, “Evidence for Discordant Redshifts,” in G. Field (ed.), The Redshift Controversy, p. 54.
“This important result has largely been ignored by astonomers because it does not fit in with the current theoretical framework.”—*H. Arp, “Further Examples of Companion Galaxies with Discordant Redshifts and Their Spectral Peculiarities,” in Astrophysical Journal, 263 (1982), p. 54.
“Twenty-two new quasars close to galaxies are reported. Most of them are so close to companion galaxies that the probability of accidental occurrence is less than 0.01.”—*Halton Arp, Quasars near Companion Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal, 250:31 (1981).
“Burbidge and Arp are upset by what they see as a distressingly one-sided approach to the quasar redshift question by the community of astromoners, `Observational evidence exists on both sides,’ Burbidge argues, `Both sides are probably right. What is unfortunate . . is the great prejudice in the field. Arp’s papers and others—suggesting that some quasars are nearby—are held up, interminably rejected. Heckman’s polemic [calling for recantation] would not be published, were it on the other side.’
“If Heckman’s call for recantation is meant in such `good humor,’ Arp asks angrily, `Why has telescope time been cut off for proponents of the [opposing] viewpoint? 


” `Much is at stake,’ says Burbidge. `If it is accepted that just one large redshift is not due to the universal expansion [expanding universe], Pandora’s box is open. Much of our currently claimed knowledge of the extragalactic universe would be at risk, as would a number of scientific reputations.’ “—*”Companion Galaxies Match Quasars Redshifts: The Debate Goes On,” Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984. [Heckman’s statement, calling for recantation by Arp’s group, is given in *T.M. Heckman, et. al., “Low-Redshift Quasars, et. al.,” Astronomical Journal, 89:958 (1984).]
“Thus, estimates of the size of the observable universe would shrink considerably—perhaps say Wolf, by a factor of 100 or more.”—I. Amato, “Spectral Variation on a Universal Theme,” Science News 130:166 (1986).
“No matter what they might turn out to be, quasars attracted attention most of all because of their apparent extreme distance from Earth. If they are as far away as redshift measurements seem to indicate, then they are remnants of the universe’s very earliest eras and would allow theorists, in effect, to travel back to those epochs.
“Not all astronomers see quasars as time machines, however. A small though vocal minority has argued that since some supposedly distant quasars seem physically associated with relatively nearby galaxies, the redshift rule may not apply universally to all types of extragalactic objects. Striking, as it did, at one of the central pillars of modern cosmology—the redshift evidence of an exploding universe—this hypothesis touched off what had been characterized as one of the most bitter episodes in the history of astronomy.
“At the center of the debate is Halton Arp, the same astronomer who drew up an atlas of peculiar galaxies. Indeed, it was while investigating these extragalactic aberrations that Arp came upon what he believed was evidence for direct ties between some galaxies and quasars. Several Arp photographs show faint bridges apparently linking nearby galaxies with supposedly more distant quasars. Arp therefore argued that the high redshift of these quasars are caused by factors other than distance . .
“The astronomical community reacted harshly and not entirely rationally. Most astronomers dismissed Arp’s views out of hand, suggesting that the supposed connections were optical illusions produced by chance alignments. Some even went so far as to impugn his integrity by remarking that most of the evidence of physical associations between objects of different redshifts came from photographs produced by Arp himself. [In which instance, he gave exact locations; the dissidents could verify the evidence if they had wished to do so.]
“A few eminent supporters, including the renowned astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, made impassioned pleas for everyone to keep an open mind, but to no avail. In 1983, Arp was to suffer the indignity of being barred from the tools of his trade. 

Caltech’s telescope allocation committee decided that his line of research was not worthy of support and that he would receive no more time for this work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories.

“Arp refused to take up more conventional studies simply to please the committee; instead, he chose to leave Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. 

Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, `No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp’s thesis, believes justice was served.’ “—*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), pp. 67-68.

“In a photograph by controversial astronomer Halton Arp, a large spiral galaxy located relatively near the Milky Way [our galaxy] and a quasar widely assumed to be a billion light-years more distant appear to be physically linked by a bridge of matter. Arp . . believes that the high redshifts may be caused by something other than increasing distances resulting from the expansion of the universe.”—Op. cit., p. 69.


Ayesha's Diary

La vie est belle

Inner and outer Knowledge

The Self and wherein it dwells


Just another site

simple Ula

I want to be rich. Rich in love, rich in health, rich in laughter, rich in adventure and rich in knowledge. You?


TRUTH is the only Way to everlasting life! Scriptural Calendar vs Pagan Gregorian Calendar! All about YAHUAH and YAHUSHA our heavenly FATHER and HIS TRUTH>

The Last Refuge

Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits - Contact Info:

Phenomenal Magazine

For those looking for the inspiration to breakout and be...phenomenal!

Biblical Proof

Speaking where the bible speaks, and silent where the bible is silent.

back to the basics


"Sino santificad a Dios el Señor en vuestros corazones, y estad siempre preparados para presentar DEFENSA con mansedumbre y reverencia ante todo el que os demande razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros" (1 Pedro 3:15)

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma


...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Faith & Self Defense

Building Confidence Through Evidence

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Just another weblog

Wake up Church

Just another site

His Banner over Me is Love

A look at the passages no one reads in church



Contagious Transformation

Breaking the Chains

%d bloggers like this: