Michael Suttkus
Note: The posts below are copied directly from the original source, so all spelling and grammatical errors in quoted material are the responsibility of the original poster. I must point out that this collection is not typical. Most creationists will recognize these ideas as silly and should not be judged on the basis of these claims.
In response to statements questioning the apparently excessive old age of Noah, et al, I got a long speech involving the Curse and how mutations have caused people to decay since the fall. This is standard creationists weirdness, but I was quite surprised to discover that: Early perfect humans would be telepathic and have wings (because we weren't bound to the earth until we defied God). I've had a little trouble tracking down the Biblical references for that....
One email I received (but, sadly, didn't keep, I wasn't collecting in those days) explained the history of the world in no uncertain terms. The Garden of Eden, contrary to what you have been told, was originally in South America, well, near what we call South America, which was an uninhabited mountain range in those days. Once we were kicked out of the garden, we started to live all around the Americas. Since we were much closer to genetically perfect in those days (the Curse wasn't fully affecting us yet), we had all kinds of advanced technology. Well, we were also horrible sinners, so God sent the flood. Noah prepared for it by taking genetic samples from all the animals, and then storing their cells in the ark. All the animals were cloned from those samples by Noah with his advanced technology once they landed. Well, after the flood, they landed in Ararat, but now there were oceans, so we lived on the continent. We named some of the rivers there after the rivers from the old country (explaining why Genesis claims that African rivers bounded Eden, the rivers in Africa are really named after the real rivers). Of course, there is absolute evidence for this. Think about it, Florida has banned offshore drilling! What more evidence do you need?
Okay, just in case that isn't clear, what you don't realize is that the Evil Atheist Government started to bring up lots of evidence of full civilizations when it began off shore oil drilling, so they had to ban it in order to stop people from finding out God's Truth! That's why the Government and it's debunkers are always trying to disprove Atlantis and why Government Funded Schools don't teach the evidence for Atlantis, because Atlantis was one of the lands inhabited by Genetically Perfect People with Advanced Technology. Proof positive, right?
If you accept that fossils are real, you might want to agree with the creationist who told me that Tyrannosaurus originally ate plants, but started eating meat after the fall, God having had the foresight to give him very sharp teeth, just in case. (I can see it now, "Adam, don't eat from that tree, or I'm going to switch this guy on, and boy will you be in trouble".)
However, you might want to argue that fossils aren't real. Some suggestions for this include "Fossils were created by Satan to tempt us" theories (one follower of this idea insisted that it was proven conclusively by the existence of fossil snakes, don't ask me how). At least one person seemed to feel that all fossils could probably be rock formations of some sort that only coincidentally resembled skeletons. I've also once heard that UFO's are really time machines piloted by evil fossil planting atheist scientists from the future! Oh, by the way, meteorites are faked as well. The devil throws them at us so that we'll believe the sun-centered solar system nonsense.
Another creationist insisted that it was an Evil International Conspiracy� that planted the fossils underground, explaining how a few deluded people (like myself) might think we had dug up the real things.
A more detailed version of the same theory explained that all fossils were faked and put into museums by an evil international conspiracy dedicated to bringing people away from Christ. The conspiracy in this version consisted of atheists, the Catholic Church and the Jews, with help from the Neo-Nazis (you know how the Jews and Nazis are always working together) and, of course, scientists. I explained that I had actually dug fossils out of the ground, she looked at me like, "So, at last we meet," and left the room hastily.
A more recent incident happened on a onelist.com (now egroups.com) forum, where a creationist explained to me that all fossils were faked. Her reasoning was very simple, have you ever gone to a museum and noticed that some of the bones are a slightly different color than the others? In fact, if you look closely, you'll see that those other bones are made out of plastic. The scientists are faking dinosaur bones in the back! Now, if they can fake some of the bones, surely they could fake all of them, so all dinosaur bones have to be fake. They never existed, it's a trick to bring people to atheism! I had to reread it several times to make sure I wasn't missing a :-) or a punch line or something. I tried explaining that if they could fake the bones, they would probably fake them so that all of them looked real and not like plastic, and that the plastic ones were approximations for bones that were missing in the fossils. Her response was "That's what they want you to think." I tried to explain that I, myself, had removed fossils from the ground (never a dinosaur, but some very nice invertebrates). Her response was that I might believe I had, but I hadn't. I let that conversation drop.
If disproving evolution doesn't suit you, you might try attacking geology. One of my favorite ways of disproving "Conventional evolutionist geology" came from a guy who put a lump of coal in his oven, turned it to 350ē degrees for an hour, and then pointed out that it didn't turn into a diamond. What more could you ask for?
And now, the great moments from specific creationists:
Steven:
The full text of a Steven post from tx.evolution.vs.abortion titled "Evolution?"
tisn't
That clears that up. When he got the kind of replies you might expect from such a post, he complained that no one wanted a reasonable debate (in a new thread titled "No open mind? Troll? Religious? Steve Replys."):
Attack the messenger if you don't like the message. I was guessing about the science fiction connection, but when you start quoting Poul and Forrest(he does have some neat nostalgic stuff at ebay, though) I guess I clumsily knocked your religious faith. Is trolling opposing the Evolution Religion. Who has no open mind? Refusing to acknowledge all the evidence is disingenuous at best. I'd like to go back and take those bio courses again that I passed by obeying the textbook plan. Next time around I'd have a few questions to ask concerning evolution discrepancies that were suppressed... Entropy...lack of fossil evidence...calling variations evolution and new species...texts stretching credulity with their so-called transitional sequences...inconsistencies within dating methods...the first cell---intelligent atoms?...a sun that burns off several feet of size each year--you go far back enough to allow for evolution--it had to have been awful hot around here....explanations to these problems that fit in the "it could happen" catagory. Check out the rest of the internet, there are educated debates for evolution vs. creation. And do have an open mind. I once thought I had the open mind...but I had closed it to any arguement for creation. The Psalmist says "For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9 Peace, Steve I'm going to >talk.origins< and troll...what is troll anyway?
I'm not sure what evidence he felt he expressed in the word "tisn't".
True to his word, he went to Talk.Origins where he gave us the following posts regarding the fact that Roman Catholic schools now teach evolution.
Could it be possible the RC Schools are setting themselves up for a fall by teaching Evolution? I seem to recall reading about another instance when the Church caved into the prevailing scientific winds by supporting the "flat earth" theory.
After having it pointed out to him that this was in direct contradiction to what actually happened, he added:
Perhaps I should have used a better example after all...consider the geocentricism fiasco. All I am saying is they should stick to Scripture until the scientists sort out all their many many differences .... lest they pick the "wrong horse" again.
Oh, yeah, geocentricism is a much better example of scientists leading religious philosophers astray. All of this in a thread he called "Wake up and realize your mistake".
The terrible reign of Eric Wilson, my first weird creationist, began on Wednesday March 31 1999 with the following message posted on DebunkCreation in reference to a statement trying to reconcile scientific dating with genesis by invoking extra space between the Genesis days.
One problem with all this. Science does no such thing. E=MC2 therefore all carbon dating is relying on the opinion that light is a universal constant throughout time. Science has recently shown otherwise. Light like the rest of the universe is slowing down. With what has been observed so far with the speed of light, if the decline is constant the earth is exactly 6028 years old. Very close to what the Bible says. In fact it is exactly what the Bible says given the margin for people being like 605 and one half years old and Genesis estimations. This gives like a 48 year margin in Genesis.
When I pointed out that (a) E=mc^2 had nothing to do with radioactive decay and (b) observations of 1987A showed that the speed of light is unchanged over billions of years (along with the many several other mistakes he managed to make in one paragraph) he responded:
You make two mistakes here. One is that your looking far out in space to see if the speed of light was different. Your looking back just a few hundred years really because light is slowing down. Two you know nothing of radioactive decay because it is completely dependant on the speed of light. Energy(emitted)= Mass(of the object) times the speed of light. You need to dig deeper.
I pointed out again that relativity didn't affect the rate of radioactive decay and that E was not Energy Emitted. I explained the correct formula for radioactive decay. He responded with:
Know I know many formulas but E=MC2 proves my point. You need to realize that that equation applies to radioactive decay.
We were never able to convince him that E=mc^2 had nothing to do with radioactive decay rates. We may have convinced him that the speed of light wasn't slowing down because he declared that it was all just "appearance of age" anyway, thus contradicting all of the above.
On another occasion, we got:
Here's one for you. Darwin hated math and science and greatly studied Greek mythology. If he was alive today he would probably be a treckie, not a scientist.
Incomprehensibly, he also gave us:
Have you studied the great rift in Africa. That is were the majority of the water came from durring the flood. All the water didn't come from the sky. The great rift I believe is a geological proof of a great flood.
No evidence to suggest that any water ever came out of the great rift was ever suggested. He did offer:
Think of this though. Many scientist even evolutionist ones now think water used to surround the earth as part of the atmosphere. Plus is water did come out of the great rift then there would be more than enough. Read Genesis very carefully and you will realize the earth did in fact have a water atmosphere.
Still, no evidence of any water coming out of it, just statements that it is.
In response to questions about where the water might have gone later, he suggested:
My guess is much of it froze in the poles, some seeped into the ground and formed underground wells and springs, and it is not completely impossible that some may have evaporated off the earth through the whole in the ozone, which isn't that newly formed as the environmentalists want everyone to believe.
We made the following points: (a) there isn't enough ice or water in the world to flood the world; (b) the ozone "whole" isn't the kind of hole that would allow water to escape; and (c) where is any evidence that it's been around longer than scientists say it has?
He responded only to point (c) by demanding that we prove that it's only a recent phenomena, but still offered no evidence for his interpretation.
After accusing evolution of being racist, he gave us:
Imagine the capacity of a genetically pure man and woman. They would quickly solve that problem with mankind's high genetically pure intelligence. You would be looking at perfect humans here, if man never sinned. Within 50 or so years man would have been on the moon, 150 or so years, setting up colonies on mars. Within 2 or 3 hundred years we would have started exploring the entire universe. The possibilities are endless with an unfallen human race.
Eventually, it ended with:
I got over 130 email today. I cant take it.
Unsubscribe
on Saturday, April 3, 1999. It is noticeable that this is not the way to unsubscribe to the list.
The first post in the Great Darwin Disproved Incident was titled "Interesting Site" and contained only a link to www.darwindisproved.com (now seemingly defunct).
This site had already been pointed out to the denizens of Talk.Origins and several errors (not the least of which was the presence of a person who's name was an anagram of April Fool) had been pointed out. KC's repetition was the subject of much derision.
Unsatisfied with the response, KC posted the following titled "Evo-babbling":
The E V O - B A B B L I N G continues. Amazing.
I posted just one word...and that was in the subject...and a link. What came back? E V O - B A B B L E. I laughed and laughed at you fools when your only reply back was in an Ad-Hominem style.
It has become very apparent to me the YEC view is making great in roads and toppling the evolutionist wild assertions and speculations....when they can only reply back with insults. I gotta laugh at your empty tactics.
Is this what evolution has become? Attack character and with hopes of winning a scientific point. WOW, You guys are really clever.
.....Did you ever notice that the shallow E V O - B A B B L I N G brook makes the most noise?
kc
BTW: I read the end of the bible, we win. ....have a nice day.
Shortly thereafter, KC denies that he ever took the site seriously:
Posted by kc on May 07, 1999 at 15:50:32:
In Reply to: Re: Har har har... posted by Ture Seeker on May 06, 1999 at 16:16:43:
: Notice who they listed as the first creationist to take it seriously?
At least I'm in good company.....But, their lies continue. Taken it seriously???? I don't think so, heck I didn't even e-mail them. I presented the address to a YEC list to watch the remarks and they instantly pointed out the flaws..but seriously??? Seems like the E V O-B A B B L E R S will say anything.
Supposedly, Karl claimed that he stopped posting to Talk.Origins because the members of that group weren't open-minded enough (I was unable to confirm this statement). However, what's Karl's opinion on his own open-mindedness?:
Now, Karl, are you willing to admit that *you* may be wrong? Let's see your backbone chum.
BoikatThe problem is this Boikat, I'm 100% right. God created the world in six days. Sorry....And if you don't accept Jesus Christ and ONLY Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you're going to Hell. The End.
This one's called "legolution...part 2":
Legolution, Lenny's story continues....
After hearing the back door swing open then shut Grand Pa looked over his newspaper and asked, Lenny, How was school today? learn anything new?
Lenny put down his book bag and then proceeded to tell his Grand Pa In science class today the teacher showed us some "old" lego bricks My teacher then told us these "older" bricks had a different number of receptacle and plugs than the newer bricks.
Grand Pa raised his eyebrows slightly and replied back with, and...?
In which Lenny continued with, the teacher then told us the older bricks had evolved into the newer style bricks. The older bricks were ancestors to the newer bricks
Lenny continued with, he explained how through legolutions natural selection this symbiotic relationship between the plugs and receptacles allowed them over time to grow and be formed in perfect proportion with each other. At first he had me thinking Grand Pa, but, I asked him to show us the in-be-tween blocks with the partially evolved receptacles and plugs.
Grand Pa asked, well Lenny, what did he show you?
Lenny smiled and said, "nothing" Grand Pa. I figured he would have shown us a dimple as the plugs began to form from their proto-snap-together shape to the present shapes we are constructed with today.
Well Lenny, Grand Pa replied, legolution is filled with plenty of speculative assumption and wild assertions. After pausing for a second Grand Pa continued with...and you sure found that out today Lenny didn't ya.
Yeah, Lenny said, It appears that the blocks were created fully functional. Lenny turned then headed outside to play saying... I donšt think a partially evolved block would be much of a benefit. Our "ancestors" would have fallen apart.
Grand Pa smiled at Lenny ability to comprehend the truth in a world of lies, then went back to reading his paper.
Titled "Fundylutionists", it speaks for itself. (from Talk.Origins).
Welcome to the world premier of a new scientific moniker!!!!!
The FUNDYLUTIONISTS!
Who are they?
Here are some tips:
1. They practice second rate science by clinging to a 130+ yr. old theory proposed by a racist, bigot.
2. They practice revisionist history to counter intellectual inquiry into suspect assumptions methodologies.
3. They cry that the fossil record isn't complete yet, then claim they don't need fossils to support their case.
4. They practice "Octopus science" by adding a new leg to their theory when they can't account for something (i.e. abiogenesis, DNA evolution).
5. They want "evolution only" taught in schools, without criticism.
6. They are usually anti-American, socialism loving, elitists who see government schools as a means to keep themselves at the top of the social order. (Which BTW is why they either attended or send their children to private school).
7. They counter intelligent arguments by saying "Prove it" and then say proof is only for mathematicians.
8. They practice circular reasoning, but don't know the difference between circumference and radius.
9. They claim that their theory has no religious implications as long as you accept that there is no god.
10. They capture all incoming posts to T.O. then delay posting them until they've made up their responses, feeding their need to appear superior.
There may be other indicators that haven't been observed yet. Be on the lookout.
From Alt.Bible:
7 REASONS WHY EVOLUTION IS A CROCK
Recently, many people have written me with the following question: They ask, Bill, how is it, if EVOLUTION seems like a stirring argument when I read about it in the mainstream press. Were we not monkeys at one time?
I have a saying when it comes to that question, and that saying is, "MAN WAS NEVER A MONKEY!"
For a moment, let's consider the opponent's viewpoint. Once upon a time, they say, there were chimpanzees. And these chimpanzees, in one Mr. Darwin' s opinion, said, "I would like to be taller, so I could reach the higher trees for some of that delicious fruit." And so they became taller, and their children were taller. And then these chimps said, "Boy, I'm hot with all this fur," and they shaved themselves, and then, because two shaved chimps mated and had sex, their children were born without fur at all. So then, these tall, hairless chimps had other ideas about themselves: they chose not to have the jawbones sticking out, or the dewy black eyes, or the big monkey ears, or to stop being stupid, and as soon as you can say "Godless Universe," these monkeys were suddenly one Mr. William G. Sinewski - meaning you, sir, and me.
PEE-SHAW! I refute this notion of evolution for the following reasons:
1) Just because a monkey WANTS something, doesn't make it so. As a bald man, I can tell you that is a fact. I want to be bald about as much as another guy wants his face torn off. A monkey may want to be taller to eat the delicious fruit on the higher trees, but that doesn't MAKE him taller. Yet our Mr. Clarence Darwin says otherwise. According to him, monkeys always get what they want (the fact that the poor bastards are forced to ride unicycles in the zoo speaks for itself! I'm SURE they LOVE doing that! And I'm sure they love being behind bars! I'm SURE that's something they'd choose for themselves, if they could get everything they wanted!)
2) The theory of evolution incorporates the fact that when two tall monkeys have a baby, that it will be another tall monkey. Another example from my personal life: My mother and father, who are now dead, but were short while they were alive, gave birth to me - and I'm almost 5 feet and 11 inches! The parents are not always like the kids at all, not in science.
3) Never, in the history of the world as I've read has, say, a lizard given birth and had a robin come out. So how could monkeys give birth to a little human boy? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!
4) I was talking to a friend a while back, who was a believer in the theories of Mr. Darwin, and I said, what about in the Bible, with Adam and Eve? He replied (his name was John; he is no longer any friend of mine) said that perhaps ADAM AND EVE WERE MONKEYS! Well, I was a bit dumbfounded and I didn't know what to say to that. But that night it hit me, and I wished so bad I had said it earlier: ADAM AND EVE ARE TALKING IN THE BIBLE, CLEAR AS DAY, SPEAKING PERFECT ENGLISH! So, monkeys are speaking? That's the funniest thing I've ever imagined, to be sure! Monkey One: "Please hand me one of those bannanas." Monkey Two: "Sure. Here, eat some of these bugs off of me." HA! Something that was smart enough to talk would surely be smart enough not to eat a bug.
5) If chimpanzees turned in to us, why are there still chimpanzees (this is probably my strongest point).
6) Monkeys are filthy creatures. As humans, one of our trademarks that sets us apart from animals is that we are clean as heck. We have made and created over the years a million devices, which are meant for cleaning of our bodies: toothbrushes, bathtubs, showers, those shower attachments, scrubbrushes, cloths, Windex, soap, Q-tips, Palmolive, stuff for acne, floss, etc. I myself am an exceptionally neat person. Even as a little boy I'd have what my mother would call attacks if the bottom of my sheets weren't tucked into under the bed. Yet monkeys could give two you-knows about that type of thing. I recently received a video by email from one of my correspondents of A MONKEY URINATING IN HIS OWN MOUTH!! I'd rather have a truck ride over my own head as do that! Even imagining it now I'm about to throw up. Why in the name of God this so-called gentleman saw fit to send me anything so foolish and disgusting is beyond me. I sat at the computer waiting for it to download, thinking it was going to be something interesting and humorous like one I saw lately of an Catholic altar boy setting his own hair on fire by accident (he wasn't hurt at all - God knows THAT wouldn't be funny, if he was injured, or even if you did laugh, it would be the kind of laugh that you feel very sick about yourself afterwards with, because you were laughing AT someone instead of WITH them, which is something I'm always aware of in myself, I only try to laugh WITH someone, even if it's something horrible happening to them, afterwards I'll say, "Well, you have to admit, it was awful funny," and usually they see my point.) Anyway, so I saw the first frame: a monkey. I thought it was about to do something cute, but instead it stuck up its little genital and peed in its own mouth. The main things about humans is that we are clean, and we like to be that way. Otherwise, we wouldn't be human (you may point out bums and dirty humans - but even they are clean compared to animals).
7) And lastly, and most importantly, is FAITH. That same former friend of mine, John, also said to me (and this is where I had to cut off the friendship), that I can't use the Bible as proof, because the Bible isn't science. But to me it IS Science. Not that I'm not a fan of science - like anything it can be used for good or for evil. Science can be used in SUPPORT of the Bible, as I have done above, or it can be used to try to make us feel like the Bible isn't true, and we start to doubt the way the world is. But all I can say to you that my forty eight years have taught me is DO NOT DOUBT. That is where you fall into a black hole, and then you don't know what's true. BUT WITH FAITH you can LISTEN. And God is all about listening, and reading the Bible, and BELIEVING.
This last point ALONE is enough of a refutation of evolution to satisfy me. The rest of my points are based on scientific fact to help us all come to the only obvious decision about probably the most important issue facing the world today, which is EVOLUTION is false.God bless,
William G. "Bill" Sinewski
I especially love the parts about humans being clean (I sent him a post detailing the medieval religious restrictions forbidding cleanliness) and Adam and Eve speaking English. He asks if anything more stupid than English speaking monkeys has ever been suggested. One poster suggested that speaking snakes probably qualified...
There has actually be much evidence that presumed imperfections today were perfections before. For instance, the University of Oklahoma has discovered that if you spark snake venom the protein will straighten out and become a vitamin. God might have inteded snakes (since many of them can sense heat changes of 1000th of a degree) to bite sick people and give them aid.
With visions of "health snakes" dancing in my head, I pondered why healing animals would have been needed in a perfect Garden of Eden world without disease or health problems of any sort, but no answer was forthcoming.
Subject: An object (from talk.origins)
Date: 10 Jan 2000 22:13:56 -0500
Once we agree,
that there is the physical object,
then the logical consequence of that agreement is,
that the object, has to be made up, out of smaller,
physical parts. It can be divided.
These smaller objects must again, consist of even
smaller physical objects and so on and so on ...
It will go on and on endlessly ...
Therefore, a final (smallest) physical object
cannot exist - there cannot be a physical object,
which cannot be divided. Such an object does not
exist in a corporeal world.If is that so, we are involved in dividing
something, that will never end, except our will
and capability to go on.This is in a nutshell, the absurdity of materialistic
science.If there is no final object(s), than the foundation
of matter must be an idea.Therefore,
Creation makes more sense than evolution.Karel Plisek
Greg tells us that the Bible is 100% accurate. Indeed, it predicts all kinds of sciences!
From: Evolution Group.:
Many times, scientists or scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries have made discoveries, only to find that the Bible had previously mentioned those same concepts:
Hydrologic cycle- Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
Evaporation- Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13
Principle of Isostasy- Isaiah 40:12, Psalm 104:5-9
Shape of the Earth- Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 103:12
Rotation of the Earth- Job 38:12,14
Gravitation- Job 26:7,38:6
Number of stars- Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
Uniqueness of each star- 1 Corinthians 15:41
Circulation of atmosphere- Ecclesiastes 1:6
Fluid dynamics- Job 28:25
Blood circulation- Leviticus 17:11
Biogenesis and stability- Genesis 1:11,21,25
Chemical nature of flesh- Genesis 1:11,24-2:7; 3:19
Mass-Energy equivalence- Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3
Atomic disintegration- 2 Peter 3:10
Wow! Bet you didn't know the Bible was that good at predicting stuff! Let's take a look at a few of these...
Hydrologic cycle- Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10
Well, Ecc says, "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." This does seem to reflect the hydrological cycle, but I have to wonder whether it's really all that amazing an observation. Does Greg really think that the ancients were too stupid to notice that rivers didn't run out and the sea didn't fill up, but had to be told?
Isaiah says, "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:"
Er, Greg, what cycle? It says the waters don't return here! This is not only contrary to fact and your assertion of what it claims, but also to the other passage you cited!
Evaporation- Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13
Does Greg really think that nobody noticed evaporation until the 19th century? The Psalm in question also mentions God keeps wind in "treasuries". Does Greg really think that the wind is kept in storehouses and then released? Funny how the bits they like are absolutely literal, while the rest is instantly just poetry, all based on whether it turned out to be true or not.
Oddly enough, the Jeremiah entry repeats exactly the same phrasing, making me wonder why Greg bothered to repeat himself.
Principle of Isostasy- Isaiah 40:12, Psalm 104:5-9
As far as I know, the principle of isostasy refers to the way gravity changes across the surface of the Earth. The Isaiah chapter simply mentions measuring some things, the psalm says that we probably won't get a world wide flood again. What any of this has to do with anything, only Greg knows.
Shape of the Earth- Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 103:12
Actually, Isaiah says that the Earth is a disk, not a sphere, and the Psalm says nothing about the shape of the Earth at all, only that east and west are separated (which actually makes little sense on a sphere). Perhaps Greg thinks the Bible is right because it says the Earth is flat, just like he knows it is!
Rotation of the Earth- Job 38:12,14
The King James version says, "It is turned as clay [to] the seal; and they stand as a garment." Well, it does use the word "turn", I suppose. Interestingly, absolutely no translation except the King James mentions "turning" at all. Everyone else interprets this as indicating that the deal was sealed, nothing to do with turning of the Earth at all.
Gravitation- Job 26:7,38:6
Yes, Greg actually thinks nobody noticed gravity until the 19th century! Hey, Greg, I'm pretty sure that the ancients might have noticed that, in general, things fall down! Do you really consider this a revelation that only an omniscient God could have produced?
Actually, Job 26:7 doesn't mention gravity at all, but says "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing." Um, Greg, doesn't "stretching out the north" kind of suggest a flat earth to you? What is the north of a sphere stretched out over? Oh, never mind.
Job 38:6 isn't any better, and doesn't seem to mention gravity either. It does suggest the Earth is built on foundations and ponders what they are attached to. You know, I'd have thought satellites would have cleared that up by now.
Number of stars- Genesis 22:17, Jeremiah 33:22
Genesis: "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
And Jeremiah isn't any better.
Okay, Greg, do you really think there are as many people as stars? Do you really see any numeration of stars here at all? What can we determine from these? That there are, maybe, I don't know, say, lots of stars. Lots? Is that the best you can do for a prediction? Yeah, nobody could possibly have told that there were lots of stars until the Bible told them so!
Uniqueness of each star- 1 Corinthians 15:41
Gee, that's some prediction. I mean, it's not like everyone was already giving them unique names or anything...
Circulation of atmosphere- Ecclesiastes 1:6
"The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."
Sorry, but this contradicts the other part of the Bible where we find winds are stored in storehouses. That part was literal, this is mere poetry.
Fluid dynamics- Job 28:25
"To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."
Huh? How is this predicting the complicated calculus theory that is fluid dynamics? Or perhaps Greg thinks "fluid dynamics" means "water can be measured".
Blood circulation- Leviticus 17:11
"For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul."
Nothing about circulation here. Is Greg really impressed by this? Does he really think that the ancients might not have noticed that if you lose enough blood you die?
Biogenesis and stability- Genesis 1:11,21,25
Golly, those ancients couldn't possibly have noticed that plants make seeds that make the same plants without God now could they!
Up to now, Greg has just been expressing his low opinion of the ancient's intelligence. Now he goes off the deep end. If any of the following had really been predicted, I would have actually been impressed.
Chemical nature of flesh- Genesis 1:11,24-2:7; 3:19
Er, lots of stuff about reproduction "after it's kind' and such, nothing about chemicals or even flesh, really. Sorry Greg. Have you actually read the Bible?
Mass-Energy equivalence- Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3
Colossians: "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Er, yeah, I see what you mean. Quite a revelation here! Mass and energy are equivalent because everything was made by God. Using that logic, elephants and horses are the same thing as well! The Hebrews entry isn't any better. Again, there's nothing here about mass or energy.
Atomic disintegration- 2 Peter 3:10
It says elements will melt with heat. And it doesn't mean chemical elements even, just "aspects of the world". Nothing about atomic decay, certainly no useful predictions. Do tell me when you can make atomic disintegration by melting something. You could get a Nobel prize for that.
Greg refused to address any of the responses to his "Bible predictions of science", other than to say I'm close minded. He wouldn't take my open-mindedness test himself, however. Later on, he proved God's existence once and for all:
One of the most powerful evidences for the existence of God is that there are people like you out there expending prodigious amounts of energy attempting to deny it. If God truly didn't exist we wouldn't have people running around like petulant children, shouting 'there is no God! there is no God!' How often do you hear someone protesting 'there is no Easter Bunny! there is no Easter Bunny!'?
By this logic, atheism is even better supported, since there are far more people running around denying that! Similarly, the existence of Republicans proves Democrats are correct, and the existence of Democrats proves Republicans are correct.. Thanks, Greg, but I think I'll pass on this devastating argument. After all, I'd like to believe something, and this would prevent me from ever knowing anything at all! Both sides of all controversial issues instantly become true!
