“Three blasted murders and not even a single clue as to what happened!” Wilhelm exclaimed. The Grimm brothers were reputable amateur detectives in their village, often making conclusions like, “She was mauled by three bears.” Their job, however, often tied in with their double life as a Grimm. Or, in other words, it was three Jägarbars, not three bears. However, this night they strived to figure out how two wolf-bit corpses and a recent disappearance were connected.
Haube was a little girl, about thirteen, that disappeared into the forest to find her grandmother, Kranke Frau, a Wieder Blutbad, who often educated the two Grimms on the word of Wesen. The only thinkable place to look for Haube was at Kranke’s house, so Jacob Grimm set off with an iron axe and a twin crossbow, also known as a doppelarmbrust. Loaded with both a bolt dipped in a sleeping potion and another dipped in poison for when it came to that situation.
The gravel path stretched endlessly in the dense woods. It seemed to go on forever until Wilhelm stumbled upon the old cottage. Suddenly, the lights went off at the sound of a monsterous “ROAR“. Jacob now began to run towards the darkened house.
Jacob began to slash the door open with his axe. 1… 2… 3… And eventually, it broke down, only to find a wounded Mrs. Frau and a pool of dark blood. She seemed to have a bite from a very large wolf. Perhaps a Blutbad? “It’s…. her…” she spoke with her last breath. Jacob only had to look for the little girl in the cottage. It’s not like she would go far, he thought.
He checked the extra room in the deceased grandmother’s house. All he could find was a red hood on the small bed. Jacob looked closer, and the hood seemed to be blood-red. “Oh wait, this is blood.” The blood trail continued out the window into the woods, and he followed it.
Wilhelm looked at Jacob’s sketches. “I think it’s a Blutbad. After all, there’s no wolf in Kassel that could be big enough to take this large of a bite out of a human.” Yet the bite was smaller than normal Blutbad attack wounds. They suspected that Haube is going through an early woge, and that they must keep her asleep until the period of violence ends.
Now the two Grimms walked again into the forest the next morning, following the dry blood path. Wesen don’t usually woge in daylight, unless provoked, of course. However, Haube is experiencing her first woges, and this is not the best for violent Wesen like Blutbad that tend to be easily provoked at this period. Perhaps the red sunrise will provoke her?
The silence was disrupted by yet another “ROAR!” The brothers’ pace quickened, and they abandoned the blood path in favor of going in the direction of the noise.
Haube was certainly there, alive and well. So was a man wearing a red buttoned-up shirt, except he wasn’t so alive. The small girl woged into a hideous Blutbad, and attempted to maul the two Grimms.
Now Wilhelm, being the energetic younger brother that he is, shot Haube with his doppelarmbrust. He was lucky enough to hit her in the chest, and they now had to rush her to the Grimm residence.
Jacob pulled the bolt out of her and sewed her back up. “Now that’s enough schlafen to keep her asleep for the next few years,“ he said with reief. No more Blutbaden attacks, as well as no dead girls.
The Grimms kept her in an extra room in their house. It came with a bell that can be heard throughout the house in case she awakes, as well as a friendly note, “Klingelt, wenn du wach bist!“
I know I exaggerated in the title. It just fits so well with what has been going on with Bill Nye, Creationists, logically-fallacious evolutionists, etc.
Is Carbon Dating accurate? Is Earth billions of years old? And why the heck do we have fossils and rock layers without millions of years?
Basic Concepts of Geology
No matter what your presupposition is about the world, the studies of geology have the following in common:
- Weathering- Picking up sediments
- Erosion- Carrying sediments
- Deposition- Dropping sediments
This is a very basic concept. The question is how did the world we have today come to be?
The Secular explanation is that anything can happen over long periods of time. This is also how they came up with Evolution, actually. Before we begin, keep in mind that Carbon-14 dating has been disproved by scientists. According to the idea of Uniformitarianism, everything (that is geographical) we see today is a result of natural processes happening over millions of years. The rock layers are supposedly evidence of mud being laid down over long periods of time. The fossils were also dated according to their rock layer and Carbon-14 dating.
The Creation explanation is that there was a global flood that happened about 4000+ years ago. The flood rapidly weathered, eroded, and deposited sediments, creating fossil layers and covering up organisms rapidly. Rapid fossilization has been examined a few months after Mt St Helen’s eruption. Rapid lava and mud flows cause trees to petrify, creating a petrified forest similar to those seen in national parks. The fact that Carbon-14 dating has been disproved also gives points to the Creation side of the argument.
Petrified trees also do not at all support the Naturalist viewpoint, as if a tree were buried vertical, and it takes as long for sediments to pile up as Uniformitarianism claims, then the tree would fall over and rot before it would be covered enough to stand vertically without the mudslides or water.
It really depends on your worldview. I, as a born-again Christian, believe that the evidence points to Catastrophism rather than the opposite. An atheist, however, would reject the evidence and keep his trust in millions of years. I am also writing this post at 1:50 in the morning, so I’ very tired and I should probably go to bed. Farewell.
EDIT: I wrote this post before I figured out that saying that someone saying that their opponent committed a fallacy without saying what it is is considered the logical fallacy of the question-begging epithet, so Boba committed even more then mentioned!
Unfortunately they’re not very high quality
I don’t care about swearing
There’s a few words I don’t say except with friends
And I don’t say racial/sexual slurs
But there’s nothing wrong iwth poop
Or a mythological place
Or being sent to a mythological place
How do you know? Have you died and somehow came back?
And the whole concept of explaining the unknown by inventing a supernatural force isn’t a logical fallacy?
I will now quote Dr. Lisle, “It makes sense in the Christian worldview that our senses would be basically reliable. An all-knowing God designed and created both the universe and our senses, so it makes sense that those two things would “go together”—that our senses can reliably probe the universe. So, I have a very good reason to be able to trust my senses. You want to reject my reason, but unfortunately, you don’t have a good reason to reject my reason, and you have no alternative. The evolutionist has no rational reason to trust his senses based on his professed worldview. Evolutionists believe things with absolutely no good reason. In other words, they have a blind faith—which is irrational.”
There’s no reason to believe in one in the first place
The reason why people believe it is because their parents said so
Blind faith fails against logic
There’s no reason for it to be true
There is no actual evidence for it
And much evidence against it
Atheists/Atheism in a nutshell? You see, there’s no reason to believe in anything if this is all accidental. Coming up soon, the guy claims that the Big bang wasn’t an accident. I then asked him if he believed in the statement “Religion vs Science”
You’re not making sense
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s a statement that Atheists make worldwide.
Evolution is based on logical and proven ideas
You have commited the logical fallacy of begging the question, because you are only assuming that evolution is proven without backing up your statement. We have observed different organisms changing by mutations. However, we have not seen anything completely brand-new. An atheist might say, “But we weren’t alive for millions of years.” That’s true, but we have studied 600 generations of fruit flies. If each of them lived as long as a human, that would be a couple million years. But each lives a few days or weeks. So when scientists studied evolution on a small scale, there were three categories of fruit flies: alive, dead, or mutated. None truly evolved to something new.
We can observe it happening
We have not seen an entire new creature evolve. Please read above. Also note that this is the logical fallacy of equivocation because he confused “evolution” (the theory) with “evolution” (changes in organisms). Example of the first definition: “Evolution of man-kind”. Example of the second: “The evolution of the iPhone4 from the iPhone” I told him something like that.
That’s not what evolution is
Then what’s Lucy all about?
Evolution is the gradual accumulation of changes through natural selection
Why do you believe in your religion?
We haven’t seen any new DNA, which is required for completely new features. Such as scales to feathers. And also you committed the logical fallacy of the question begging epithet because insulting someone is not proof for your case. I can just as easily say, “Why do you believe in your religion? It’s ridiculous!” I then told him that everyone has presuppositions.
- Actually, no
- You don’t have to have them
- You can learn from what ainhas been observed and tested over and over ag
Your presupposition happens to be that this is a Godless world in which everything is a result of nature. And you don’t have to have them? There’s even a presupposition in which you claim that you don’t have one. Final statement: What in the world is an “ainha”?
It’s not a presupposition
I don’t have to “believe” in science
That’s the beauty of it
What isn’t a presupposition? I know that Naturalism isn’t a presupposition (it is a religion), but the belief that there isn’t a God is. You also committed the fallacy of the question begging epithet again by claiming your viewpoint is science and mine isn’t. It is, in fact, the science of one religion vs the science of another. Besides, I can say the exact same thing except calling Naturalism the religion.
I don’t just accept things at face value
I never said I don’t have them
I said that you aren’t supposed to believe in science
That in itself is a fallacious idea
That is a fallacious idea. Good job on correcting yourself! You would’ve committed the question begging epithet because you have faith that you believe in real science but I do too!
Science is not a substitute for religion, religion is something entirely different
I just told you, I don’t “believe” in it
I am known for being a Grammar Nazi; that “,” should be a “;” in the first sentence. Second, we know science isn’t a substitute for religion. Here’s another logical fallacy. This time it’s equivocation because he confused science (the body of knowledge) with what he calls real science (his belief). In literal terms, his second definition (which he confused the first with) is the science built on his religion. I can just as easily call Creation the same thing,
My presupposition is that we can discover things about the world through tests
But that should be obviouones to any
If that were really your presupposition, then you would’ve looked at tests that other scientists (with different worldviews) conducted. If you’re wondering what my presupposition is, it’s that God created according to the account in Genesis.
We can see evolution happening in bacteria and viruses all the time
We can see it happening in short lived macroscale species
I suggest reading this, this, and this about bacteria. About macroscale species, that’s the logical fallacy of the question-begging epithet because, while we have seen changes and mutations, we have not seen anything new evolve.
They don’t “gain new DNA”
You don’t understand it very well
So how did dinosaurs get feathers? You cannot get feathers from scales without adding to the genome. And when I say “Gain new DNA” I mean whatever it takes to add genes in the genetic pool.
Now I accidentally reloaded the page so I can’t quote/refute the rest of what he said, but I do remember we started talking about the Big Bang and morality. He claimed that the Big Bang wasn’t an accident. Interesting claim because if so then it was on purpose. He thought of the word “accident” meaning something caused by a person that didn’t happen on purpose.. My definition is:
“…any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.(Cause meaning a purpose to it.)”
So in my terms, it was an accident. That being said, according to my definition, and according to his viewpoint, this is an accidental world. If so, there’s no reason to be moral. Here’s a nice video that talks about morality and Atheism.
So I was listening to Jeremy Camp on YouTube when I saw a Creation vs Evolution argument. I joined in and commented:
It’s a lot more logical than Evolution. Amphibian tadpoles are born with gills and underwater. If a reptile is born from one, it would drown. Spiral galaxies spin so fast that they would have blended into disk galaxies after a few million years, yet according to evolution, our galaxy is supposed to be 10 billion years old. Tons of stuff against Evolution.
He replied (notice his grammar):
First of all a reptile was not born from a tad pole you moron. And our galaxy was not created as the big bang was happening. Just because your not smart enough to understand it dosen’t mean you can make shit up.
He misread my comment BIG TIME. I replied:
I did not say it was born from a tadpole, I said that according to Evolution it was born from an amphibian. Also, I did not say that our galaxy is as old as the universe; I said that if our galaxy is more than a couple million years old, then its arms would’ve blended into a disk shape. I’m assuming you didn’t read that correctly.
He can’t deny that according to Evolution, “reptiles evolved from amphibians;” that’s against his dogma!
He also misread my comment and made some pretty funny assumptions.I did not mention the Big Bang (as false as it is) or the universe. I was discussing that spiral galaxies twirl around so fast that within a couple million years, they would’ve blended into disk galaxies. What a misread!
Since I’m on the topic, let’s see some more Creation proof! The following sites are my resources for Creation and anti-Evolution research.
Dino Next Door
And who can forget the platypus? This mammal has a bill like a duck, a tail like a beaver, and stinging, webbed feet. TalkOrigins (a site the Creation vs Evolution, which seems to always say that Evolution is right) claims that platypuses evolved from early mammals. There’s three things against this. One, if they evolved directly from early mammalians, why haven’t they evolved into something else? Why not some dolphin like Evolutionists say dog-like creatures evolved into. Second, explain its duck-like features. It didn’t evolve from birds, and it’s certainly not evolving into one. Third, they claim the reason why they came to that conclusion was because of shortage of evidence. Very typical of an Evolutionist, eh? Then they try to bash Creationists for explaining how they ended up in Australia after leaving the Ark. Presently, Turkey and Australia are far apart. What I think that the continents didn’t split apart until the distribution of humans from Babel. If otherwise (over a period of “millions” of years”), than the continents would’ve eroded so much that they would not seem to line up with each other (this is also proof that Earth is young). God moved apart the continents to make sure the now-separated humans would not be in contact with one another in a LONG time. I also found this funny picture.
Now mutations. There is a small chance of an organism to have a good mutation. So let’s say a creature has a good mutation. There is also an even smaller chance of two animals having the exact same mutation. So that trait will be lost over a couple generations.
This is all I can write about now, since it is about 8:00. I suggest to check out ICR or AnswersInGenesis.