Believe God's word

In a recent debate a statement was made that, “There’s no scientific evidence to support creationism.” But science does support creationism, at least to open-minded created beings who know that we’re accountable to a supreme being.

Personally, I don’t think that coming from monkey-boy is anything to brag about.

Evolutionists hold that the earth is very old, and that each strata of rock represents a slice of time that, when taken together, represents millions of years. How then, can polystrate fossils, such as petrified trees of a particular age, be found standing vertically through two or three layers of rock that are supposedly millions of years apart in age? Maybe from a global flood which, besides in the Bible, is a story told by more than 500 cultures worldwide? Did the resulting worldwide layers of silt and mud petrify very rapidly?

What about the abundance of fossils of dinosaur footprints interwoven with human footprints? Can rock reconstitute back into mud for Alley Oop to trudge through millions of years later, and then re-petrify with the original dinosaur footprints perfectly preserved?

Conversely, how long do evolutionists think science takes to catch up with God’s Word?

A baby’s level of prothrombin, used in the production of vitamin K, a clotting factor, peaks at the eighth day of life. Yet God told Abraham, “He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generation ... (Genesis 17:12) thousands of years ago.

Just three examples. 'Nuff said.

David T. Theriault, Rumford

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture

Hum, lets see, a Snake talks

Hum, lets see, a Snake talks to a naked woman in a garden. A man walks across water, performs other magical acts and then Like Haitian Voodoo, a zombie rises from the dead giving eternal life to all. Makes perfect sense folks.

 's picture

Darwin created a theory of

Darwin created a theory of evolution which now has a basis in DNA. Which stood the world on its ear. The evolutionary biologists now push this back into eons of time and define this as ultimate causation and a fact. Non Christian scientists have blown holes through it, (along with mathemeticians) stating that the evolutionists, based on DNA, disprove their own theory. DNA would need an infinite amount of time to "evolve" to it's current complexity even in very very simple organisms. But, based on what we know currently about DNA. The exciting thing is, the FACT of evolution is being challenged, as was Einsteins relativity. DNA is DNA. But the ultimate causation is the where things get squirrelly.
Ok Ok I was a little cynical about Dino steaks. But the fact is that, although not dominant, dinosaurs exist on the earth today. Crocodiles, alligators, Ceolecanths (sp) come to mind. Why wouldn't they co-exist within humanity's occupation of this place? Could scientists method of dating be wrong?
Those Christians who have co-opted this devolving ( I love that word) of evolution to create justification would do well to read 2 Peter and his discussion of false teaching. Not pretty. I am thankfull that God gave me the gifts to sit through lectures and study these concepts first hand, and thankful that God placed them there to stimulate the curiosity that is also a gift. I didn't mean to insult either party, because DNA and it's understanding is usefull and practical, Christianity provides the very existence and philosophy of our nation, pride, spirit. But to claim ultimate causation for either based on theory is just wrong. "evidence of the Deity, manifests itself in my constant state of wonder" - Albert Einstein.
The truly scientific posts here, "speciation", " babble" , are evidence of typical post modernist thinking. Use a BIG word to establish territory and make assertions that are fact without basis, then denigrate, minimize all opinion or statements that may differ with what you may consider fact. I once posted here that academia is the last bastion of perpetual adolesence, I guess it's proven.
I find that most people don't enjoy the wonder, they just establish what they want to believe, slap a coat of concrete on it, and defend themselves, evidence to contrary.

 's picture

Here's something to think

Here's something to think about if you believe the bible story.

First off, he created the night and day before he created the sun. Seems silly, but you know, whatever.

Up to day 4, he's very Earth centric. Land, water, sky, plants. But on day 4, he created the Sun, Moon and STARS. In ONE DAY, he created the rest of the universe. Seems silly that he would focus days 1-3 and 5-6 on Earth, but for giggles, he makes the rest of the universe on day 4.

The Bible reflects ancient man's attempt at trying to understand the world around him. Ergo, it shouldn't be looked at literally. It was WAAAAY ahead of it's time, but now trying to rely on it as the literal history is just sin. God gave us minds to think with and be rational. To not use this gift and just blindly accept what is written in a book that is over 2000 years old is insulting. God made you better than that.

 's picture

Another thing to think

Another thing to think of:
God in Christian mythology is viewed as the "heavenly" prototype father; the perfect father that should be reflected here on earth.
God, created Lucifer. Lucifer supposedly went astray; inciting revolutin in heaven. God, who has the power to destroy Lucifer, casts him and his fellow rebels to earth.
God, now creates his masterpiece, mankind; placing him on earth.
So, isn't that like me bringing home a pit bull that turns rabid, and instead of putting him down, I lock him in the nursery and wish the kids luck from behind the closed door? More like an abusive stepfather if you ask me.
Of course, it's all a put on anyway, as the Jews didn't believe in the devil or hell. The Christians invented it all as a control device of the faithful.

 's picture

A bit too much, happy.... I'm

A bit too much, happy.... I'm a former seminary candidate who walked away from it all. Several years teaching and preaching and I kind of learned my way out of organized religion. I've spent the last several years as a happy Pagan and would never go back.

 's picture

Precisely, Lucifer had free

Precisely, Lucifer had free will according to the legend. Also, according to Revelation, God will eventually smite him. If God knows everything from beginning to end, he knew his Lucifer would rebel, be sent to earth to torment and destroy, and then be put down anyway. He also knew that he was throwing this ravenous angel into the midst of his beloved creation. While it is possible to assert that the whole show was planned out from start to finnish in order for a lonely god to show his love for his creation: Create Lucifer, let him run amuck, sacrifice your son, return to smite...still it smacks of "Giant kid with an ant farm and a magnifying glass". I did not say that God abused the pit bull, but rather that he had no qualms of putting it in the nursery with humankind with the full knowledge of what he will do. You can cry personal accountability all day long but if I put a pedophile sociopath in an elementary school and locked the doors, you would have a far different opinion of me than that of your god. It all started with your god's decision. Take that if you want origional sin.

 's picture

The argument, and rightly so,

The argument, and rightly so, is between micro and macro evolutionary theory. The evolutionary biologists make the same leaps without evidence as this letter does. Which is proof to me that both are religions. For christians to rename the argument to justify themselves is heresy, for biologists to claim this as absolute fact closes the door for discussion and is unconscionable. Both are extreme, narrow and wrong.
Incidentally, I have some great dino steaks in my freezer if anyone is interested. Lil? Mark? which ever one you are today.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Excellently stated,

Excellently stated, fatnhappy. Good job

 's picture

Ever hear of mrsa?

Its a strain of staff infection that has evolved to be resistant to common anti boitics.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Oh, geewhizzz; I thought it

Oh, geewhizzz; I thought it was a college in Vermont.

 's picture


Science cannot disprove creationism either, thus it is a viable discussion...

 's picture


Theriault, that's the funniest joke I've heard all year.

 's picture

I'll keep my opinion of the letter to myself.

But I must say that it is very hard to believe in Intelligent Design given the contradictory evidence presented my most commenters here.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's because they're all

That's because they're all darwinists, frosty.

 's picture

I never understood

How something thatvhas been edited, rewritten, incorrectly translated, and then mass produced by machienery could somehow be the true word of god?

 's picture

I knew it!

"dinosaur footprints interwoven with human footprints" Jesus DID have a pet dinosaur!

 's picture

There are creation stories

There are creation stories far older than yours. Are we to shuffle them aside because you think you have the "Truth"? No, you're just another loony on the pile, here for our amusement. Thanks for the early chuckle.

 's picture

Steve, the problem is that

Steve, the problem is that creationists wrap their arguments in the jargon of science without the methodology. Like the examples he wrote about. I need some more specific information, like where this supposed evolution busters happened. With the info supplied, all that I can say is "nu uh".

And the reason most logical people reject the creationist model is that it's based on the bible, which has people talking to burning shrubbery, people living in whales, and all sorts of other nonsense.

Steve Bulger's picture


Your reply to Mr. Theriault's letter either dismisses his viewpoint or wholeheartedly supports it; it's difficult to discern. Perhaps if you'd try adding a bit of dialogue, people would know which side of the debate you endorse. But then, when I look at the history of comments in your profile, I see that you respond in a similar way to most letters on which you comment. So, I really shouldn't be surprised.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Who put the video together?

Who put the video together? No, wait, let me guess......Al Gore or Michael Moore. BTW---That's Governor Le Page, to you, X-Z.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...