About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Little Nipper]

I was a Christian, and like most Christians in the world today did not believe the myths of Genesis. I know that you believe that the Bible is his word, that belief is actually a breaking of : "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth". You are making an idol of the Bible. And you may only think that the Holy Spirit helps you. Guess what? There are all sorts of people that you would agree were wrong that felt the same way that you do. They thought that they were guided by the Holy Spirit as well. So do not take offense when I explain to you how your misinterpretations are blasphemy.

This is the clear point that you cannot understand. Just as the Earth is not Flat and it would be blasphemy to interpret the Bible as advocating for that, the stories of Genesis never occurred and it would be blasphemy to interpret the Bible as implying that they are factual. They work as morality tales. They are useful in instruction in the right way to live. That satisfies: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

How is the Word of GOD a graven image. Graven images are man made statues and Idols (I'm not Catholic) that try to represent what GOD is and are worshipped as such. Is it possible to idolize the Bible? The answer is a resounding, “No.” Prioritizing the Bible is far from idolatry. Prioritizing the Bible is prioritizing God's voice to us, and thus God himself. GOD wrote the 10 Commandments not Moses. Michelangelo carved the Pieta' to represent his own ideal.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That road would seem to go both ways, but evolutionists do not capitulate, so why should creationists?

No reason if they want to see their beliefs end up in the great rubbish bin of history. Which is where they will go along with so many others. Most sensible people allow for new evidence and will adjust beliefs accordingly. If you have fixed beliefs then this is less likely, and especially if such come from a set interpretation of any old religious text. In my view you are just gambling on such being authentic even if you have no right to expect this - given that there is no independent reliable authority verifying such texts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is the Word of GOD a graven image. Graven images are man made statues and Idols (I'm not Catholic) that try to represent what GOD is and are worshipped as such. Is it possible to idolize the Bible? The answer is a resounding, “No.” Prioritizing the Bible is far from idolatry. Prioritizing the Bible is prioritizing God's voice to us, and thus God himself. GOD wrote the 10 Commandments not Moses. Michelangelo carved the Pieta' to represent his own ideal.

The problem is that you go beyond prioritizing the Bible. You make your own flawed interpretation of it and have the gall to call it the "word of God" even using excess green ink to do so. And you may not like this fact, but Moses was fictional as well. Once again, it is your interpretation that is broken. Now I doubt if Michelangelo did this, but if he worshipped his Pieta and claimed that it was without flaw that too would be blasphemy. I doubt if he did, since what drives great artists is a drive towards perfection and they are often their own strongest critics. He would have seen where he did not quite capture what he was after. That sort of drive is how one ends up with a piece as expressive as that one is.

 

[Little Nipper]

The problem is that you go beyond prioritizing the Bible. You make your own flawed interpretation of it and have the gall to call it the "word of God" even using excess green ink to do so. And you may not like this fact, but Moses was fictional as well. Once again, it is your interpretation that is broken. Now I doubt if Michelangelo did this, but if he worshipped his Pieta and claimed that it was without flaw that too would be blasphemy. I doubt if he did, since what drives great artists is a drive towards perfection and they are often their own strongest critics. He would have seen where he did not quite capture what he was after. That sort of drive is how one ends up with a piece as expressive as that one is.

Baloney, baloney, baloney! You don't believe in Jesus Christ because to you HE was/is nothing but a myth. You are corrupt and you are judging people not with GOD's Word but with YOUR opinion, values, and the opinions of scientists who seek only to gratify their own views to satisfy their own accomplishments and that of their colleagues. You are nothing but a modern version of a Sadducee.

YOU don't believe Moses existed. YOU don't believe the FLOOD happened. YOU call the Bible at best an allegory and at worse a myth! Then YOU have the audacity to label me a blasphemer, an idolater, and a liar. You are digging your own grave. I'm certainly on the LORD's side and not yours. And theories have and do change but the GOD's Holy Word remains the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baloney, baloney, baloney! You don't believe in Jesus Christ because to you HE was/is nothing but a myth. You are corrupt and you are judging people not with GOD's Word but with YOUR opinion, values, and the opinions of scientists who seek only to gratify their own views to satisfy their own accomplishments and that of their colleagues. You are nothing but a modern version of a Sadducee.

No, many of the stories about him are mythical. For example he was born twice. Once in 4 BCE in Matthew and once in 6 CE in Luke. I would suggest that both cannot be true. And you do not understand science. It is not just the opinions of scientists. Scientists do not respect opinions at all. It is what one can be shown to be the case that is respected. You are very scientifically illiterate. That keeps your false claims from being lies, but you are still violating the Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness against your neighbor. It is a pity that you do not fully understand that Commandment. It is not just an order not to lie. In fact many lies are allowed by that Commandment. What is banned is saying anything false or untrue against your neighbor. It does not matter if one believes those statements to be true or not. If the claims are false but one believes them the harm is still done when a person makes false claims about others. Now your opinion matters so little that no harm was actually done, but still it is something that you should consider when you make claims about others.

As to being a Sadducee why do you think that is an insult? That sounds more like praise to me.

YOU don't believe Moses existed. YOU don't believe the FLOOD happened. YOU call the Bible at best an allegory and at worse a myth! Then YOU have the audacity to label me a blasphemer, an idolater, and a liar. You are digging your own grave. I'm certainly on the LORD's side and not yours. And theories have and do change but the GOD's Holy Word remains the same.

Actually I know those facts. I can support those fact with rational argument and evidence. You cannot do the same when it comes to your beliefs. You appear to have mere belief, and being wrong when one has mere belief occurs quite often. If all that you can do is to refer to the Bible and yet cannot show that the Bible is trustworthy mere belief is all that you have. No different from the belief of a Muslim or a Hindu.

 

[exchemist]

That road would seem to go both ways, but evolutionists do not capitulate, so why should creationists?

False equivalence.

 

[Polymath257]

Baloney, baloney, baloney! You don't believe in Jesus Christ because to you HE was/is nothing but a myth.

Oh, he possibly, even likely existed *as a Jewish rabbi*. He was likely put to death by the Romans because of fears of insurrection. I believe that stories of miracles are just that: stories.

You are corrupt and you are judging people not with GOD's Word but with YOUR opinion, values, and the opinions of scientists who seek only to gratify their own views to satisfy their own accomplishments and that of their colleagues. You are nothing but a modern version of a Sadducee.

You don't know many scientists, do you? In general, they are very devoted to figuring out the *truth* of what happens, as opposed to simply following the beliefs of others. In fact, one of the best ways to get ahead in science is to *disprove* a popular theory.

YOU don't believe Moses existed.

probably not

YOU don't believe the FLOOD happened.

Pretty much certainly not. The actual evidence shows it never happened.

YOU call the Bible at best an allegory and at worse a myth!

At best it is an allegory. It also has aspects of propaganda, biased history, and moral pronouncements. And, yes, a lot of myth.

Then YOU have the audacity to label me a blasphemer, an idolater, and a liar. You are digging your own grave. I'm certainly on the LORD's side and not yours. And theories have and do change but the GOD's Holy Word remains the same.

Since I don't believe any deities exist, this is meaningless to me. Unless you can *prove* that a God exists *and* that the Bible has anything to do with such a God, all you have is empty claims and bluster.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe GOD's Word. I'm certainly not the one concluding that GOD is a liar. Men of science developed their own labels over time. They were and are an inventive way of establishing a sort of library, but it's not written in stone as some would have us think.

Those scientists that are believers (and there are many) would say that God's intentions are better represented by the real world that includes fossils, radioactive decay, and allows for the use of reason to discover truth that belief in a book written by humans (however well inspired) and subject to problems in translation and interpretation.

Such scientists (and there are many) would interpret the Bible as allegory and the universe around us as the *actual* message from God to us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baloney, baloney, baloney! You don't believe in Jesus Christ because to you HE was/is nothing but a myth. You are corrupt and you are judging people not with GOD's Word but with YOUR opinion, values, and the opinions of scientists who seek only to gratify their own views to satisfy their own accomplishments and that of their colleagues. You are nothing but a modern version of a Sadducee.

YOU don't believe Moses existed. YOU don't believe the FLOOD happened. YOU call the Bible at best an allegory and at worse a myth! Then YOU have the audacity to label me a blasphemer, an idolater, and a liar. You are digging your own grave. I'm certainly on the LORD's side and not yours. And theories have and do change but the GOD's Holy Word remains the same.

I just noticed one claim that I missed.

No, I never called you a liar. I have never said that. I have never implied that. Why do creationists have such a hard time understanding this. Let me try one more time:

We know (okay you lack this knowledge, but almost everyone that has studied at least some science knows) that there was no Flood. There was no Adam and Eve, there was no Flood of Noah. These are things that anyone can know if they study just a little bit. So we know that none of that happened. And most Christians know that too. You see for those things to have happened God would have had to have planted endless false information. That is a form of lying.


So that means that when you claim that those events happened, even though the evidence in what you claim is God's creation tells us otherwise, you are in fact claiming that God is a liar.

Please note, I did not say that you are a liar. I did not say that God is a liar. I pointed out how you are claiming (though you do not realize it) that God is a liar.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it came from my own mind. I am an independent thinker.

Sorry, but this is clearly not the case. You accept the word of the Creation Institute and don't actually seek to understand that which you criticize. You also have clearly NOT read much history and, I would bet, don't even know much f the history of the ideas in your religion.

Reputable scientists are open to research and not close minded to perceptions that undermine their own research.

Exactly. But that does NOT mean being open to ideas that have been thoroughly falsified.

But I will tell you that the fossils found are generally more robust and larger then the skeletons of today's creatures.

Some are. Most are not. There is a bit of a bias since large fossils are morelikely not to be broken up. But the vast majority of fossils are from smaller animals.

And this would imply STRONGER and longer lives than anything we witness today. And for me that reveals that nature is devolving, more sickly, and physically inferior to what it once was. You are the one with tunnel vision because you've missed so much listening to the dissertations of somewhat clueless agnostics.

Once again, you have clearly NOT done any actual investigation of these matters. otherwise you wouldn't be making these claims. the sizes of animals varies from period to period in the Earth's history.

But I would point out that you are contradicting yourself when you admit that these fossils represent animals that lived at various periods of time, as opposed to just a few thousand years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some are. Most are not. There is a bit of a bias since large fossils are morelikely not to be broken up. But the vast majority of fossils are from smaller animals.

Yes, since the vast majority of fossils are from sea life. The ocean is much kinder to small organisms than land. Chalk fossils alone vastly outnumber those of terrestrial life. That is because every grain of chalk is a tiny coccolithophore fossil. But creationists are easily confused because the obvious land fossils tend to be rather large. For whole body, or at least a good portion of one terrestrial fossils it is far easier to fossilize a brontosaurus than a hummingbird. Large bodies can take years for the bones to decay, that increases the likelihood of them getting buried and preserved before that. A hummingbird or any other small dinosaur has much higher odds of decaying before they are preserved.

Of course if we count teeth as fossils, and I do, then you are probably correct for land life. Since teeth are incredibly hard they do preserve much better than any other parts of the body. There are paleontologists that specialize in just teeth.

 

[gnostic]

The way I approach this is to combine science with religion to see where they overlap. Creation places the age of the universe at about 6000 years. I asked myself, what science proven discoveries occurred in that carbon dated time scale? The answer is the invention of written language and the rise of stable civilization.

I can see evolution by natural selection for humans, happening up to the rise of civilization and written language. Once civilization forms and persists, man made environments appear, and man made selections start to add a wild card to natural selection for humans.

There must have been was an update in the human brain's operating system about 6000 years ago, since human behavior changes very drastically. In a sense, a new type of human appears who was no longer fully a part of nature; paradise. This new human became more civilized and willful. It is like a clock starts anew.

For example, natural selection would pick the most fit under various circumstances. How did the idea of blood lines ever form, where the selected people, are already selected ahead of time, detached from environmental circumstances? This is not natural selection, but appears to be a unique man made selection process, or some other form of modern human selection process; needs of collectivism. It also reflects a more open vision of the future, instead of living in the present like a natural animal. It was a remarkable update.

The bible to me is like an ancient diary of those new human early days, which were often explained using the thinking of that time; lacks 20/20 insight back then. But this is still valuable, since it gives us clues as to how we got here and how the modern brain's operating system is layered; science from religion.

except, that the bible as we know it, the oldest known texts of any biblical books, are less than 3000 years old…or to be more precise, not much older than 6th century BCE.

the earliest stories of Gilgamesh, exist in number of Sumerian poems to Bilgames, were 4300 years, with earliest mention of the flood hero, Ziusudra, in tablet that we know as the Death of Bilgames. Ziusudra reappeared in another 2 tablets, one older than the Bilgames poems, The Instructions of Shurrupak (24th century BCE), a dialogue between father (Shurrupak) and son (Ziusudra), and the other tablet (17th century BCE) known today as the Eridu Genesis, which included the creation of humans and the Deluge.

it is quite apparent, that both Bilgames (Gilgamesh) and Ziusudra existed in oral tradition forms, before their stories were committed to written forms, and both were popular enough, that they were translated, adapted and rewritten in Akkadian cuneiform (eg Epic of Atrahasis, Epic of Gilgamesh), during successive periods:

• Old Babylonian Empire (Amorite dynasty), c 1894 - c 1595 BCE (couple of tablets of the epic of Gilgamesh were preserved at the Pennsylvania Museum and Yale University.
• Middle Babylonian Empire (Kassite dynasty), 1595 - 1155 BCE (15th-14th centuries BCE tablet fragments of Gilgamesh epic, were discovered outside of Babylonia):
  • Susa, a capital of Elam (western Iran).
  • Hattusa, the ancient Hittite capital.
  • Ugarit (now known as a town of Ras Shamra), in northwest Syria.
  • Megiddo, a Canaanite city.
  • Amarna, Akhenato’s capital in Egypt.
• Neo-Babylonian Empire (Chaldean dynasty), 626 - 539 BCE

The above were empires centred around its capital, Babylon. In each dynasties at Babylon, they were invaders (Amorites, Kassites & Chaldeans), but each dynasties have adopted the Akkadian culture, the Akkadian religion, the Akkadian language and the Akkadian cuneiform, even though these invaders were not Akkadians.

The other Akkadian-speaking people were the Assyrians from Assyria:

• Middle Assyrian Empire, c 1363 - 912 BCE
• Neo-Assyrian Empire, 911 - 612 BCE, the most famous version of the Epic of Gilgamesh were discovered, preserved in 12 tablets in the Library of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh

Unlike the Old Testament stories, the stories of Gilgamesh and that of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim have far longer history, going as back as 3rd millennium BCE Sumer, eg Instructions of Shurrupak and the 5 Bilgames poems.

No such tablets, scrolls, books on Genesis exist in the 3rd millennium & the 2nd millennium BCE (Bronze Age).

Claiming that the Bible is “ancient diary” is stretching, as there are no single writer of the bible, nor did any Old Testament exist in the Bronze Age. Most likely, Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses never existed as historical figures.

Writing, developed independently in pre-Sumerian Uruk (proto-cuneiform) and in Egypt (proto-hieroglyphs and proto-hieratic), during the later half of the 4th millennium BCE. These earliest writings, usually preserved names of people or their gods, and rudimentary bookkeeping of inventory. As centuries passed, cuneiform and hierogylphs became more refined and standardised, that literature grew from the later half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

In Sumer, the Sumerians commemorated the achievements of their rulers and wrote hymns to their gods. In Egypt, the Egyptians did the same thing, with their rulers and to their gods, with the most abundant writings preserved on the walls of pyramid interiors at Saqqara, dated from the Old Kingdom period, in 5th and 6th dynasties, hence they are known as the Pyramid Texts.

Although writings did exist during the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, contemporary history were nonexistent, from 10th to most of the 7th centuries BCE. The books of kings didn’t start until the last quarters of the 7th century BCE, eg King Josiah.

 

[Little Nipper]

I just noticed one claim that I missed.

No, I never called you a liar. I have never said that. I have never implied that. Why do creationists have such a hard time understanding this. Let me try one more time:

"No one is calling God a liar here except for you. It is a pity that you do not understand that. We know that there was no Flood because God is not a liar." Certainly sounds as though you are suggesting that I'm lying about GOD, since GOD doesn't lie... And then you say, "WE" know that there was no FLOOD." "WE" know nothing of the sort, or do YOU speak for everyone!

We know (okay you lack this knowledge, but almost everyone that has studied at least some science knows) that there was no Flood. There was no Adam and Eve, there was no Flood of Noah. These are things that anyone can know if they study just a little bit. So we know that none of that happened. And most Christians know that too. You see for those things to have happened God would have had to have planted endless false information. That is a form of lying.

Your statement here is FALSE. Almost everyone who has studied some science may accept the false dichotomy of uniformitarians, but they do so only because they are unwilling to do any research of their own.

So that means that when you claim that those events happened, even though the evidence in what you claim is God's creation tells us otherwise, you are in fact claiming that God is a liar.

Presently the world is still under the control of Satan and he is in control of the data and false interpretations. Anyone who does not trust in GOD while in pursuit of their research is under the thumb of Satan, and he is not a friend of the TRUTH.

Please note, I did not say that you are a liar. I did not say that God is a liar. I pointed out how you are claiming (though you do not realize it) that God is a liar.

GOD is never a liar. Satan always manipulates the facts to suit his ultimate goal to usurp GOD in anyway possible. Those that reject GOD are ultimately under his power and at his mercy (which he in fact doesn't provide).

 

[Subduction Zone]

"No one is calling God a liar here except for you. It is a pity that you do not understand that. We know that there was no Flood because God is not a liar." Certainly sounds as though you are suggesting that I'm lying about GOD, since GOD doesn't lie... And then you say, "WE" know that there was no FLOOD." "WE" know nothing of the sort, or do YOU speak for everyone!

No. I am not. Why can you not understand this? Let's break this down. I know that you do not like the fact that if anyone is calling God a liar it is you, but that fact should not get you mad. You should look at your behavior instead.

Nor did I imply that you are a liar. You are simply wrong. Being wrong does not make a person a liar.

Your statement here is FALSE. Almost everyone who has studied some science may accept the false dichotomy of uniformitarians, but they do so only because they are unwilling to do any research of their own.

That is not true. There is no dichotomy. You are right about that. There is only evidence for uniformitarianism. There is none for your beliefs. We need to go over the concept of evidence too. And you are quite confused. It is the creationists that refuse to do any research, or they hide their result because it refutes their beliefs. But as I have pointed out you do not understand the scientific method or scientific evidence.

Here is a question that you need to answer: What possible reasonable observation based on predictions from your beliefs could refute them?

Presently the world is still under the control of Satan and he is in control of the data and false interpretations. Anyone who does not trust in GOD while in pursuit of their research is under the thumb of Satan, and he is not a friend of the TRUTH.

No, that is simply conspiracy theory nonsense. There are countless Christian scientists that can show you to be wrong. Would you like a link to a Christian organization that does so?

GOD is never a liar. Satan always manipulates the facts to suit his ultimate goal to usurp GOD in anyway possible. Those that reject GOD are ultimately under his power and at his mercy (which he in fact doesn't provide).

If God exists then you better hope that he is not a liar. And you appear to be trying to make a god of Satan. And please, no one takes your silly threats seriously. How seriously do you take the threats of a Muslim or a Hindu (though threats seem mainly to be a problem of the Abrahamic religions) . Please don't do that. It is rude and makes you look foolish. Nor is it even a Christian act. The Bible itself warns you about that sort of behavior.

 

[Valjean]

No, it came from my own mind. I am an independent thinker. Reputable scientists are open to research and not close minded to perceptions that undermine their own research.

The scientific method is specifically set up to avoid personal bias, false perceptions and misinterpretation. Research gets repeated by other scientists, and data are criticized. Scientists routinely attempt to disprove their hypotheses; it's part of the process.

The fossil record is more than just a few dozen specimens.

But I will tell you that the fossils found are generally more robust and larger then the skeletons of today's creatures. And this would imply STRONGER and longer lives than anything we witness today.

Why would this be implied?
Most fossils don't even have skeletons, and size and strength are not necessarily selectively advantageous. The oldest, "most robust" creatures are rarely big or strong.

The Class you belong to, Mammalia, was small and "weak" for much
of its history.

And for me that reveals that nature is devolving, more sickly, and physically inferior to what it once was. You are the one with tunnel vision because you've missed so much listening to the dissertations of somewhat clueless agnostics.

No, nature is as it's always been; selecting variants to fit changing conditions and novel opportunities. There is nothing to indicate current life is more sickly or physically inferior than life in the past. What evidence can you cite for this claim?

"Missed so much?" "Agnostics?"
What has been missed? What assertions are "agnostics" making? What are the agnostics clueless about?

 

[Valjean]

Polystrate fossil is a term not often used by uniformitarians/evolutionists because such represenst an obvious problem. I grew up by a river and it flooded regularly and close by there was a stream, and it flooded regularly also. The truth is that trees along the banks were either left standing OR they toppled over sideways out over the river/stream and were great for climbing (when I was a kid) until they finally let lose, fell in during another storm, and were swept away. Trees (petrified or not) that run vertically through many layers of geological strata suggest that such stratification happened quickly and that the fossilized creatures that are found in those layers of strata also occurred just as quickly.

"Polystrate" fossils can be explained by ordinary geology. Creationist claims about the rapid deposition of the strata they penetrate cannot. "Polystrate" Tree Fossils
Floods leave recognizable patterns of deposition. The fossils in question penetrate the recognizable, testable, long-term layers of normal, regional deposition.

I do believe in GOD and you frankly do not. So, why exactly should feel destress regarding your anger over your paradigm I find inferior and seriously lacking substance. I clearly and without any evolutionary help, witness daily a hedonistic world view that is imploding and is in so doing exonerating everything that the Bible has to say.

Disbelievers aren't any more hedonistic than believers, and please explain this "implosion."
As for everything the Bible says, it says all sorts of contradictory things, but, on the whole, advocates principles and actions that would be considered brutal, unjust, and downright evil by today's standards -- particularly amongst nonbelievers.

How is it that those most familiar with the phenomena in question disagree with you?
The evidence counters your points, so what countervailing evidence can you offer?

 

[Valjean]

JESUS CHRIST! Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. Such historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32–33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25–27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41). Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that occurred just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality.

The Biblical myths are completely unevidenced, and frequently impossible, given the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, &c we know to be true.
Why do you believe fantastical, ridiculous, completely unevidenced myths, when we have clearly observable, tested, well-evidenced, commonsense facts that contradict them?

There are many mythologies in folklore and anthropology. What makes your Christian one more believable than those of the ancient Egyptians, Norse, Romans or Maya?

 

[Valjean]

And as I've so often had said to me and now I say to you ----- "So, you believe everything you read on Wikipedia?" They may present an explanation; however, it isn't the ONLY one.

The fact is, wiki only reflects the findings of tens of thousands of independent scientific studies.
Your position is supported by.... nothing; just folklore.

 

[Valjean]

You need Bible knowledge rather than "scientifically" sounding excuses.

But the Bible isn't "knowledge," is it? Knowledge is supported by researchable, tested facts. The Bible is not.
And again, what makes this religious scripture more reliable than those of a thousand of other religions?

 

[Valjean]

"No one is calling God a liar here except for you. It is a pity that you do not understand that. We know that there was no Flood because God is not a liar." Certainly sounds as though you are suggesting that I'm lying about GOD, since GOD doesn't lie... And then you say, "WE" know that there was no FLOOD." "WE" know nothing of the sort, or do YOU speak for everyone!

A lot of us agree with the "God lies" claim. You need to address the actual facts that lead to the conclusion, rather than citing folklore and ad hom and ad pop counterattacks.

Your statement here is FALSE. Almost everyone who has studied some science may accept the false dichotomy of uniformitarians, but they do so only because they are unwilling to do any research of their own.

Presently the world is still under the control of Satan and he is in control of the data and false interpretations. Anyone who does not trust in GOD while in pursuit of their research is under the thumb of Satan, and he is not a friend of the TRUTH.

GOD is never a liar. Satan always manipulates the facts to suit his ultimate goal to usurp GOD in anyway possible. Those that reject GOD are ultimately under his power and at his mercy (which he in fact doesn't provide).

You claim this, and I can claim the earth was made by transdimentional mice, and cite the books of Douglas Adams.
A source, or opinion, is only is only as good as the evidence supporting it. You have little or no objective evidence supporting your preferred myth.