A Creation Website For Children

Hi,I'm Wheely and I hope this is the right place to place my website. This website if for all to view and enjoy. Also please feel free to check out my blogs. Here is my website; and thanks for letting me post it here.http://www.creationkid.org/Enjoy,Wheely

Hello everyone,I unfortunately am busy so this will be my only and last reply to your comments, but I felt it prudent to reply to the posts now.Instead of rebutting your arguments, I just thought I’d just give you my resources instead and let you preview them and argue with my friend who is the professional lecturer presented in my resources. He travels around Canada and the USA speaking on this very subject. Creation vs. Evoltuion and the evidence that supports God’s word and debunks Darwin’s theory. As he lectures he puts them on DVD to fund his ministry, (as many people do) but he also posts them on Youtube for free. Here are 19 of his 22 part series.Enjoy!COMPLETE CREATION 2nd.1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA
2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4YR_1kwL0
3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzmM9K6jw6c
4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84w36xUE0JI
5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJEkR5UCioM
6 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudznX7t1CM
7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfs3G2y9Gww
8 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiTNXT8sjfo
9 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD3slharHU
10 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l13--ai9dKk
11 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSa16wVS3h8
12 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBnaNDKNeT0
13 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APjXqpZw-ho
14 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVlkvcGdy9E
15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC3-PovtZE8
16 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf5JII6sIQ
17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4cACDw8lS4
18 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E8_bh5U_oFI
19 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcMklGRdeBQHowever, I would like to respond to RAZD.Razd, if I may suggest when you rebut someone by using their arguments, respond to their argument. My argument with regards to the Nicholas Steno page was that entropy would have destroyed the sharks teeth long before evolution had the chance to grow the mountains over the course of millions and billions of years.Your response consisted of quoting me a segment from Wikipedia, which by ended up proving my point, so thanks.QUOTE:***“Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616 [6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.”***Nicolas Steno - WikipediaThe ”tongue stones’ were actually discovered to be sharks teeth, not stones. So . how did a shark get buried in rock layers on mountains near Steno’s homeland? The argument that I have heard from an evolutionist is that they died and over the course of millions of years the sharks skeletons took a ride up, as the mountain grew via many tectonic plate activity. However entropy, scavengers and the natural elements would have destroyed the skeletons right down to the last tooth long before ”millions of years’ can become a reality.Furthermore, what are sharks doing in rock layers? The biblical World Wide Flood would put them there quite easily but according to you, an evolutionist, who thinks the bible is false probably wouldn’t agree with that. So . how would a shark get buried in rock layers?Now one more comment:Granny Magda:I am not contradicting myself. The argument put forth to explain the ”death pose’ is that the tendons in the necks dried out and stretched the necks back, preview my resources stated above. I have heard, (however it has been a very long time since I heard this hypothesis, so I will humble myself and admit that maybe I am not up on the latest pack of lies) but anyways, one argument that I heard to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs is via a big meteorite hitting the earth. Furthermore, if you read what I wrote, word for word, you would have read:“ . an evolutionist MAY suggest . ” I have to admit that is a hypothesis of mine; a speculation if you will. It is based on the kind of answers I get from those who hold to the evolution theory. I had never heard the story that they died of suffociation via polluted air. That is why I said that “ . an evolutionist MAY suggest . ”, 'not evolutionists suggest'. There is a big difference in those to phrases.Okay well that is it and one last response to Razd: This long post should be evident that I do have the guts to stand my ground.This will be my last post, so please don’t expect any more rebuttals from me. I am much to busy.Wheely

Hey RazdI believe in giving credit where credit is due. You said:"say on the picture that the fossil tooth was from the sharks head in the picture,..."I checked out your claim and you were right. That is the implication I gave via the picture. That is not what I intended to portray, but that is seemingly the impression it gave you and when I looked at it from your perspective I got that same conclusion. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. What I wanted to imply what that the 'tooth' was from that type of shark, not 'that shark'. I corrected it.As for me ”running away’ because I don’t have a backbone and using the claim that I am busy as an excuse, is false. I could see how you could have derived that conclusion though. I am busy and debating on forums does take up a lot of time, time that I don’t have. I used to be on Facebook and I closed down my account because I was spending too much time in the Creation vs. Evolution group, debating people. I wasn’t getting any school work done, lol. (I'm in University) So, even though that my ”busy’ argument can be construed as an excuse is understandable, it is not the case with me. Moreover, that is why I gave you my resources. So you can see for yourself where I got my information. I actually have more resources than my friend's Youtube videos but they are in book form and I can’t send that through the internet, lol. So you’ll have to settle with my Youtube resrouces.You said:“You also said that he found a skeleton”No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?You said:“Your argument mentions entropy and conflates it with some silly concept about destroying evidence . ”Entropy deteriorates, ie. destroys.You also alluded to the Wiki article again. You highlighted a section then commented that Steno wouldn’t have known about the ”chemical composition of fossils’. If he didn’t know about it in 1660 then how was he able to comment on it?QUOTE***“Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form”***It states that “Steno added to Colonna’s theory . ” by arguing the chemical composition. How could he argue something that he didn’t know about?Hello Granny MagdaFirst off I am sorry for posting my friends Youtube links. They are my resources so that is how I viewed them. Perhaps the moderator would like to transfer them to the LINKS section of this forum. Perhaps I should have put them there, but as I said I didn’t view them as ”LINKS’ I viewed them as ”resources’ to present in this discussion, my apologies. I didn’t think doing that would be a violation of the forum rules.You asked:“So you from that you arrived at the idea that scientists must use it to explain the death pose?”No. You are putting words in my mouth again. I am not saying that idea is what scientists come up with. I am saying based on my experience with discussing evolutionists that is the kind of argument that I have been given. I have never been given that as an actual argument; as I said in my previous post, that was just a hypothesis, I speculation.As for your ”moon made of cheese’ argument, I have never heard Creationists or Evolutionists claim the moon is made of cheese or any other silly argument like that. However I did here one evolutionist say that if the waters filled the entire Earth as the scriptures indicate the earth would be touching Pluto. That is as close as I have gotten so ”crack-pot’ answers like that. My speculation is based on real arguments that I have received from evolutionists. Those are the kinds of things that I have heard from evolutionists; but that specific argument is not one that I had heard, so it is just an example of the kinds of arguments that I heard.Hi there BluejayThanks for the links. I can’t preview them now, but I bookmarked them and I’ll get to them when I can. Thanks for the resources.To sign off, I want to reiterate to everyone that I am busy and so I really can’t stick around. I may pop my head in once in a while, (metephyiscally speaking, lol) but don’t expect to much from me. So I won’t be responding to anymore posts, and it is not because I don’t have a backbone or anything of the sort, I just am busy. Sorry folks. However, Razd I am not sure how to take this, but you said:“No, child, the wiki article shows . ”I don’t know how to take the word ”Child’. Are you calling me a ”child’? If that is the case, I believe that was uncalled for. I didn’t call anyone in this forum any names, and as such I don’t believe I deserved to be called names. I am not offended or anything, I just thought that I’d bring that to your attention, because another person may not respond to your comments or answer your questions if you are condescending or insulting about it. Although to everyone else, I want to thank you for your politeness.Wheely

Hey RazdI just wanted to clear the air. You said:“...your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”I had never intended on getting into a debate. That is why I posted my link on the LINKS page. I was challenged into a debate and as such the moderators moved my link here. I wasn’t going to except the challenge, but I obviously changed my mind.Hi StagamancerYou said:“Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with?”The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.In your post you commented on a few things. Please review my resources indicated above. The answers to your questions are in there.You said:“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”Yes there is! There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.Wheely

Hi everyone, I had posted his once before, but it didn't take. So I am posting it again and hopuflly it will get posted. I don't know what went wrong.Wheely***Hey RazdI just wanted to clear the air. You said:“your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”I had never intended on getting into a debate. That is why I posted my link on the LINKS page. I was challenged into a debate and as such the moderators moved my link here. I wasn’t going to except the challenge, but I obviously changed my mind.Hi StagamancerYou said:“Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with?”The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.In your short post you commented on a few things. Please review my resources indicated above. The answers to your questions are in there.You said:“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”Yes there is! There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.Wheely

Hi StagamancerYou said:“However fossilization is NOT a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be Decomposed before it becomes a rock. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.”Fossilization IS a rapid process. If an animal dies it will decompose before it is ever becomes fossilized. If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, the elements and the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost before it can be slowly buried into sediment, which Evolution propounds: that over the course of millions of years, animals got slowly buried. You are correct that bones do last a long time and one thing that my friend says in the resources I provide above is that it has been scientifically proven that ”fish’ decompose within no time; that is days. To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose, but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly. In addition, even though bones do take a fair length of time to disintegrate, I am pretty positive it doesn’t take millions of years, perhaps hundreds, but I highly doubt ”millions’ or even ”hundreds of thousands’. Furthermore in order for a shark to be buried it needs to be on the ground. When a shark dies it floats, just as any other fish. The sharks and every other sea creature that we see in the fossil record was deposited in the rocks and buried.You said:“So if bones can't last long enough to become fossils, yet, as you say, Noah's flood gave us all our fossils, how did that happen?”A flood is not just like a tide on a beach shore. A flood is a powerful event; it is powerful enough to pick up dirt. A world wide flood will pick up a lot of dirt and pour it on top of the animals. Every fossil that have has been buried in the flood.I understand your frustration regarding me directing me to the videos state above. But if you really want your questions answered, I really advise that you watch them and let my friend answer them for you. He is the professional here. This is what he does for a living and he has been studying Geology for an example for more than 20 years. He can give you your answers a lot better than I can. I know the answers, but he is a gifted teacher and he can portray them to you a lot better than I can. In addition, I am writing from Canada and it is currently 2:07 AM. I am a little tired and so I am not thinking straight. If you want your answers please heed my advise; view the videos, that I provided and I am sure many if not all of your questions will be answered.Hi Dr AdequateI never suggested that scavengers eat teeth. I was saying that if an animal was to die, with a combination of scavengers, entropy and the elements the animal will be gone before it can be encased into a layer of sediment and fossilized. In order for that to happen, it has to happen very fast.Also that big paragraph you posted: Most of that consists of ”Academic Institutions’. What exactly the point of writing that? Just because an academy of science says something doesn’t make it true. The fact that the many ”Academy of Sciences’ support and teach ”evolution’ proves that. Perhaps your argument was to suggest that since the majority of the academy of sciences support the ”evolution theory’ as doctrine, that makes it true. Well, science is about the study of the natural world, not supporting the majority’s interpretation. The study of the natural world provides us with the results that support God and the associated biblical claims. (Genesis creation account, Global Flood account, etc)Okay well, now I am serious I am going to sign off and go to sleep. This was fun and thanks for the conversation and for the most part the politeness’.Have a goodnight,WheelyPS. I am sorry for the double post of my previous post. I didn’t realize that it went onto the second page until I submitted the second copy, lol. Sorry!