Comments by "" (@earlysda) on "National Geographic" channel.

  1.  @goanindian9909  Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. There is no other way to get rid of your sins, than to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
    26
  2. God bless you Lee Chang! May we meet in heaven at the feet of our lovely Saviour who has forgiven our sins - Jesus Christ.
    18
  3. 1:53 "The mudskipper may be a masterpiece of eccentric Evolution to us". No, the mudskipper is a masterpiece of our Creator.
    8
  4.  @jromeeyjay8198  God bless you! Yes, the way of the cross is peace and hope and love. Let's be strong to stand for Jesus, no matter what the haters say.
    5
  5. He was dead in his sins, now he is alive in Jesus. How is it with your soul, Pontidenvresige?
    4
  6. Humans made them, as cats and dogs cannot. Silly click-bait question, from silly Evolution-promoting National Geographic.
    4
  7. INDIE: I'm so happy for the Nagas that they accepted Jesus Christ!!
    3
  8. What is in my teeth?
    2
  9. Raminagrobisfr There are no transitional species. 
    2
  10. Luther Paul All observed living things have been observed to change. No observed living things have ever been observed to evolve. Evolution fails the scientific method. 
    2
  11. 1:48 "The Devil's bite force comes from a powerful upper body design". If the National Geographic has quit promoting Evolution, I might resubscribe to their magazine!
    2
  12. ***** I had spinach for lunch yesterday, not last night.
    1
  13. whiffy: This video promotes the religion of Climate Alarmism, and doesn't recognize the real Creator of these trees - Jesus Christ. Many people who upvoted it are just happy to see trees growing, which I am too. But I don't need the anti-Christian doctrines that are being promulgated in this video.
    1
  14. Luther Paul That is interesting that you bring up a crime scene, Luther.  Let's explore that analogy a bit further.  What is the causal factor of the crime? 1. Natural Selection 2. Mutations 3. Time 4. An intelligent being 
    1
  15. Luther Paul You are the one who made the original analogy of a crime scene, Luther.  Now that you see it is false, what would you like to do about it?
    1
  16. Luther Paul Give us your "valid alternative" then.
    1
  17. Luther Paul writes: "you could have no intelligent beings at all depending on the evidence".  You still have not given us any alternatives to the obvious answer.  If you don't have any alternatives, why not just admit it, rather than write about things that have no relation to the answer?
    1
  18. Luther Paul Just as expected, Luther -- You are the one who said it was a "crime".  When shown how your own analogy helps refute Evolution and support Creation you try to change the definition to something other than a "crime". . Instead of rebelling against God, why not love him who loves you so much he died on a cross to save you from your sins, do as he says, and receive eternal life?
    1
  19. Luther Paul It is impossible to believe in the God of the Bible while, at the same time, believing in the god of aeons of time that all Evolutionists are required to believe in. . You have failed spectacularly at answering your own analogy.  No doubt it is because the obvious answer hurts your pride. . That is good to have one's pride brought low, because that is when God can work to change the heart. :) . May you repent for rebelling against your Creator who created this world in 6 days and rested the 7th, then around 4,000 years later died on a cross to wash our sins away, was resurrected, and now lives in heaven to make intercession for us.  He will come back soon, and take his believing and practicing children to heaven.  Don't you wish to be among them?
    1
  20. Luther Paul You fail yet again at giving us what is suppoedly an "alternative" to the analogy that you said yourself was a crime "scene". . It is sad to see you use your God-given reasoning skills to rebel against him.
    1
  21. Luther Paul You seem to keep forgetting that you are the one who brought up the whole analogy of a "crime".  You seem angry to learn that your analogy points to God as Creator, and against Evolution.  Why not just admit the obvious answer - than an intelligent being did it?  Trying to play semantics by saying basically that it could have been "beings" does actually what to disprove the point made that Evolution didn't do it? . Why do you currently dislike God so much that you would rather promote the god of aeons of time that all Evolutionists are required to believe in?
    1
  22. Luther Paul Glad to see you finally take responsibility for your bringing up the crime scene analogy. :)  You wrote: "however more than one intelligent beings is an equally valid option", so yes, you are playing semantics by trying to make the number of intelligent beings plural instead of singular.  Why not admit the obvious that your own analogy helps disprove Evolution?  Is it because you like the god of Evolution more than the one true God? . I will be happy to try and answer your questions the best i can. :) 1. "dead remains of marine alge that accumulate by 2 inches every thousand years."  That assumes current rates and levels.  Of course with a global flood, many meters of chalk could be laid down and/or made into a sediment in hours. 2. It is impossible to count back how many times Y chromosomes have mutated.  Anyone who told you different is just being ridiculous. 3. Distant star light is a problem only if you think that everything has always been the way we think we observe it now.  The fact is, there are things (Jesus, angels etc.) that we know go much faster than light.  Even in observations, the speed of light has been observed to fluctuate.  God says many times that he "spread out" the heavens.  That is very interesting language that holds the clues, no doubt.
    1
  23. Luther Paul Still not willing to admit the obvious answer to your analogy, Luther?  It is nice to see the Holy Spirit prompting your heart, pricking your conscience.  May you listen to that still small voice, and learn to accept Jesus Christ as King in your life.
    1
  24. Luther Paul wrote earlier: ""however more than one intelligent beings is an equally valid option",". If you are not willing to take responsibility for what you wrote, there is not much point in having a discussion, is there? . Why do you currently rebel against your Creator - Jesus Christ?  Why not repent, love him who loves you so much he died for you on a cross, was resurrected, and promised you eternal life if you do what he says?  By believing the god of aeons of time that all Evolutionists are required to believe in, you are making Jesus out to be a liar.
    1
  25. Dejawolfs You seem angry that Jesus hasn't come back yet, Dejawolfs.  Why is that? 
    1
  26. Dejawolfs You wrote earlier that Jesus "lied" about coming back.  Does "lie" have no emotional attachment for you?  Someone can lie to you and it's the same as if they told you the truth? 
    1
  27. Dejawolfs Glad to see the Holy Spirit pricking your conscience, Dejawolfs. 
    1
  28. aSStronaut111 Perhaps you didn't understand the analogy, asstronaut.  Here it is again: What is the causal factor of the crime? 1. Natural Selection 2. Mutations 3. Time 4. An intelligent being 
    1
  29. aSStronaut111 chooses "Natural Selection" as the answer to the causal factor of the crime. . You would make a very funny judge. ;)
    1
  30. aSStronaut111 You made your comment regarding a "crime".  If you didn't know that, you are welcome to change your answer.  If you knew that, and still decided to choose "Natural Selection", you are showing us all your fundamental misunderstanding of either the English language, or else how life is. 
    1
  31. aSStronaut111 Wishing to show us even clearer how you chose an impossible answer?  Thank you. 
    1
  32. ***** Thank you for your comment.  Did you forget to give evidence to support your belief, or was that intentional? 
    1
  33. *****"over a long period of time".  So are you agreeing with Richard Dawkins that; "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening"?  If so, that means it fails the scientific method... 
    1
  34. Dejawolfs Is that your attempt to refute Richard Dawkins' statement?
    1
  35. ***** That is interesting you think Richard Dawkins is unaware of fossils, Jeff.  Perhaps he understands fossils are static, and you do not, yet? 
    1
  36. Nice to see 3 Evolutionists admit the truth that they don't understand. I will pray that more will give up their blind faith in the god of aeons of time that all Evolutionists are required to believe in, and they will follow their Creator - Jesus Christ.
    1
  37. Dejawolfs I never mentioned anything like what you quote me: "scientists always changes their minds".  In fact, that is not even proper English. . Perhaps you were thinking of a different poster when you responded to me?
    1
  38. Dejawolfs Thanks for showing that you tried projection on me which didn't work, and teaching me English which didn't work either. . Please repent of your rebellion against Jesus, do as he says, and receive eternal life.
    1
  39. Dejawolfs I don't know what you are talking about, because you have not quoted me correctly at all. . I ask you to quit making up stuff and attributing it to me.  But if that makes you happy to make up things, please continue.
    1
  40. Dejawolfs Have you admitted you quoted me incorrectly?
    1
  41. Dejawolfs When you put words in quote marks, it means you are quoting something.  Because you made it look like you quoted something I never wrote, it looks like you are intentionally lying.  If that was not your intention, I will accept your apology, and we can move forward.
    1
  42. Dejawolfs You seem to not understand what quote marks mean even after I tried to explain them to you.  If you don't wish to learn how to write so people can understand what you are trying to convey, then this conversation is finished.  If you were intentionally lying, then this conversation is finished. . The observed facts remain - Evolution fails the scientific method as "it has never been observed while it is happening" (quote from Richard Dawkins).
    1
  43. ***** Did you know that according to Richard Dawkins, "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening"?  Do you think he is correct?
    1
  44. SuperDragon978 "millions of years ago". Your belief in the god of aeons of time is your belief, but has nothing to do with scientific facts.  The facts are, Evolution is unfalsifiable, and unrepeatable, so fails the scientific method.
    1
  45. ***** hmmm, I've read the Bible many times, and never seen where it says you will find humans in the same layers of earth as dinosaurs. . Can you please show that to me? Thank you.
    1
  46. Dejawolfs That's cool! So if you find human bones, it automatically makes the layer it was found become not "permian", "triassic jurassic", or "cretaceous".  How convenient for Evolutionists!
    1
  47. Dejawolfs Since when did rocks come with dates written on them?  Do they say BC or BCE?  Or maybe your assumptions are just that - assumptions.
    1
  48. Dejawolfs You've just shown your assumptions well.
    1
  49. Dejawolfs Let's make it abundantly clear, Dejawolfs.  You are taking a process that works a certain way now, and assume that this particular process has always worked that way for billions of years in the past. . That isn't science, that is belief.
    1
  50. Dejawolfs Your assumptions underlie your belief, but that is not how true science works. . Science works by observations.
    1