Creation vs evolution total [relism] vs [Ferrets54]

[total relism]

Hey, just making opening post about rules etc, so the rules are, there are no rules as agreed by me and ferret's.
I will not make a cometary thread, as i hate comments going unchallenged, but i know someone will make it, so as always i offer to debate anyone on creation vs evolution, also on anything i have said in this debate or any-before this debate as well.
Ferret is welcome to make opening post if he wishes, if not that is perfectly fine with me, I will not be able to make post for probably a week, so when im ready i will post my first, than i will have more time to respond.
I will ask ferrets if we can set a 3 page full max on this debate, he in no way has to agree, as this was not set up before hand so im trying to make that our rule here as well as, one post at a time back and forth, are these two agreeably for you ferrets?

[removeduser_487563287433]

3 pages is fine, 1 post 1 post is fine. I will edit this post with an opener later.

Okay. So. Opening post.

Usually when "creationism" is pitched against the theory of evolution it is a greatly confused discussion, not least because proponents of "creationism" usually think the theory of evolution is direct conflict with their own views in almost every capacity.

This is not the case. Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination.

"Creationism" is simply the particular myth that a certain person holds to to explain how things are. We usually mean "creationism" as short-hand for Abrahamic creation myth, as outlined in the Old Testament. This myth is the development of many thousands of years of prehistoric and historic cultural change, and contains many traits common to other semitic creation myths, but we should not forget that very few of these groups can agree on how exactly the myth goes, and indeed many groups that advocated subtly different versions have been violently wiped off the face of the Earth. This is before we even get to the other religions, who of course have their own creation myths, monkeys spunking in the eyes of Chaos and that sort of thing. I do not see why the Great Rhino creation myth of a Papua New Guinean tribesman should be taken any less seriously than a small-town American preacher.

So - where do evolution and creationism conflict? I suppose it can only be in the terms of how the living organisms we see today came to be.

In that context, evolution is obviously the more likely answer. Creationism implies not only that every creature walking the Earth was designed by a God or Demiurge, but also every creature that has ever been. This raises immediate issues, as obviously species have gone extinct, and others have appeared at certain points in history. So are the Gods periodically restocking the Earth when we begin to run low on species? There's no evidence to suggest this. There is, of course, a large fossil record suggesting evolution is the mechanism here.

[total relism]

Thanks for agreeing to do this ferrets, sorry for delay, also I will not be able to do my second post untill early next week probably. Im finishing up a big study i'm doing on isalm and im in the finishing stages, so i just want to finish up real quick.
Ill respond to your first post here, and do my opening, so we can just quote one page at a time and it will include all points.

3 pages is fine, 1 post 1 post is fine. I will edit this post with an opener later.

Okay. So. Opening post.

Usually when "creationism" is pitched against the theory of evolution it is a greatly confused discussion, not least because proponents of "creationism" usually think the theory of evolution is direct conflict with their own views in almost every capacity.

I agree here 100% I do not think evolution is compatible with what I believe the bible. I have seen theologians and scientist twist the bible to match, but a straight forward reading certainly disagrees. If evolution is true, the bible is false so why believe it? and if you have to change your holy book to pretend it's true, why belive it?
However i obviously disagree with evolution, so no need for any of that

This is not the case. Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination.

Well I agree with you here as well, no one in the world would disagree with this statement, creationist or evolutionist.
However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.
That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information in our dna to construct the proteins and biological systems transport systems,regulatory systems enzyme specificy etc.
This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.
So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?
If you stick with your original definition, than we have nothing to discuss as I agree with you 100%. Will you adopt this new definition to defend?

"Creationism" is simply the particular myth that a certain person holds to to explain how things are. We usually mean "creationism" as short-hand for Abrahamic creation myth, as outlined in the Old Testament. This myth is the development of many thousands of years of prehistoric and historic cultural change, and contains many traits common to other semitic creation myths, but we should not forget that very few of these groups can agree on how exactly the myth goes, and indeed many groups that advocated subtly different versions have been violently wiped off the face of the Earth. This is before we even get to the other religions, who of course have their own creation myths, monkeys spunking in the eyes of Chaos and that sort of thing. I do not see why the Great Rhino creation myth of a Papua New Guinean tribesman should be taken any less seriously than a small-town American preacher.

Using the word "myth" alot is a logical fallacy, your trying to convince, yourself or others, believing if you say it enough times it must be true, teachers are actually told to do this to students, repeatably tell them the earth is billions of years old, eventually they will believe it.
Please do not just make statements, back them up please, saying that the bibles creation "myth" as you say, is made from thousands of years of prehistoric culture change I believe would definitely disprove it and you would win the debate, so good luck please back it up. Also when was this wiping people off the earth for there creation "myth"?.
I was also looking more for science creation vs evolution. Did you ever think maybe similarity's prove a common sourceIs this not what you would say of similarities in animals a common ancestor?
This is a great article for you if your interested, this article uses the similarities to help prove a common original creation account from the bible.



the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.
Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66
bible and spade 23.4 2010 two ancient Samaritan tablets saying no to paganism



You said "before we get to other religions", no reason to I believe the bible only, the only other "myth" as i see it, is the one that breaks multiple scientific laws and has failed demonstration over and over, you must know i'm referring to your own. You are atheist no? You do believe the entire universe came from nothing correct? you have to believe that hydrogen gas a invisible tasteless orderless gas can create people over billions of years if left to itself no? that a unobserved chemical ocean created life from non life correct?

Sounds like a "myth" to me and i see no reason to take this story telling over some new guine tribesman
However there are quit a few reasons to accept the bibles creation account over the rhino

So - where do evolution and creationism conflict? I suppose it can only be in the terms of how the living organisms we see today came to be.

In that context, evolution is obviously the more likely answer. Creationism implies not only that every creature walking the Earth was designed by a God or Demiurge, but also every creature that has ever been. This raises immediate issues, as obviously species have gone extinct, and others have appeared at certain points in history. So are the Gods periodically restocking the Earth when we begin to run low on species? There's no evidence to suggest this. There is, of course, a large fossil record suggesting evolution is the mechanism here.

Why is evolution more likely? what is the evidence? who is demiurge? never herd of him, she whatever it is .
Im sorry you will have to explain your argument again, the bible definitely predicts many dead animals, in fact it predicts most animals will be found extinct[below opening statement]
No god did not restock the earth everything was created at same time, you dont understand how the fossil record is interpreted to come to the conclusion you have.
The fossil record certainly suggest rapid water burial of billions of animals indicating a global flood, and fully formed animals and statisis through time showing evolution false. this will be fun.

opening statements
ill keep as short as possible


I want to define science, science is things we can test, observe, and demonstrate, and knowledge gained from this.
religion is beliefs about the cause concern purpose of the universe.


Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview, we cannot test a monkey evolving into man or complex structures evolving or the big bang or origin of life fish turning into amphibians.
Nor can we test noahs flood god creating etc. These are both religious worldviews, and this is not science vs religion its religion vs religion.
One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe, it created itself.
The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.


First i am a biblical creationist that is 6 day creation global flood thousands of years universe all basic kinds [usually about the family level] of animals and plants created separately original perfect creation know going downhill towards decay.
Creation says first created perfect and high level of complexity know going downhill evolution says the opposite originally basic life single celled organism evolved to greater complexity.

predict that the world and living things would appear designed

evolutionist and atheist dawkins says
"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

famous evolutionist Francis crick said

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5
Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.

So it seems to me the most ovius answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation.

there are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimeter across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information.
each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt? and that all fits on the pin of a needle.

The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were ,how many and when.
Some functions of cellular machines
DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands, there are also many ovius biological machines than show design

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Intracellular elevators
Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks
A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

all point i believe to the ovius conclusion and easiest explanation creation.

Information and mutations
evolution has to be able to add new information to the genome of organisms if you are to evolve a bacteria or single celled organism to a human fish bird etc.
originally there was no information in the dna code to construct wings brains blood feathers etc. So were did all this originate?
In our dna we have coded information that is needed for life and to construct our bodies all organisms bodies, mutations is the only way for this to come about according to evolutionist but this has never been observed the origin of new novel functional genes.
Information always comes from intelligence if evolution cannot explain its origin than it is dead in the water.
They give examples of natural selection, bacteria resistance, bacteria ddt Resistance not one has been observed to do what evolutionist must believe it has many times over[which is to add information to the genome]. I believe it has been falsified already. No mutations contradict creation because they are heading in the wrong direction for evolution but fit perfectly with creation

There is no evidence for evolution direct observable evidence at all in any field upward complexity evolution.
So creation says any change that happens will be downhill or variation and this is all we see loss of information or variation of already existing information.
my only links to quick article describing how variation happens through natural section
read under natural selection and adaptation
http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...rsus-evolution

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

dna is “letters and instructions manual” on how to assemble organisms
genes spell out the information required to build proteins
p42 oct 2010 scientific American
jonathan k pritchard professor of human genetics at the university of Chicago


“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
L.spetner not by chance 1997
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Sha.../dp/1880582244

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.24

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.25

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.26

Werner Gitt
After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.

So information fits perfect within the creation model being a non material thing with original outside intelligence needed to create it which in turn is needed for all life.
How does atheistic evolution explain information arising from matter?


Not enough time even assuming billions of years
one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.


noahs flood

If a global flood happened what would we expect to see?
Wouldn't we aspects to see trillions of dead plant and animals buried laid down rapidly by water all over the earth?
Rock layers spread continent wide? thousands of feet of water deposited sedimentation? examples of large scale rapid erosion? Sea creatures buried on top of mountain ranges all over earth?
Billions of fish and deep sea creatures buried rapidly together with land animals?
This is just what we see, found in rock layers all over the earth.
Also many extinct animals


young earth

I have a problem with the belief the earth is billions of years old as well ill give just a few reasons why but there are about a hundred of these types of evidences that contradict long ages.

erosion of continents, if they were as old as evolutions believe they would have eroded 250 times over by know,n America would be eroded into the oceans in only 9.6 million years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”



S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years


The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded.




As one evolutionist said
“ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668






Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).12 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).

• S. Bowman, Interpreting the Past: Radiocarbon Dating (London: British Museum Publications, 1990). Back

• G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625. Back

So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!


But every piece of supposed ancient carbon has radiocarbon, supposed to be millions and even billions of years old.
This has been reported in the secular radiocarbon journals over 70 times.
P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.



These finding have also been done and found by creation scientist many times

• A. A. Snelling, “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal 14.2 (2002): 99–122.

• A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144.

• J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147.

• Ref. 11.

• J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

It has even benn found in diamonds



R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287



J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

• D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

comets

comets disintegrate rapidly so that they can have a maximum ages long term comets of 200,000 years at most all evolutionist and creations agree on that.
So why if these are suppose to be billions of year old universe do we still have them? they assume imagine hope for a oart cloud or kupitor belt but none are observed to supply more comets.



salt in oceans

Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.
Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779




The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.




F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33



Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.


Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.


W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580



Also additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/




dino blood vessels cells hemoglobin and proteins, there decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long

1. Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
2. http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009




collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.





Also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores
Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland

• Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glacieisp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
"Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.





multilayer fossils [commonly tress]tress prove 100% rock layers were laid down rapidly, there are trees sometimes 90 feet in length fossilizes between layers supposedly separated by millions of years.
No erosion between layers,if those rock layers were separated by millions of years there would be evidence of erosion between the layers, instead there is only rapid or no erosion constant with deposition during Noah flood.

fossil record
creationist would predict variation within the basic bodies types but all the major phyla and basic bodies types to be separate. we would predict sudden abrupt appearances of organism not slowly evolving.
when multiple experts that would favor one outcome admit to another i think that certainly says something.
So i m going to use just for know the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.







After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89




"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.
"There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.



"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.




"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.



‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’

• Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

“T
he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,





“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.




". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979





2001 staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following: “ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[80]




“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
raop David education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289



many more quotes from evolutionist can be used also, but it goes to show the fossil record points to creation not evolution.



"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I won't mince my words: you have presented me with a wall of text that as far as I can tell does not attempt to answer the debate, answer my post and attempt to drown discussion with a set of copy and paste jobs from creationist websites.

Here is what I am going to do. I am going to go through your post with a fine tooth comb and attempt to spot and correct as many falsehoods as I can. Then I will respond to the debate.

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.

Then you do not understand what evolution is. Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination.

Using the word "myth" alot is a logical fallacy, your trying to convince, yourself or others, believing if you say it enough times it must be true, teachers are actually told to do this to students, repeatably tell them the earth is billions of years old, eventually they will believe it.

No, using the word myth is accurate. The creation myth of the Abrahamic faiths is a myth. It makes you feel more comfortable, the word "myth" does not imply whether something is true or not.

Secondly, we do not know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because we are "repeatedly" told so, we know it because we have measured the decay of lead isotopes. We also have rocks on Earth that have been dated to 3.9 billion years ago, providing the lower limit, and these have been dated by a variety of radiocarbon methods.

You said "before we get to other religions", no reason to I believe the bible only, the only other "myth" as i see it, is the one that breaks multiple scientific laws and has failed demonstration over and over, you must know i'm referring to your own. You are atheist no? You do believe the entire universe came from nothing correct? you have to believe that hydrogen gas a invisible tasteless orderless gas can create people over billions of years if left to itself no? that a unobserved chemical ocean created life from non life correct?

I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. I do not know what the universe comes from, but I do not believe that is justification that God, Allah, Ra or the Great Rhinoceros created it - nor am I willing to discuss the matter, as it has nothing to do with evolution.

And yes, other religions matter. Creationism is not limited to the Abrahamic faiths, and these other devout believe in their myths as sincerely as you do. I see no reason to ignore them, just because you say to. I think the Great Rhinoceros creating the universe is as likely as Jehovah doing so.

As for the chemical origin for life, yes, I believe this. But no, it is not a matter of hydrogen spontaneously producing life. Instead we focus on something called "amino acids". Amino acids form in nature without producing life, and this has been reproduced in the laboratory. So there is no question that amino acids, which form the structures of our DNA, can be produced from inorganic matter.

However there are quit a few reasons to accept the bibles creation account over the rhino

No, there aren't.

Why is evolution more likely? what is the evidence? who is demiurge? never herd of him, she whatever it is

A demiurge is a creator God, usually responsible for designing the physical world, but not the creator God of the universe. Many Christians proposed this belief to explain the obvious contradiction of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God in a world with so much evil and poor design. Other Christians wiped these "gnostic" Christians out.

Evolution is more likely for a variety of evidence compared to creationism's utter lack of evidence.

Im sorry you will have to explain your argument again, the bible definitely predickts many dead animals

For example?

, in fact it predicts most animals will be found extinct

Where?

No god did not restock the earth everything was created at same time, you dont understand how the fossil record is interpreted to come to the conclusion you have.
The fossil record certainly suggest rapid water burial of billions of animals indicating a global flood, and fully formed animals and statisis through time showing evolution false. this will be fun.

This is simply not true. If this was the case we would expect to see a single mass extinction layer in the geological record, based in sedimentary rock (the type formed by oceans). This is simply not what we see:

Spoiler for Tephra Horizons: 

So we can see with our own blind eyes that there's several layers of rock here, with fossils deposited millions of years apart from one another. The idea that we see a single flood layer is a bizarre lie.

Both creation and evolution are religions based on our worldview,

No. Creation is a religion based on a single document begun in the bronze age and completed, for the sake of Christians, in the early first millennium. Evolution is a scientific theory that is based on evidence based investigation. If you wish to discuss science, you cannot do so until you understand the difference between your Great Rhinoceros and a scientific theory.

we cannot test a monkey evolving into man or complex structures evolving or the big bang or origin of life fish turning into amphibians.

This shows a basic ignorance of what you are attempting to discuss. The theory of evolution does not propose that monkeys evolved into humans, nor does it have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.

You are also incorrect. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

We also frequently see it in the wild, as bacteria evolve a resistance to human medical drugs, generating the "super bugs" such as MRSA.

One is based on the belief that this world created itself, mother nature created us no outside intelligence was needed only the laws that govern the universe, it created itself.
The other is outside intelligence was needed to create the world, both are not scientific beliefs but religious worldviews.

Again, incorrect. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world or universe.

First i am a biblical creationist that is 6 day creation global flood thousands of years universe all basic kinds [usually about the family level] of animals and plants created separately original perfect creation know going downhill towards decay.

Wait, this is interesting - so you argue that God created everything perfectly, and then it decayed? Is there anything to base this view on? What do you mean by "decay", scientifically speaking?

Creation says first created perfect and high level of complexity know going downhill evolution says the opposite originally basic life single celled organism evolved to greater complexity.

Incorrect. Evolution does not define whether or not evolution makes organisms more or less complex. I have already given examples of bacteria evolving.

So it seems to me the most ovius answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation.

Easiest yes. Because if we claim the Great Rhinoceros spirit created everything we do not have to worry ourselves with scientific evidence, which is what you are doing with your own myth.

there are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

What systems? Name them. Why are they evidence of "design"?

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information.
each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt? and that all fits on the pin of a needle.

Why is your lack of imagination, your fear for the facts of our scientific understanding, a reason for creationism?

all point i believe to the ovius conclusion and easiest explanation creation.

No. You saying "look this is complicated" is not an argument for creationism. It is an argument for millions upon millions of years of evolutionary development. The massive whole in your theory is time.

evolution has to be able to add new information to the genome of organisms if you are to evolve a bacteria or single celled organism to a human fish bird etc.
originally there was no information in the dna code to construct wings brains blood feathers etc. So were did all this originate?

This is a classic creationist warping of the facts. The idea that evolution "cannot add new information" is simply unscientific bollocks. It is based on nothing. Mutations frequently add "information" as you call it to cells and DNA - and this is usually very harmful. We see it in humans that are born with an extra chromosome for example.

As for wings, these are evolved from limbs.

There is no evidence for evolution direct observable evidence at all in any field upward complexity evolution.

Please see the New Scientist article above of evolution in bacteria being observed in the laboratory.

So creation says any change that happens will be downhill or variation

Again, where does "creation" (either the Great Rhinoceros or the Bible) "say" this?

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
L.spetner not by chance 1997
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Sha.../dp/1880582244

Lee Spetner is a liar who claimed fossils of Archaeopteryx were fraud because it was evidence working against his devotion to the Great Rhinoceros.

Before we go further I think you need to;

A) Understand what the theory of evolution is
B) Extrapolate on any evidence you believe there is for creationism, as I have already provided the evidence showing that the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old and there is no single "flood" layer extinction event present in the geographical record.

Also, I must ask you do not copy and paste stuff from creationist websites. It is difficult to trawl through it to ascertain your arguments.

[total relism]

I won't mince my words: you have presented me with a wall of text that as far as I can tell does not attempt to answer the debate, answer my post and attempt to drown discussion with a set of copy and paste jobs from creationist websites.

Here is what I am going to do. I am going to go through your post with a fine tooth comb and attempt to spot and correct as many falsehoods as I can. Then I will respond to the debate.

the debate is creation vs evolution no? than how is my post not concerning creation vs evolution? my material is my own, do you mean quoting alot, yes i do that.
What do you have as A idea what this debate is? creation vs evolution what do you believe that refers to? im sorry if this is a misunderstanding we need to obviously straighten this out.

Then you do not understand what evolution is. Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination.

I know this is referred to as evolution, in witch case me and every creationist I know is a evolutionist, so there would be nothing to discuss, however there are some that believe my first definition ill copy paste again

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.
That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information in our dna to construct the proteins and biological systems transport systems,regulatory systems enzyme specificy etc.
This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.
So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?
If you stick with your original definition, than we have nothing to discuss as I agree with you 100%. Will you adopt this new definition to defend?

If you are not willing to defend this "evolution" and want to stick with your original, than we can part friends because there is nothing to than discuss, at least in biology.

No, using the word myth is accurate. The creation myth of the Abrahamic faiths is a myth. It makes you feel more comfortable, the word "myth" does not imply whether something is true or not.

Than we have a different opinion on what the meaning of myth is, I think it means a story, false, made up etc.
You seem to think anything that makes you feel better is a myth, in witch case evolution is a myth, no god no rules get drunk, sex with lots of woman have fun die, that to me seems like the ultimate "myth" if were defining it as makes you feel good.
Why would acknowledging your a sinful part of creation, need forgiveness and try and follow rules like
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".
How does this make you feel good?

Secondly, we do not know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because we are "repeatedly" told so, we know it because we have measured the decay of lead isotopes. We also have rocks on Earth that have been dated to 3.9 billion years ago, providing the lower limit, and these have been dated by a variety of radiocarbon methods.

I was simply showing how your logical fallacy you were using is a tactic of evolutionist
You do not understand the assumptions involved here, first we can not know the age of the earth we were not there. so we have to use assumptions, uniformitarism assumptions, when dating the age of unknown items. Today newly formed rock in Hawaii will radiometric date millions and billions of years old radiometric dating has dated living animals millions of years old.
when different radiometric dating methods are applied to the same rock they can and most often do give radically different results. Evolutionist will throw out any radiometric dates if they do not match the fossils, we only see the selected dates, evolutionist will attack each others radiometric dates as unreliable if it does not match there own personal theory.

The kbs tuff is a great example Kbs tuff originally dated 230 mya evolutionist exspalin away as excessive decay because it did not match the fossils. Than date 2.6 million dated 3 ways to confirm new date, that happened to match with fossils show as great proof of radiometric dating and its accuracy.Than human fossil found so they re dated 1.8 mya to match new fossil finds. Its the fossils that count for the age not the radiometric dating. If the dates do not match the fossils they are explained away as contaminated etc every time they state the age with absolute authority. In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours.

heres the main 3 assumptions that go into the dating methods, there are more and each method brings its own also.

1each system is a close system which in real nature does not exists nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products
2 each system most initially have contained no daughter components which is unprovable
3 the process rate must always be the same the decay rate must never have changed
here is a article of how the assumptions affect the dates

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n4/assumptions




I have many but here are just a few exspales of bad dates from radiometric dating

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Freshly-killed sealshave been dated at 1,300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. (* W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

arious living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago. (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)


Samples of rock from lava erupted just in the last 50 years from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, gave potassium-argon ages up to 3.5 million years. (See Dating failure.)

mt saint helans 10 years after eruption
dated patasuim argon 350,000 years old. Different samples average age off 2.8 million years .
mt ngaruuhoe from 1954
patasium argon of 3.5 million years another part dated .8 million years
another recent basalt 110 million years
p803
1800-1801 hualili flow Hawaii
2.6 million to 2.960 million
all evolution recherche journals for sources




"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A.
Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

I could go on and on with these kinds of dates. and how can you reject hundreds of dating ,methods that say the earth cannot be that old and accept these?

I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. I do not know what the universe comes from, but I do not believe that is justification that God, Allah, Ra or the Great Rhinoceros created it - nor am I willing to discuss the matter, as it has nothing to do with evolution.

What started life on earth than? this does have to do with evolution, you need something to "evolve" no
you dont have a full theory than, would you be willing to adopt one, if you dont believe god created or the bible witch i do than you reject it, so what created only mother earth or god.

And yes, other religions matter. Creationism is not limited to the Abrahamic faiths, and these other devout believe in their myths as sincerely as you do. I see no reason to ignore them, just because you say to. I think the Great Rhinoceros creating the universe is as likely as Jehovah doing so.

You are debating a biblical creationist, so only the bible matters here for our discussion, you want to debate others creation accounts go find them, atheist belive as devoutly as well, does not mean they are correct, just because someone belives something it has nothing to do with truth.

As for the chemical origin for life, yes, I believe this. But no, it is not a matter of hydrogen spontaneously producing life. Instead we focus on something called "amino acids". Amino acids form in nature without producing life, and this has been reproduced in the laboratory. So there is no question that amino acids, which form the structures of our DNA, can be produced from inorganic matter.

Than you are atheist, you reject god creating, yes we have found amino acids and miller created them in lab, are you offering this as evidence for atheistic origin of life? do you believe life can arise by chance because of this?

No, there aren't.

than all creation accounts including atheistic evolution are the same, it seems not to matter to you there claims are very different, just because there creation acounts there the same to you
i think the Great Rhinoceros fails we have never observed it or a rhino with this ability, there is nothing constant with this idea that a rhino is logical or creator, intelligence is needed to create, like humans create its almost like were made in the creators image you can than test the creator in many other ways say if he wrote a book, you could test that to see whos creator is correct. After all does not the Koran book of Mormon also claim to be true?
The creator would also have to be outside and above of his creation and be nonmatieral and not subject to nature or decay and eternal outside of time. These attributes do not fit a rhinobut a intelligent non material supernatural spiritual creator like described in the bible.

A demiurge is a creator God, usually responsible for designing the physical world, but not the creator God of the universe. Many Christians proposed this belief to explain the obvious contradiction of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God in a world with so much evil and poor design. Other Christians wiped these "gnostic" Christians out.

Evolution is more likely for a variety of evidence compared to creationism's utter lack of evidence.

what does this have to do with the bible? the demiurge? i dont care what some people believe in some god, I belive the bible, not what some other people say about some god.
You need to start debating what I believe, find someone else for other stuff.
Again know if you are going to make statements please back them up, I ask for evidence for evolution and you give me
"Evolution is more likely for a variety of evidence compared to creationism's utter lack of evidence"
im convinced we should stop here that was overwhelming proof of evolution

For example?

4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.
genesis chapter 7

Where?

look above

This is simply not true. If this was the case we would expect to see a single mass extinction layer in the geological record, based in sedimentary rock (the type formed by oceans). This is simply not what we see:

Spoiler for Tephra Horizons: 

So we can see with our own blind eyes that there's several layers of rock here, with fossils deposited millions of years apart from one another. The idea that we see a single flood layer is a bizarre lie.

are you aware layers form in moving water automatically? and all these layers were deposited by moving water? so if a global flood happened how can this not be the aspect ed result?
This has been shown in flume experiments and published in evolutionary journals, these layers automatically form in moving water, it all depends on water speed sediments being carried rate of erosion and other things.
Also i very much disagree with these layers were laid down slowly over millions of years first show me the fossils being formed today in the ocean? fossils only form under rapid burial conditions, there are many mass graves of animals showing rapid burial of entire populations how does slow deposition account for this? how can land animals be fossilized with deep sea animals if your theory is true?
Why are there vertical trees standing up through millions of years of supposed deposition's? this proves they formed fast.
If the fossils and strata were as old as the evolutionist say, than we would have no fossils to look at ,the erosion rate is far to high in fact all the mountains on earth would have eroded 350 times over read my young earth post.
there is no evidence for erosion and deposition or long ages in between many of the layers showing

"flat gaps"




other photo here

http://creation.com/images/creation_...e-edge-lge.jpg





there should be abundant burrows if the layers were laid down slowly, but there is not indicating fast deposition

there are dozens of surface structures that should not be there if they were laid down over millions of years like footprints water ripple marks worms tracks they would have eroded away long ago.
all these layers at certain spots are bent showing they all formed while wet around the same time otherwise they would have harden and broke supposedly millions of years apart in age.
picture here
http://creation.com/images/fp_articl...ncline-lge.jpg


I could name many more but the evidence is clear for rapid water burial of trillions of plants animals on a global scale.

No. Creation is a religion based on a single document begun in the bronze age and completed, for the sake of Christians, in the early first millennium. Evolution is a scientific theory that is based on evidence based investigation. If you wish to discuss science, you cannot do so until you understand the difference between your Great Rhinoceros and a scientific theory.

evolution is not science, it is a atheist worldview based on materialism and naturalism in witch you interpret the evidence through that belief.
science it things in the lab and observed things knowledge gained from it, the conclusion is based on your religious worldview, facts dont speak for themselves a fossil does not come with a label we have to interpret it.
It shows your lack of knowledge of worldviews. If you dispute this than I will get worldviews involved, to shorten my post i left it out.

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

This shows a basic ignorance of what you are attempting to discuss. The theory of evolution does not propose that monkeys evolved into humans, nor does it have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.

You are also incorrect. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

We also frequently see it in the wild, as bacteria evolve a resistance to human medical drugs, generating the "super bugs" such as MRSA.

monkey like animal, my bad i misrepresented you beliefs i was way off and out of line monkey like animal.
lenski great, you must first understand that the whole bacteria resistance study was started by a creationist
This as all evidence does fits under the first definition of evolution, not under the one i gave.


lenski ecoli experiment- Loss of information
took 44,000 generations they increased fitness – by loss of ability to degrade sugars regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.
this is a loss of a already existing flagella gene, so how can this exspalin the origin of? your definition yes I agree origin of biological system no, new information no, increase complexity no.


to me if your atheist trying to exspalin life, than you have to explain everything no? did god create some things earth stars but not life on earth?

here is a article on what causes bacteria to become resistant
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

every one can fall into one of these categories

here is article on super bugs
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

not one example falls into my definition exspaling the origin of

Again, incorrect. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world or universe.

look above I believe it does

Wait, this is interesting - so you argue that God created everything perfectly, and then it decayed? Is there anything to base this view on? What do you mean by "decay", scientifically speaking?

Genesis and the fall of man, everything was originally created perfect, than we sinned witch caused separation from god, know death disease happens we slowly die decay everything does.
decay would be mutations, growing old, falling apart, our genomes degrading etc

Incorrect. Evolution does not define whether or not evolution makes organisms more or less complex. I have already given examples of bacteria evolving.

It says original life uncoplex slowly evolving to greater complexity, how can you deny this?

Easiest yes. Because if we claim the Great Rhinoceros spirit created everything we do not have to worry ourselves with scientific evidence, which is what you are doing with your own myth.

Weird, why not concern ourselves with science? maybe its dont say the ovius its created or we will have to concern ourselves with thou shalt not
Again please attack what i believe the bible not rhino this is logical fallacy straw man argument

What systems? Name them. Why are they evidence of "design"?

I did

Why is your lack of imagination, your fear for the facts of our scientific understanding, a reason for creationism?

I agree with you here, I certainly lack the imagination for evolution, but that is were it takes place only in the imagination.
As I said the facts of scientific evidence point to design you ovisuly agreed when you said above it was ovius explanation, so you must fear the ovius science and instead have to only imagine reminds me of



20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 1 19-25





this is about evolutionist if you can tell

No. You saying "look this is complicated" is not an argument for creationism. It is an argument for millions upon millions of years of evolutionary development. The massive whole in your theory is time.

in science your suppose to look foe easiest explanation witch is design creation, and no the creator god of your religon is time.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

This is a classic creationist warping of the facts. The idea that evolution "cannot add new information" is simply unscientific bollocks. It is based on nothing. Mutations frequently add "information" as you call it to cells and DNA - and this is usually very harmful. We see it in humans that are born with an extra chromosome for example. As for wings, these are evolved from limbs.

This is not adding additional information this is adding a copy of already existing information this is not any evidence for evolving novel genes for upward evolution.
Evidence foe wings evolving please?

Please see the New Scientist article above of evolution in bacteria being observed in the laboratory.

please read responce

Again, where does "creation" (either the Great Rhinoceros or the Bible) "say" this?

look above genesis, straw man with rhino again

Lee Spetner is a liar who claimed fossils of Archaeopteryx were fraud because it was evidence working against his devotion to the Great Rhinoceros.

he does not believe in this rhino either straw man, please try at least to stop using so many logical fallacies in one post by the way do you believe Archaeopteryx is a missing link proof of evolution? also you ignore why i quoted him, another straw man

Before we go further I think you need to;

A) Understand what the theory of evolution is
B) Extrapolate on any evidence you believe there is for creationism, as I have already provided the evidence showing that the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old and there is no single "flood" layer extinction event present in the geographical record.

Also, I must ask you do not copy and paste stuff from creationist websites. It is difficult to trawl through it to ascertain your arguments.

You need to agree to defend what evolution really claims and what you yourself believe you provided no evidence you made statements, i gave a dozen first post why it cannot be billions, and about 10 more here.
I provided evidence for a young earth a global flood, claimed earthing in biology is designed and complex constant with creation.
That pretty much sums up all biology geology in a a quick post no? trillions of dead animals plants animals buried rapidly over the whole earth, complexity design. what are you asking for? I can and probably will give logical reasons for.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I know this is referred to as evolution, in witch case me and every creationist I know is a evolutionist

Congratulations. Abandon your absurd faith and join mainstream 21st century civilisation.

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.

Broadly speaking, yes.

That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information

This is based on the view that evolution "cannot add information". This view is held only by creationists, and does not reflect the science. I have given examples, and will not return to this.

So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?

I will not. Evolution explains how species change, not how life itself came about from inorganic matter. You may not warp the definition of evolution to fit your praise of the Great Rhinoceros.

Than we have a different opinion on what the meaning of myth is, I think it means a story, false, made up etc.
You seem to think anything that makes you feel better is a myth, in witch case evolution is a myth, no god no rules get drunk, sex with lots of woman have fun die, that to me seems like the ultimate "myth" if were defining it as makes you feel good.
Why would acknowledging your a sinful part of creation, need forgiveness and try and follow rules like
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart".
How does this make you feel good?

Evolution is not a myth, it is a scientific theory. The story of the Great Rhinoceros and how he created the world in six days most certainly is a myth, and a dangerous one too, if it gives you the false impression you have any right to judge my morals.

I was simply showing how your logical fallacy you were using is a tactic of evolutionist
You do not understand the assumptions involved here, first we can not know the age of the earth we were not there. so we have to use assumptions, uniformitarism assumptions, when dating the age of unknown items. Today newly formed rock in Hawaii will radiometric date millions and billions of years old radiometric dating has dated living animals millions of years old.
when different radiometric dating methods are applied to the same rock they can and most often do give radically different results. Evolutionist will throw out any radiometric dates if they do not match the fossils, we only see the selected dates, evolutionist will attack each others radiometric dates as unreliable if it does not match there own personal theory.

We can and do know the age of the Earth within a 1% margin of error. Assumptions are not used. Physical rocks have had their ages measured, and as I have explained the decay of lead isotopes gives us the age of the planet itself. This is simply not debatable, it is scientific fact, tested with a variety of measurement techniques, all returning the same result.

Newly formed rock will only date billions of years old if the wrong measurement technique is used. This cannot explain the age of the Earth, as a variety of different techniques have produced the same result.

Your young Earth idea is based purely on the extrapolations of a monk counting back the generations of people listed in the book of the Great Rhinoceros. And it is wrong.

Freshly-killed sealshave been dated at 1,300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. (* W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

This is creationist propaganda:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

In summary, the result does not reflect the age of the seal, it reflects the age of the minerals in the water that had been travelling the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years, and travelled up the food chain to the seal.

Scientists realised this and explained it. Shaman use it to try to keep people in the Dark Ages.

The rest of your examples are all simply the wrong technique being used.

I could go on and on with these kinds of dates. and how can you reject hundreds of dating ,methods that say the earth cannot be that old and accept these?

Because I seek to understand these methods and you seek to exploit them to prop up your own Shamanism. As I explained, your examples, except for the one where you wilfully misinterpreted the findings, were all occasions where the wrong measuring method was used and an anomalous result was recorded.

This is not the case with the age of the Earth. A variety of methods are used and they support one another. It is not debatable that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

You are debating a biblical creationist, so only the bible matters here for our discussion, you want to debate others creation accounts go find them, atheist belive as devoutly as well, does not mean they are correct, just because someone belives something it has nothing to do with truth.

You must accept that the creation theory of the Great Rhinoceros has as much scientific support as your own.

Than you are atheist, you reject god creating, yes we have found amino acids and miller created them in lab, are you offering this as evidence for atheistic origin of life? do you believe life can arise by chance because of this?

Yes, I do. We know that amino acids have been formed from inorganic materials, so it is a matter of record. But I am an agnostic.

than all creation accounts including atheistic evolution are the same,

Except the theory of evolution is not a creation account.

i think the Great Rhinoceros fails we have never observed it or a rhino with this ability, there is nothing constant with this idea that a rhino is logical or creator, intelligence is needed to create, like humans create its almost like were made in the creators image you can than test the creator in many other ways say if he wrote a book, you could test that to see whos creator is correct. After all does not the Koran book of Mormon also claim to be true?

We have never observed your God, either. The Great Rhinoceros has just as much support as your own mythology. And is it not also true that the Book of the Cosmic Hippo holds His account to be true?

The creator would also have to be outside and above of his creation and be nonmatieral and not subject to nature or decay and eternal outside of time. These attributes do not fit a rhinobut a intelligent non material supernatural spiritual creator like described in the bible.

Oh the Great Rhinoceros has more powers than your own Jehovah.

what does this have to do with the bible? the demiurge? i dont care what some people believe in some god, I belive the bible, not what some other people say about some god.

At one point the gnostic Christians believed in a demiurge to explain the Bible's inherent contradictions. I am illustrating to you that the Bible's account has never made sense, not even to believers.

are you aware layers form in moving water automatically? and all these layers were deposited by moving water? so if a global flood happened how can this not be the aspect ed result?

Because the layers formed millions of years apart from one another.

how can land animals be fossilized with deep sea animals if your theory is true?

They aren't. Not in the same layer, anyway. You may get land and sea fossils in the same place, millions of years apart, where seas have expanded and contracted.

If the fossils and strata were as old as the evolutionist say, than we would have no fossils to look at ,the erosion rate is far to high in fact all the mountains on earth would have eroded 350 times over read my young earth post.

Many mountains have eroded. Fossils are as old as we say - they've moved with the land changes.

I could name many more but the evidence is clear for rapid water burial of trillions of plants animals on a global scale.

There's no evidence for it. There's overwhelming evidence for millions of years worth of geological history, including many different major extinction events.

evolution is not science, it is a atheist worldview based on materialism and naturalism in witch you interpret the evidence through that belief.

Evolution is a scientific theory. No matter what you say, this is the case.

It says original life uncoplex slowly evolving to greater complexity, how can you deny this?

Because it's not true. Evolution makes no such claim, creationists with no knowledge of evolution like to misinterpret it as such.

Evidence foe wings evolving please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

In summary:

Earth is 4.5 billion years old, all your counters to this have been misinterpretations of the facts and examples of single anomalous recordings brought on by inappropriate measurement methods

You have presented no evidence to support the idea the Great Rhinoceros created everything

You have yet to show you understand what evolution is.

[total relism]

Very important question, what evolution are you willing to defend? the one I agree with? or this here.

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.
That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information in our dna to construct the proteins and biological systems transport systems,regulatory systems enzyme specificy etc.
This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.
So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?

If you are not willing, than I suggest I go debate someone else, and you go find that believer in the rhino, or we change to age of earth etc
make clear what you are willing to defend, creation vs evolution no rules i thought included everything involving either.

I cannot respond untill early next week for my next post probably

Congratulations. Abandon your absurd faith and join mainstream 21st century civilisation.

you only assume creationist do not agree with these things because of your ignorance of other beliefs [such as creation]
By the way who started science? who thought of natural selection? who started the area of studying bacteria "evolution" thats right, creation scientist
also you use a logical fallacy called

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks

you also commit

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

saying only "real" scientist believe in evolution or no reputable journal would accept a creationist paper
this commits no true scotsman fallacy they define journal and real scientist in a arbitrary way, we could turn right around no real scientist believes in evolution and no real journal would accept their papers.

accept you use "mainstream" 21 century "science"

Broadly speaking, yes.

so you agree with this than,

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.
That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information in our dna to construct the proteins and biological systems transport systems,regulatory systems enzyme specificy etc.
This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.
So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?

and are you willing to know defend this? when i refer to evolution this is what i mean from know on ok.

This is based on the view that evolution "cannot add information". This view is held only by creationists, and does not reflect the science. I have given examples, and will not return to this.

true that sister it cannot,never been observed and failed testing. You gave no examples read my replies, and yes obviously evolutionist can believe this can happen, they just do so with no evidence
Science is the accumulation of all knowledge of testing and observation correct? witch shows 100% that mutations reduce destroy and never evolve to greater complexity, so all scientific knowledge we have rejects evolution, know we just need to get the faithful to admit it [witch they never will]

I will not. Evolution explains how species change, not how life itself came about from inorganic matter. You may not warp the definition of evolution to fit your praise of the Great Rhinoceros.

straw man again, im going to count eventually the number of logical fallacies you use in our discussion lol
so than here your admitting you will not defend atheistic origin of life correct? I will say no more on the subject than.
So atheism evolution has no answer for origin of life I agree. Your know changing back your definition of evolution I agree with "species" changing it happens, must I copy paste the definition of evolution again?
If your not willing to defend it than I want to debate someone else willing.

Evolution is not a myth, it is a scientific theory. The story of the Great Rhinoceros and how he created the world in six days most certainly is a myth, and a dangerous one too, if it gives you the false impression you have any right to judge my morals.

Evolution is a atheistic materialist attempt at exspalining the world, it is a worldview not part of science, please give me scientific evidence for this "scientific" theory.
You than claim the rhino again, if your somehow unaware i dont believe in your rhino debate someone else for that straw man again.
You have claimed twice its a myth without backing it up in any way I ask you to prove it and say you would win debate but you fail to so your being arbitrary another logical fallacy
I wonder as a evolutionist how you can judge me? by saying i judge others
Why is it wrong to lie? Espically if it gives a survival advantage? Lying is bad only if there is a absolute authority a standard given by
if we are just chemicals why get mad? Would you get mad at backing soda mixing with vinegar?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

We can and do know the age of the Earth within a 1% margin of error. Assumptions are not used. Physical rocks have had their ages measured, and as I have explained the decay of lead isotopes gives us the age of the planet itself. This is simply not debatable, it is scientific fact, tested with a variety of measurement techniques, all returning the same result.

claim, back up your being arbitrary again, assumptions cannot not be used, they are always used lol you have to.
What they are measuring is a certain element, nothing to do with age, they have to assume there was non of the original decay element, that the rate has been constant, among other things, I really find it hard to believe you are denying this. It show you really dont understand the method at all.
Or read my reply or you would have written why you believe it to be false so please read my responses
I love the we know the age of earth within 1% lol what you are unknowingly referring to is that we can detect how much of a certain element is in a rock to within 1%
Please deal with my original response, and no they do not all give same result, I gave exspales of know age of rocks and the methods disagreed majorly.

Newly formed rock will only date billions of years old if the wrong measurement technique is used. This cannot explain the age of the Earth, as a variety of different techniques have produced the same result.

great, so all the major radiometric dating techniques are wrong? as you just said they are wrong true? Again I have shown a variety of dating methods that all say the earth cannot be as old as you claim, meanwhile you dont back up any of your claims

Your young Earth idea is based purely on the extrapolations of a monk counting back the generations of people listed in the book of the Great Rhinoceros. And it is wrong.

Straw man again, Your belief seems to be based on saying your belief without backing it upalso you ignore again the evidence I presented for a young earth and then attack another straw man argument about a monk

This is creationist propaganda:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html


In summary, the result does not reflect the age of the seal, it reflects the age of the minerals in the water that had been travelling the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years, and travelled up the food chain to the seal.

Scientists realised this and explained it. Shaman use it to try to keep people in the Dark Ages.

How do you not see the assumption here? when we date things of unknown age? contamination, know this would be a good response if you could show rocks cannot be contaminated, witch is obviously false, so this answers nothing.

Peer review and talk origins

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
TalkOrigins contributors, havebeen kindly asked to submit their criticisms to our online, peer-reviewed technical journalso that they can be professionally peer-reviewed. They have refused to do this.Instead, TalkOrigins has a highly unprofessionaland unscientifichabit of hurlingvoluminousreferences at people and making themreadscoresof articles to figure out what they are talking about.I would recommend that you e-mail Mark Isaak and challenge him to have his ideas peer-reviewedin our online journal. Until he does, his criticisms do not merit our time, and will be treated as blog posts, etc.
Kind Regards,
Alexander Evans
Correspondence Representative
Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048

The rest of your examples are all simply the wrong technique being used.

wow the rest of your examples are wrong techniques, you said it sister
So every radiometric dating method is know wrong according to you all the major ones that were all used, so you can no longer argue a old earth with any of these
could it be you do not read my responses?

I wish i could be a evolutionist just brush off anything we dont like with a unsupported false claim

Because I seek to understand these methods and you seek to exploit them to prop up your own Shamanism. As I explained, your examples, except for the one where you wilfully misinterpreted the findings, were all occasions where the wrong measuring method was used and an anomalous result was recorded.

yet you ovisuly have lack basic knowledge, you showed nothing, you made a claim from talk origins that does not deal with the argument, than ignored the rest how is that showing all it all wrong?
I feel no reason to list more until you try to deal with original.
Your also doing what you claim of me ignoring evidence you dont like not trying to understand, than only using things you think help your position

This is not the case with the age of the Earth. A variety of methods are used and they support one another. It is not debatable that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

great claims demand great evidence, not statements agreed? I gave you a dozen there are over a hundred that reject millions and billions of years, how you can claim as you do with nothing but statements blow my mind.

You must accept that the creation theory of the Great Rhinoceros has as much scientific support as your own.

If you continue to ignore everything i post sure, but i responded to the difference between the two, also the bible makes alot more claims than this rhino such as a global flood, age of earth etc. also i believe the bible only witch says nothing of your creator rhino so its just another straw man of yours.
You ignored what i said because you cant deal with it again. Soon I will copy paste everything you ignore every post

Yes, I do. We know that amino acids have been formed from inorganic materials, so it is a matter of record. But I am an agnostic.

I agree they have formed, so are you referring to millers experiment than as evidence when he created? I want to know what to respond to.

Except the theory of evolution is not a creation account.

have you never herd of there myth?, Ill let you in on it. actually you can read my debate with j phillip in the fight club hes got a few myths to offer.

We have never observed your God, either. The Great Rhinoceros has just as much support as your own mythology. And is it not also true that the Book of the Cosmic Hippo holds His account to be true?
Oh the Great Rhinoceros has more powers than your own Jehovah.

his name was jesus, the rhino has less support as i showed, reasons why a rhino cannot be a creator, only the one described in the bible, eternal, spiritual, outside of creation could be a creator.
Also you are admitting to evolution in the same category as the rhino because it is unobserved.

At one point the gnostic Christians believed in a demiurge to explain the Bible's inherent contradictions. I am illustrating to you that the Bible's account has never made sense, not even to believers.

Weird im a believer I know many we see no problem as you do, this belief of demiurge is a straw man argument again, it has nothing to do with the bible, why it was made up i have no idea, why some Christians believe in the big bang and the bible i dont know, the gnostics were not Christians from what i remember anyways.

Because the layers formed millions of years apart from one another.

Or all formed at once in moving water, as i said, also I gave many reasons for rejecting millions of years.

They aren't. Not in the same layer, anyway. You may get land and sea fossils in the same place, millions of years apart, where seas have expanded and contracted.

That is what they believe happened, but are you claiming no land and sea creatures are buried together seriously? Also since this is common, this is what you would aspect in a global flood as I said.

Many mountains have eroded. Fossils are as old as we say - they've moved with the land changes.

I mean all above land would have eroded into ocean [sorry mistype] including these fossils "millions" and "Billions" of years old.

There's no evidence for it. There's overwhelming evidence for millions of years worth of geological history, including many different major extinction events.

meanwhile you ignore over a dozen I present you totally ignore what i present and offer your opinion not backed with evidence. This is J all over again.
Yes mass extinction, I agree on a global scale, involving trillions of dead animals all over the earth laid down by moving water.
Oh but there is no evidence for a global flood you said

Evolution is a scientific theory. No matter what you say, this is the case.

it is a materialistic belief system that you look at evidence with a worldview, you claim its science you would think you might offer some
Worldview basic beliefs about the universe how we interpret evidence differently.
When i observe a magician cut a person in half, i conclude it was a trick, that no one was really cut in half regardless of what i thought i saw.
I draw the conclusion not because of the evidence but because my world view prevents me from drawing the wrong conclusion.
If your neighbor says he saw a ufo last night your worldview will immediately kick in and help you process and interpret the evidence, as your neighbor provides more details you will begin to form hypothesis based on your worldview.
Maybe she saw a spaceship top secret government aircraft, maybe she was drinking again, maybe it was just venus.
If you do believe in ufos and aliens than you will see this as more evidence to back up your belief.
This is why creation scientist and evolutionary scientist can look at the same evidence and come to completely different conclusion, for example there are trillions of dead plant and animals laid down by water fossilized all over the earth that is a fact.
Know based on the belief system of the researcher one says look it must have taken billions of years to create all these fossils, uniformtarism, slowly over millions of years.
One animal fall in a lake and was buried and fossilized than later another was caught in a local flood than another by a surging river etc evidence for billions of years it had to take that long to create all these fossils what more evidence do you need for millions of years.
Than another researcher says wow look trillions of fossils rapidly laid down by water all over the earth, just what you would expect from a global flood, what more evidence do you need creation is true.
The evidence is the same the conclusion is different. Based on their worldview.

Because it's not true. Evolution makes no such claim, creationists with no knowledge of evolution like to misinterpret it as such.

So you think the theory of evolution does not say this

It says original life uncoplex slowly evolving to greater complexity, how can you deny this?

I dont know what to say here im amazed, im wondering if you know much of evolution at all, what was first life according to evolution? how did other animals come about that were not originally there? how did the first creature evolve the dna for a eye, a brain, skin, gills, etc anything, or was this originally there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

In summary:

Earth is 4.5 billion years old, all your counters to this have been misinterpretations of the facts and examples of single anomalous recordings brought on by inappropriate measurement methods

You have presented no evidence to support the idea the Great Rhinoceros created everything

You have yet to show you understand what evolution is.

great evidence for the age of the earth, make statements ignore mine with a statement, anyone a little concerned with truth, look at the dating methods involved there all the main dating methods he lacks total understanding in this perticluar area, witch is why his response is the way it is, and his evidence is just claims as well.
here are just a few more for fun, notice the methods uses

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

uranium thorium lead date of 97 million years, in a supposed 20 million year old granite, it zircon dated 1,483 million years
r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450


range of 343 million to 4,493 millon
a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27


age of 9.588 billion older than earth
tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149



recent lava 1969 flows in Africa rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572



uranium thorium lead 1,753 million suppose to be 21 million
ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079



128 ages were recorded from 161 million years to 514 million
cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

this one he has to ignore he claims all dating matches , yet we have here 128 different "dates" but we must have faith in this method, the earth is billions of years old its proven

to much fun

3,500 million supposed to be 426 million
is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458


Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]


The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years.
Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning.3
Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

sochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geolgical magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."—*T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].


"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]


‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with

"Since its development as a dating tool, archaeologists have struggled with the interpretation of radiocarbon data due to its limitations in accuracy and precision"

Douglas S. Frink [2]

North American Archaeologist Vol 15(1) 17, 1994

but its a fact the earth is billions of years old because radiometric dating says so watch his evidence closely not his statements


wow, when he does try to back up he uses wiki.


"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions.

In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640


a world authority on the subject archaeopterx

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Feduccia, A.; cited in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993


In Eichstätt, Germany, in 1984 there was a major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution, the International Archaeopteryx Conference. They disagreed on just about anything that was covered there on this creature, but there was very broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Only a tiny minority thought that it was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs].

for more on these fossils

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ARCHAEOPTERYX 100% bird1- Scientists say it is a bird. It is significant that a scientific meeting was held in 1982, a year before the furor over the Hoyle-Watkins declarations that Archaeopteryx was a hoax (which we will discuss shortly). The International Archaeopteryx Conference was held in Eichstatt, Germany, not far from the limestone deposits where all the specimens were originally found. At this meeting, it was decided that Archaeopteryx is a "bird" and not a reptile, or half-bird/half-reptile. It was also decided that Archaeopteryx was not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds.





"It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula." Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.


reasons why its a bird not reptile




archeopteryx dated as older than its supposed ancestor shows archeopteryx 100% bird by evolutionist own sorces p124-125


claws on wings- 12 modern birds today have wings teath- some birds have teath some dont some fish do some dont some mamals do some dont allan feducia a world authority on birds and avid evolutiost said from unc chapal hill science feb 5 1994
“palentoligst have tried to turn archeopteryx into a earth bound featherd dinasour but it is not it is a bird a pearching bird and no amount of palaebable is going to change that”2 how could scales turn into feathers?3 had bones like a bird-thin hollow bones wing and leg bones4 archoteryx does not predate birds its found in same layer and later than birds found in china older than archopterx fully formed modern birds5 it has modern bird feathers "But in Archaeopteryx, it is to be noted, the feathers differ in no way from the most perfectly developed feathers known to us." *A. Feduccia and *H.B. Tordoff, in Science 203 (1979), p. 10206 no intermidate feathers ever found transisiton from scales to feathers would requir many intermidaites steps but none have been found7 well devolped wings 8 wings desighned for flight the feathers of archoeteryx are asymetrical the way feathers of flying birds are desighned "The significance of asymmetrical features is that they indicate the capability of flying; nonflying birds such as the ostrich and emu have symmetrical [feathered] wings." *E. Olson and *A. Feduccia, "Flight Capability and the Pectoral Girdle of Archaeopteryx," Nature (1979), p. 9 no prior transistions there should be transistions of reptile to archoteryx but there is not 10 bird like in all ways ecept 3 lack of sternum 2 digets on its wings a reptile like head but there are exsplanations for all 3 lack of sturnum- archeaoteryx had a large furcula so this would be no problem "It is obvious that Archaeopteryx was very much a bird, equipped with a bird-like skull, perching feet, wings, feathers, and a furcula, wish-bone. No other animal except birds possess feathers and a furcula." Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 112.- Digits on its wings:Archaeopteryx had three digits on its "wings." Other dinosaurs have this also, but so do a few modern birds. This includes the hoatzin (Opisthocomus hoatzin), a South American bird, which has two wing claws in its juvenile stage. In addition, it is a poor flyer, with an amazingly small sternumsuch as Archaeopteryx had. The touraco (Touraco corythaix), an African bird, has claws and the adult is also a poor flyer. The ostrich has three claws on each wing. Their claws appear even more reptilian than those of Archaeopteryx.[c] - The shape of its skull.It has been said that the skull of Archaeopteryx appears more like a reptile than a bird, but investigation by Benton says it is shaped more like a bird.
<B>

"It has been claimed that the skull of Archaeopteryx was reptile-like, rather than bird-like. Recently, however, the cranium of the 'London' specimen has been removed from its limestone slab by Whetstone. Studies have shown that the skull is much broader and more bird-like than previously thought. This has led Benton to state that 'Details of the braincase and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird.' " Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), pp. 112-3.

</B>

"Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: 'A vertebrate with feathers.' Recently, Dr. James Jenson, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death-knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form." Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate, " in Decade of Creation (1981), p. 65.

<B>11 -Ornithologist agrees. *F.E. Beddard, in his important scientific book on birds, maintained that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and, as such, it presented the same problem as all other birds: how could it have evolved from reptiles since there is such a big gap (the wing and feather gap) between the two.

"So emphatically were all these creatures birds that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains." *F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds (1898), p.. 160.

</B>

<B>12 - Other birds had teeth.It may seem unusual for Archaeopteryx to have had teeth, but there are several other extinct birds which also had them.

"However, other extinct ancient birds had teeth, and every other category of vertebrates contains some organisms with teeth, and some without (amphibians, reptiles, extinct birds, mammals, etc.)." *P. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1970), p. 196-197.

</B>
13 - Could be a unique bird.Archaeopteryx could well be a unique creature, just as the duckbilled platypus is unique. The Archaeopteryx has wings like a bird and a head similar to a lizard, but with teeth. There are a number of unique plants and animals in the world which, in several ways, are totally unlike anything else.
The platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck; has fur but lays eggs; in spite of is egg-laying, it is a mammal and nurses its young with milk; chews its food with plates instead of with teeth; the male has a hollow claw on its hind foot that it uses to scratch and poison its enemies; it has claws like a mole, but like a duck it has webs between its toes; it uses sonar underwater.
There is no doubt but that the platypus is far stranger than the Archaeopteryx, yet, like the Archaeopteryx, there are no transitional half-platypus creatures linking it to any other species.
<B>14 - Totally unique. Regarding the Archaeopteryx, Romer, the well-known paleontologist said this:

"This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of is presumed theoodont ancestry nor of its relation to later 'proper' birds than before." *A.S Romer, Notes end Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology (19M), p. 144.

</B>
<B>From his own study, *Swinton, an expert on birds and a confirmed evolutionist, has concluded:

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the sues through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." *W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 (1980), P. 1.

</B>
<B>Other scientists agree. Here is an important statement by *Ostrom:

"It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived." *J. Ostrom, Science News 112 (1977), p. 198.

</B>

"Unfortunately, the greater part of the fundamental types in the animal realm are disconnected [from each other] from a paleontological point of view. In spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Araliaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stapes have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." *L du Nay, Human Destiny (1947), p. 58.

15 - Modern birds in same strata. Bones of modern birds have been found in the same type of rock stratathe Jurassicin which archaeopteryx was found. (They have been found in eastern Colorado.) According to evolutionary theory, this cannot be, for millions of years ought to be required for Archaeopteryx to change into a regular bird. If it was alive at the same time as modern birds, how can it be their ancient ancestor? Birds have also been found in the Jurassic limestone beds of Utah.
<B>16 - Modern birds below it! Not only do we find modern birds in the same strata with Archaeopteryx,but we also find them below it!

"Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geologic column than Archaeopteryx fossils." Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution? (1988), p. 46.

</B>
No bird bones of any type have been found below the late Jurassic, but within the Jurassic, they have been found in strata with Archaeopteryx, and now below it: Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx) More information on this Texas discovery can be found in *Nature, 322 (1986), p. 677.

“the avian feathers of the skull demon strait that archeopteryx is a bird rather than a feathered non-avian archeosaur”
march 1996 the journal of paleontology




http://www.icr.org/article/5466/ archeopteryx can also be used as evidence for a young earth dino-bird connection

“at the morpholgical level feathers are traditionally coincided homologous with reptilian scales however in devloilment morphogenisis gene structures protein shape and sequence and filament formation and structure feathers are different . clearly feathers provide a unique and outstanding example of an evolutionary novelty”bush a.h journ of evoltion biolgy 1996 p140 lungs are totally different birds are already here before dinosaurs

“but there are plenty of other reasons to refute the dinosaur bird connection says fuddica how do you derive birds from a heavy earthbound bipedal reptile that has a deep body a heavy balancing tail and foreshorten forelimbs ? biophysical its impossible”
Jurassic bird challenges origins allan feducia theories geotimes vol 41 jan 1996 p7



“clerly by the cretaceous 100 mya birds represented a wide range of flight adaptations and ecological speciation”
evolutionist garth dyke palaeontologist scientific American july 2010



“It is funny to think of a robin perched on the back of a valacarator or duck paddling alongside a spinasourus”
evolutionist garth dyke palaeontologist scientific American july 2010



different hearts reproductive systems and many more

“the evolutionary origin of bird is largely a mater of deduction there is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved”w e swinton british musem of natural historyall dinos have 2 large openings on back of skull birds have none -science jan26 1978 p284 no dino has a reversed first toe all birds do







“The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary[11] in PNAS on the new research.
Referring to

• Alexander, D.E. et al., Model tests of gliding with different hindwing configurations in the four-winged dromaeosaurid Microraptor gui, PNAS 107(7):2672–2976, 9 February 2010. Return to text.

Ruben also said
“When interpreting the paleobiology of long extinct taxa, new fossils, and reinterpretations of well-known fossils, sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up.”2






Ruben is the author of other studies that seriously harm the dinosaur-to-bird link, including the problems with dinosaur lungs evolving into bird lungs
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/im...tilation_i.htm
also
Ruben, quoted in Ann Gibbons, Lung fossils suggest dinos breathed in cold blood, Science278(5341):1229–1230, 14 November 1997



and the fact that dinos didn’t have a fixed thigh bone to support the avian air sac system.
Quick, D.E. and Ruben, J.A., Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs, Journal of Morphology, 20 May 2009 | DOI:10.1002/jmor.10752. “The thin walled and voluminous abdominal air-sacs are supported laterally and caudally to prevent inward (paradoxical) collapse during generation of negative (inhalatory) pressure: the synsacrum, posteriorly directed, laterally open pubes and specialized femoral-thigh complex provide requisite support and largely prevent inhalatory collapse.”
and



Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Link

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0609092055.htm



“The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion “
Storrs L. Olson
Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
http://creation.com/sensationalistic...oid-journalism






“We’re finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with. This issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that. . . . Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus. We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around. . . . Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution.”
Oregon State zoologist John Ruben Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010



http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi.../fossil-record some of the fakes to support this theory
http://www.drdino.com/media-categori...=seminars&v=10 video number 4 lies in the textbooks
http://creation.com/dinosaur-questions-and-answers

and he ignores my entire first post on evidence for creation

[removeduser_487563287433]

Sorry it took me a while to be able to face this again.

Very important question, what evolution are you willing to defend? the one I agree with? or this here.

I mean... look at this question... no I am not willing to defend the one you "agree" with. I am here to defend the Theory of Evolution, not your bastardised misinterpretation of it. Go on a Lord of the Rings forum if you want to role play.

This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.

No it doesn't.

you only assume creationist do not agree with these things because of your ignorance of other beliefs [such as creation]
By the way who started science? who thought of natural selection? who started the area of studying bacteria "evolution" thats right, creation scientist
also you use a logical fallacy called
Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks

Unfortunately I think I know more than creationism than you do, even the very specific midwestern Christian creationism that you hold to. I can talk to you about early polytheistic Judaism, the influence of monotheism from Zoroastrianism, the common myths found in the world's great religions, such as the deluge myth.

And I do know that "creation scientists" did not "start" science, did not develop the idea of natural selection (the term was coined by Darwin in Origin of Species, and his religious views were shaken during his life to the point where he described himself as an agnostic) and as far as I know the laboratory studying generational bacteria is not staffed purely by creationists... or at all. But you can provide a source if otherwise.

true that sister it cannot,never been observed and failed testing. You gave no examples read my replies, and yes obviously evolutionist can believe this can happen, they just do so with no evidence
Science is the accumulation of all knowledge of testing and observation correct? witch shows 100% that mutations reduce destroy and never evolve to greater complexity, so all scientific knowledge we have rejects evolution, know we just need to get the faithful to admit it [witch they never will]

This passage just betrays your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. You've used completely unscientific, meaningless language here, such as saying "100% mutations" (what does this mean?) will "reduce" (reduce what?) and "destroy" (destroy what?).

You also then say that evolution means that organisms will never evolve to great complexity. Not only is this incorrect, with examples of complex organisms surrounding you in your every day life, but it's irrelevant. Evolution is not a mechanic for life to march to ever increasingly complex organisms. It is the mechanism that allows species to exploit ecological niches. This might be something very complex - such as penguins adapting their limbs to use as flippers and not for flight, or for whales using their rear limbs to make their bodies more suitable for travel under water. But it might be something very simple, like a single celled bacteria developing an immunity to penicillin.

straw man again, im going to count eventually the number of logical fallacies you use in our discussion lol
so than here your admitting you will not defend atheistic origin of life correct? I will say no more on the subject than.
So atheism evolution has no answer for origin of life I agree. Your know changing back your definition of evolution I agree with "species" changing it happens, must I copy paste the definition of evolution again?
If your not willing to defend it than I want to debate someone else willing.

I'm not sure how it was a straw man - I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare your views on creationism to the views of a Papuan tribesman who believes the universe was created by the Great Rhinoceros. Both of you have precisely the same amount of evidence (read: none) backing up your theory.

I do not defend the "atheistic origin of life" as I do not know what this is. But I do attack the idea your favoured Storm God made it so.

Evolution is a atheistic materialist attempt at exspalining the world, it is a worldview not part of science, please give me scientific evidence for this "scientific" theory.
You than claim the rhino again, if your somehow unaware i dont believe in your rhino debate someone else for that straw man again.
You have claimed twice its a myth without backing it up in any way I ask you to prove it and say you would win debate but you fail to so your being arbitrary another logical fallacy
I wonder as a evolutionist how you can judge me? by saying i judge others
Why is it wrong to lie? Espically if it gives a survival advantage? Lying is bad only if there is a absolute authority a standard given by
if we are just chemicals why get mad? Would you get mad at backing soda mixing with vinegar?

I have no idea what atheism has to do with materialism, you have yet to explain this.

As for the scientific evidence for evolution, I have given you quite a lot already, all the way from the interpretation of living organisms and the fossil record to it actually having been recorded in a laboratory.

By contrast you have failed to produce a grain of evidence that your Storm God created the universe and all life.

I am not sure why you believe that emotions contradict to the theory of evolution. If you are mad, are you not more likely to attack something? To defend yourself? And you cannot see why that may not increase an organism's chance of survival? Are you aware of the "flight or fight" mechanism, where sudden surprise, fear, or anxiety causes the torso to contract and pump blood rapidly to the limbs, allowing for sudden bursts of activity such as fighting or running?

[SIZE=3]This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.”

Again, this is more ignorance about the Theory of Evolution itself. I think it's pretty obvious why developing morals might help the survival of organisms, especially those that live in social groups such as human beings.

I will ignore the rest of your passage because it relies entirely on this misconception.

claim, back up your being arbitrary again, assumptions cannot not be used, they are always used lol you have to.

No assumptions have been used, vigorous testing, using differing methods, using differing samples have been used to produce the result.

What they are measuring is a certain element, nothing to do with age, they have to assume there was non of the original decay element, that the rate has been constant, among other things, I really find it hard to believe you are denying this. It show you really dont understand the method at all.
Or read my reply or you would have written why you believe it to be false so please read my responses
I love the we know the age of earth within 1% lol what you are unknowingly referring to is that we can detect how much of a certain element is in a rock to within 1%
Please deal with my original response, and no they do not all give same result, I gave exspales of know age of rocks and the methods disagreed majorly.

Um, the rate of decay is consistent. Any teenage physics student can tell you that, it's called "Half-Life".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

So... is your argument to explain the existence of these 4.5 billion year old isotopes on Earth is not because Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but because... God has just seeded these things all over the place... why? Does that mean that other parts of the Universe were made before Earth? This is a clear contradiction of Christian creationism, how can you justify inventing this sort of thing?

great, so all the major radiometric dating techniques are wrong? as you just said they are wrong true? Again I have shown a variety of dating methods that all say the earth cannot be as old as you claim, meanwhile you dont back up any of your claims

What? I clearly said a variety of them have been used and have repeated results within a 1% margin of error.

Straw man again, Your belief seems to be based on saying your belief without backing it upalso you ignore again the evidence I presented for a young earth and then attack another straw man argument about a monk

You have of yet produce no evidence to support the young earth theory, and I am correct in saying the theory is based on the work of Abrahamic chroniclers trying to count back the generations listed in the Bible and some non-canonical works.

How do you not see the assumption here? when we date things of unknown age? contamination, know this would be a good response if you could show rocks cannot be contaminated, witch is obviously false, so this answers nothing.

If they were contaminated different samples would not be presenting results within a 1% margin of error.

wow the rest of your examples are wrong techniques, you said it sister
So every radiometric dating method is know wrong according to you all the major ones that were all used, so you can no longer argue a old earth with any of these
could it be you do not read my responses?

I specifically said your examples were examples of the wrong technique being used, or examples of commonly understood chemical processes that scientists have explained and creationists have failed to understand and instead tried (and in your cause utterly failed) to use as a propaganda tool.

If you continue to ignore everything i post sure, but i responded to the difference between the two, also the bible makes alot more claims than this rhino such as a global flood, age of earth etc. also i believe the bible only witch says nothing of your creator rhino so its just another straw man of yours.

Actually, the Bible makes no claim about the age of the Earth. If you disagree, you can quote where it does. There is no evidence for any global flood. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of a creator Rhinoceros and your Storm God.

his name was jesus, the rhino has less support as i showed

What difference does it make that your completely unsupported Storm God has more followers than the Papuan tribesman's Great Rhinoceros?

Weird im a believer I know many we see no problem as you do, this belief of demiurge is a straw man argument again, it has nothing to do with the bible, why it was made up i have no idea, why some Christians believe in the big bang and the bible i dont know, the gnostics were not Christians from what i remember anyways.

The Gnostics were absolutely Christians who believed that Christ was the messiah of Jewish tradition. The used the demiurge to try to explain the inherent contradictions of the New Testament's description of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God. The Epicureans were early rivals of Christianity who correctly pointed out;

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The Gnostics recognised this problem and concluded the Christian God could not have created such an evil and imperfect world.

Or all formed at once in moving water, as i said, also I gave many reasons for rejecting millions of years.

Incorrect. If they had formed in moving water what would have been produced would have been one single layer of sedimentary rock. Not the many different layers of different types of rock that we actually see in the geological record. The explanation is proven to be that they have been formed over many millions of years.

That is what they believe happened, but are you claiming no land and sea creatures are buried together seriously? Also since this is common, this is what you would aspect in a global flood as I said.

I don't believe it is "common", and you have provided no example of it.

I mean all above land would have eroded into ocean [sorry mistype] including these fossils "millions" and "Billions" of years old.

Many fossils have eroded. Finding a fossil is an extremely rare occurrence. So rare its statistically likely the vast majority of species that have existed in the history of the planet are represented by no fossil - and even if they are you have to have the statistically unlikely happy accident of finding those fossils.

Oh but there is no evidence for a global flood you said

None.

It says original life uncoplex slowly evolving to greater complexity, how can you deny this?

Because the Theory of Evolution does not say that. Creationist propagandists say that.

[total relism]

hey ferrets,no problem on the delay, i watched about 20 hours of christian vs Islam debates they were very good. Im all into that know because its "new" to me, so i have no problem with the delay i loved it

I mean... look at this question... no I am not willing to defend the one you "agree" with. I am here to defend the Theory of Evolution, not your bastardised misinterpretation of it. Go on a Lord of the Rings forum if you want to role play.

you avoid the question, its so important please tell me what you mean by evolution? very important, exspalin to me a quick definition of evolution and your belief of how all life on earth came about please.
Love the lotr reference i loved the movies played lotronline as well.

No it doesn't.

you replied above with no it doesnt, to this question

This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.

so you dont believe than that evolution or mutations exspalin the origin of our dna code? than stop wasting my time please, and i would like to call a end and conclusion marks to this, if you dont think mutations can evolve life to greater complexity than we have nothing to discuss, there are those out there that believe this, that life started simple and slowly "evolved" to greater complexity over billions of years, i wish to debate them.

Unfortunately I think I know more than creationism than you do, even the very specific midwestern Christian creationism that you hold to. I can talk to you about early polytheistic Judaism, the influence of monotheism from Zoroastrianism, the common myths found in the world's great religions, such as the deluge myth.

im from northeast,usa, follow groups from Arizona Australia south usa creation as a scintfic model not creation account, im sure you can talk about all that stuff, and i can respond to all that stuff and tell you why genesis was not influenced by any other creation "myth". I bet I know more of your "myth" of creation than you do life from non life, disproved thousands of times by science. how can you honestly claim a worldwide flood did not happen? im closing my eyes dont let me see

And I do know that "creation scientists" did not "start" science, did not develop the idea of natural selection (the term was coined by Darwin in Origin of Species, and his religious views were shaken during his life to the point where he described himself as an agnostic) and as far as I know the laboratory studying generational bacteria is not staffed purely by creationists... or at all. But you can provide a source if otherwise.

notice your no sources

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

natural selection came from Edward Blyth it was just not called natural section,he published his work 20 years b-4 Darwin,even stephen j gould wrote how natural selection [not called it at time] was very popular b-4 darwin

http://creation.com/charles-darwins-...ate-brainchild

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada

Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.

“Science was not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
rodney stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376

“Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”

• The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
• Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
• Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
• The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
• The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
• The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
• The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.

Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)

• Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
• Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
• Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
• Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’1
• Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.

‘A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution
In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.



It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.18 A sample:

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.


book the bible protestantism and the rise of natural science
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protesta.../dp/0521000963
book on how a christian worldview started modern science.



In the Book gods undertaking has science buried god?
He Points out how the de-mything of nature was a biblical doctrine of a creator god existing independent of his creation enabled science to be possible.

This passage just betrays your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. You've used completely unscientific, meaningless language here, such as saying "100% mutations" (what does this mean?) will "reduce" (reduce what?) and "destroy" (destroy what?).

100% i mean every time, 100% of the time we do not see new information evolve, no new functional genes, by destroy i mean destroy,cease to work, gone cya by useless etc not sure how else to say it.
how can a word be unscientific? science is observation of exspiriment knowledge gained from, so your lack of understanding of the definition of science causes you to say those things.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/MEGANS%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]ing.

here is a picture know maybe you will get the idea of what mutations do



this is result of mutations, one bacteria can no longer produce a enzyme so it happens to live and be resistant. loss of a enzyme,destroy etc loss of
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/MEGANS%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]

You also then say that evolution means that organisms will never evolve to great complexity. Not only is this incorrect, with examples of complex organisms surrounding you in your every day life, but it's irrelevant. Evolution is not a mechanic for life to march to ever increasingly complex organisms. It is the mechanism that allows species to exploit ecological niches. This might be something very complex - such as penguins adapting their limbs to use as flippers and not for flight, or for whales using their rear limbs to make their bodies more suitable for travel under water. But it might be something very simple, like a single celled bacteria developing an immunity to penicillin.

I know complex animals sound me, im saying how did they get here? if not by mutations "evolution has to explain them.
Than please stop this debate know, lets do a closing post each, i agree with your definition of evolution as i said like 5 times already, you are unwilling to defend evolution exspalining the origin of life on earth so im done, closing post each, there are others waiting willing to defend all life coming from one common ancestor

penicillin
Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene’s loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less ‘fit’ because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.

I'm not sure how it was a straw man - I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare your views on creationism to the views of a Papuan tribesman who believes the universe was created by the Great Rhinoceros. Both of you have precisely the same amount of evidence (read: none) backing up your theory.

I do not defend the "atheistic origin of life" as I do not know what this is. But I do attack the idea your favoured Storm God made it so.

You ignore my evidence and differences between the two over and over, lets assume i believe in your straw man[i would no longer be a creationist] than my rhino has just as much yet better support than your views, because yours has failed testing over and over, yet none has tested my rhino
you dont believe in god correct, than you believe in atheistic origin of life, also you reject my "storm god" for no scientific reason, and accept your own "views" for no scientific reason

I have no idea what atheism has to do with materialism, you have yet to explain this.

seems i know more of your "myth" than you do atheist believe there is only material in the world no spiritual no creator, mother earth created us, we came from dirt, or a underwater volcano etc. nothing outside of the material world.

As for the scientific evidence for evolution, I have given you quite a lot already, all the way from the interpretation of living organisms and the fossil record to it actually having been recorded in a laboratory.

here is your overwhelming evidence
" There is, of course, a large fossil record suggesting evolution is the mechanism here."

and that is all you said i quoted many leading evolutionist saying the fossil record supports creation not evolution, even tankbuster had to admit the fossil record supports creation, its just what you would aspect, read our debate. you have not even gone to talk origins to try and say these qoutes are taken out of context, im a little disappointing.

than your seen in laboratory evidence is this

You are also incorrect. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

We also frequently see it in the wild, as bacteria evolve a resistance to human medical drugs, generating the "super bugs" such as MRSA.


but you have to ignore my replies because you know you cannot respond to them, how is evolutionist can ignore anything they feel like? do you care for truth at all? or just what helps the liberal cause?


lenski ecoli experiment- Loss of information
took 44,000 generations they increased fitness – by loss of ability to degrade sugars regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.
this is a loss of a already existing flagella gene, so how can this exspalin the origin of? your definition yes I agree origin of biological system no, new information no, increase complexity no.


to me if your atheist trying to exspalin life, than you have to explain everything no? did god create some things earth stars but not life on earth?

here is a article on what causes bacteria to become resistant
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

every one can fall into one of these categories

here is article on super bugs
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

not one example falls into my definition exspaling the origin of

so true they fit "evolution" that we both agree apone your 100% right ive told you i agree with you


im really sick of someone trying to prove what i already agree with,and only willing to attack a straw man argument please end this

By contrast you have failed to produce a grain of evidence that your Storm God created the universe and all life.

you have ignored everything i put down for evidence for creation i really do wish to debate someone who will engage in discussion

I am not sure why you believe that emotions contradict to the theory of evolution. If you are mad, are you not more likely to attack something? To defend yourself? And you cannot see why that may not increase an organism's chance of survival? Are you aware of the "flight or fight" mechanism, where sudden surprise, fear, or anxiety causes the torso to contract and pump blood rapidly to the limbs, allowing for sudden bursts of activity such as fighting or running?

I said why would you get mad at someone for doing something they cannot control? you have ovisly miss read my writing, if you care to please read again.

Again, this is more ignorance about the Theory of Evolution itself. I think it's pretty obvious why developing morals might help the survival of organisms, especially those that live in social groups such as human beings. I will ignore the rest of your passage because it relies entirely on this misconception.

You have ovisly misunderstood go back and read again if you want.

No assumptions have been used, vigorous testing, using differing methods, using differing samples have been used to produce the result.

yes like the one that had over 200 different results from same rock? or the rock that was dated 6,000 and 4.5 billion? you back up claims with no evidence as i said. Also lets pretend the earth is billions of years old, the assumptions are still there,even if correct
I would reference you to easiest to understand article,but you dont even read my replies

Um, the rate of decay is consistent. Any teenage physics student can tell you that, it's called "Half-Life".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

ok high school student hers the problem with your idea. yes at a constant rate of decay in todays decay rates, you can easily figure out the half life fully agree. easy.
know the assumption is, have these rates always been consistent throughout the rocks history,always decaying at the same rate a unprovable assumption.
know evolutionist have increased decay by a billion fold in laboratories, and they can theoretically be acelled by trillions. we have evidence for it in past such as polnium halos and helium defusion from rocks and coal that should have decayed away in the time of its half life,showing the Unitarianism asumtions are wrong. all of witch has been published in peer review evolution journals. plus the 100 or so young earth dates further showing the assumptions that the present is key to the past is wrong.

So... is your argument to explain the existence of these 4.5 billion year old isotopes on Earth is not because Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but because... God has just seeded these things all over the place... why? Does that mean that other parts of the Universe were made before Earth? This is a clear contradiction of Christian creationism, how can you justify inventing this sort of thing?

no one does, you do yes lots of decay and contamination true, how do you exspalin this



age of 9.588 billion older than earth
tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

so you have to explain also more decay in fact 9.588 billion years worth

What? I clearly said a variety of them have been used and have repeated results within a 1% margin of error.

yet no source? i show source showing over 200 different results from same rock, i show the dates are selected. you ignore as a good liberal must do.

You have of yet produce no evidence to support the young earth theory, and I am correct in saying the theory is based on the work of Abrahamic chroniclers trying to count back the generations listed in the Bible and some non-canonical works.

actually the author is god,and you do what your suppose to be replying to witch was this

Straw man again, Your belief seems to be based on saying your belief without backing it upalso you ignore again the evidence I presented for a young earth and then attack another straw man argument about a monk

proving my point you make claims without backing them up

as a liberal you will ignore but i must post again
evidence for a young earth

i know you can figure out spoilers

I have a problem with the belief the earth is billions of years old as well ill give just a few reasons why but there are about a hundred of these types of evidences that contradict long ages.

erosion of continents, if they were as old as evolutions believe they would have eroded 250 times over by know,n America would be eroded into the oceans in only 9.6 million years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”



S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years


The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded.




As one evolutionist said
“ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668






Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).12 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).

• S. Bowman, Interpreting the Past: Radiocarbon Dating (London: British Museum Publications, 1990). Back

• G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625. Back

So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!


But every piece of supposed ancient carbon has radiocarbon, supposed to be millions and even billions of years old.
This has been reported in the secular radiocarbon journals over 70 times.
P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.



These finding have also been done and found by creation scientist many times

• A. A. Snelling, “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal 14.2 (2002): 99–122.

• A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144.

• J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147.

• Ref. 11.

• J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

It has even benn found in diamonds



R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287



J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

• D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

comets

comets disintegrate rapidly so that they can have a maximum ages long term comets of 200,000 years at most all evolutionist and creations agree on that.
So why if these are suppose to be billions of year old universe do we still have them? they assume imagine hope for a oart cloud or kupitor belt but none are observed to supply more comets.



salt in oceans

Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.
Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779




The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.




F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33



Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.


Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.


W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580



Also additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/




dino blood vessels cells hemoglobin and proteins, there decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long

1. Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
2. http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009




collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.





Also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores
Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland

• Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glacieisp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
"Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.


multilayer fossils [commonly tress]tress prove 100% rock layers were laid down rapidly, there are trees sometimes 90 feet in length fossilizes between layers supposedly separated by millions of years.
No erosion between layers,if those rock layers were separated by millions of years there would be evidence of erosion between the layers, instead there is only rapid or no erosion constant with deposition during Noah flood.

I just relied not all showed up, so go to my original spoiler under age of earth for more

If they were contaminated different samples would not be presenting results within a 1% margin of error.

lol witch is what i gave evidence of damn liberals

I specifically said your examples were examples of the wrong technique being used, or examples of commonly understood chemical processes that scientists have explained and creationists have failed to understand and instead tried (and in your cause utterly failed) to use as a propaganda tool.

you said, you did not back up again as i said you say there the wrong techniques, i agree radiometric dating is the wrong way to find the age of something, because of the assumptions. You also ignore my response again as only a liberal can,

How do you not see the assumption here? when we date things of unknown age? contamination, know this would be a good response if you could show rocks cannot be contaminated, witch is obviously false, so this answers nothing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Peer review
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
TalkOrigins contributors, havebeen kindly asked to submit their criticisms to our online, peer-reviewed technical journalso that they can be professionally peer-reviewed. They have refused to do this.Instead, TalkOrigins has a highly unprofessionaland unscientifichabit of hurlingvoluminousreferences at people and making themreadscoresof articles to figure out what they are talking about.I would recommend that you e-mail Mark Isaak and challenge him to have his ideas peer-reviewedin our online journal. Until he does, his criticisms do not merit our time, and will be treated as blog posts, etc.
Kind Regards,
Alexander Evans
Correspondence Representative
Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048

here is a creationist article that exspalins why the dates come back wrong, witch is what talk origins does, yet that ignores the argument entirely [tell how they were contaminated etc]. we dont think the dating machines are wrong or they magically appaer "old"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n4/assumptions

Actually, the Bible makes no claim about the age of the Earth. If you disagree, you can quote where it does. There is no evidence for any global flood. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of a creator Rhinoceros and your Storm God.

read any of my previous responses to your straw man and how the straw rhino is better than your creation myth and unlike my own, but as a liberal, again you must ignore and keep getting at that straw man its getting quit childish
the genealogies go back to adam giving time line to first human at creation week adds up to about 6,000-10,000

What difference does it make that your completely unsupported Storm God has more followers than the Papuan tribesman's Great Rhinoceros?

im going to ignore your staw man untill you respond to what i say about it.

The Gnostics were absolutely Christians who believed that Christ was the messiah of Jewish tradition. The used the demiurge to try to explain the inherent contradictions of the New Testament's description of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God. The Epicureans were early rivals of Christianity who
correctly pointed out;

Gnostics were not Christians did not believe in the god of the ot either.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT1139
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...?clip=CCNT1526
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...?clip=CCNT1523
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT1111

you fail to mention the contradiction, i think you forgot to type it in so please do.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The Gnostics recognised this problem and concluded the Christian God could not have created such an evil and imperfect world.

I agree god did not create a imperfect world, he created a original perfect creation with no death diseas suffering etc.

This is a wrong question to ask in haven and when god restores the earth and he is in total control there will be no violence death etc so when god is in control yes no pain etc
you have missed again the whole free will part god created earth for us we are in control free will. God has to give free will love has to let us chose

i will give my opinion god has to judge to be just. if he allowed us to do whatever we wanted kill each other etc.
there would never be a heaven or paradise. it would really be no different than know kind of
god hates sin and cant be around it so really all suffering death etc. is a consequence of being separated from god. according to the bible


but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.
Isiah 59.2

original sin created a separation from us and god.


god gave us free will to accept or deny him we chose to deny. he could have made us all perfect pray all day always do the right thing follow all his rules.
but thats not love god wants us to chose to follow him out of love which only comes with free will.


According to the bible sin caused separation from god he no longer is with us. All the once very good creation know is falling apart death disease etc have entered everything is wearing old. god is perfect and cannot be around sin. He has to judge sin because it is imperfect.
Everything bad that happens according to the bible ultimately is caused from separation form god. Does this mean if i go get drunk and crash my car god did it? not at all this is my will not his we have free will thats why we pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, matt 6 .10 gods will is not done here ours is that is why when Jesus was around he spent time fighting disease death etc. the bible says death is the last enemy that will be defeated.
When people asked Jesus if the 13 people that were builders died because they sinned in Jerusalem he said no, sometimes bad things happen to good people the whole creation is under this


that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now.
Romans 8 21-22

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Matt chapter 6 9-10


this is why we say your will be done on earth as it is in heaven


Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
matt chapter 4 8-9

16 The highest heavens belong to the LORD,
but the earth he has given to man.
Proverbs 18 -17


it is no longer gods creation it was given to man, psalm 8.6 ,gen 1 26-28 jesus calls the devil the prince and ruler of this world.
John 18 36 jesus says I am not of this world
matt 4 8-9 god is not the ruler of this world.

Death is the last enemy to be destroyed
Corinthians 15.26
.

when god is in control
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Revelations chapter 21 1-5


The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
Isiah 11 6-9


The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.
Isiah 65.25


4 He will settle disputes among the nations
and provide arbitration for many peoples.
They will turn their swords into plows
and their spears into pruning knives.
Nations will not take up the sword against [other] nations,
and they will never again train for war.
Isaiah 2 1-4

Incorrect. If they had formed in moving water what would have been produced would have been one single layer of sedimentary rock. Not the many different layers of different types of rock that we actually see in the geological record. The explanation is proven to be that they have been formed over many millions of years.

great, that disproves a global flood and the bible im know atheist, oh wait were is your evidence? see in peer reviewed evolutionist journals and creationist for the past 20 years have been publishing these things called flume exspirements, they use flowing moving water and create these layers at same time maybe you should get info from other than talk origins, im well familiar with there claims
here is a video that contains one live video of layers, http://ianjuby.org/videos.html

some references but beware no librals
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/lamination.asp

also evo peer review

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Berthault, G., 1986. Experiments on lamination of sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition—a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments and sedimentary rocks. Compte Rendus Académie des Sciences, Paris, 303 (Série II, no. 17):1569–1574

Berthault, G., 1988. Sedimentation of a heterogranular mixture: experimental lamination in still and running water. Compte Rendus Académie Des Sciences,Paris, 306 (Série II):717–724

Julien, P. Y., LAN, Y. Q. and Berthault, G., 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures. Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, 164(5):649–660.

not only that we saw these layers form in hours at my saint helens
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...mtsthelens.asp

also
Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data

http://www.sedimentology.fr/


evolution repeated same years later

Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382


do you see how hard it is for me to be a liberal and follow talk origins? all you guys have is claims no evidence.

here is debate were this is brought up by one of your own a atheist of the year paleontologist in debate

The Genesis Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDEPSZSdx2k 11 part debate free online
"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia). www.Creation.com
free online

of course i would not aspect a liberal to watch a debate fair and balanced what is that?


ferrets im telling you, you dont want none of this sister, you make illogical claims and straw man arguments, never backing anything up, lets drop this please.
conclusion and done

I don't believe it is "common", and you have provided no example of it.

I have but liberals must ignore, here is a book with lots of examples http://store.icr.org/prodinfo.asp?number=SECP

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,5631,229.aspx video

free articles with some exspales
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ences-part-one

if you want ill spend the time name some better know exsaples and what are found together.

Many fossils have eroded. Finding a fossil is an extremely rare occurrence. So rare its statistically likely the vast majority of species that have existed in the history of the planet are represented by no fossil - and even if they are you have to have the statistically unlikely happy accident of finding those fossils.

only because you believe in evolution do you say that and billions of years, not because of any evidence. this still does not answer what i said at all. all above water ground surface would have eroded into the ocean.

None.

liberal and what do they do ignore

Because the Theory of Evolution does not say that. Creationist propagandists say that.

his response to this
It says original life uncoplex slowly evolving to greater complexity, how can you deny this?

read some evolution material before you try to represent there side

[removeduser_487563287433]

you avoid the question, its so important please tell me what you mean by evolution?

I've done so several times. Previously you have responded by bastardising what I said, which caused me to correct you, which caused you to bastardise the correction. Do not do this again:

Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination.

this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.

No it doesn't.

and tell you why genesis was not influenced by any other creation "myth".

If you insist. You'd be wrong entirely.

natural selection came from [SIZE=3]Edward Blyth it was just not called natural section

Then it didn't come from Edward Blyth. Indeed, it came from Darwin's Origin of Species - he was the first to use the term. He did correspond with Darwin, so perhaps that is why some creationists have been able to abuse his memory.

100% i mean every time, 100% of the time we do not see new information evolve

This is a completely meaningless statement. It is also, of course, inaccurate. I am not going to explain it to because of two reasons;

1) I don't think I can explain it properly
2) I don't think you are even slightly willing to listen to an opposing view

All the evidence and explanation you could need is to be found in this New Scientist article;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...formation.html

You ignore my evidence and differences between the two over and over

What evidence is that? The only coherent argument you have produced so far is that Jesus has more followers than the Great Rhinoceros, which I consider to be irrelevant. The Great Rhinoceros and your Storm God have exactly the same amount of evidence for their existence - none.

seems i know more of your "myth" than you do atheist believe there is only material in the world no spiritual no creator, mother earth created us, we came from dirt, or a underwater volcano etc. nothing outside of the material world.

That's not what the word materialistic means.

i quoted many leading evolutionist saying the fossil record supports creation not evolution, even tankbuster had to admit the fossil record supports creation

No, you quoted many creationist propagandists.

you have ignored everything i put down for evidence for creation i really do wish to debate someone who will engage in discussion

There has been nothing to ignore. You have provided literally no evidence for creation. None.

ok high school student hers the problem with your idea. yes at a constant rate of decay in todays decay rates, you can easily figure out the half life fully agree. easy.
know the assumption is, have these rates always been consistent throughout the rocks history,always decaying at the same rate a unprovable assumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lead

Unfortunately, although you clearly know your propaganda, you do not know your physics.

Gnostics were not Christians did not believe in the god of the ot either.

The Gnostics were Christians. They did believe in the God of the Old Testament. These are the historical facts that you cannot change. You will have to face the facts that Christians have always disagreed about how to explain the inherent contradictions of their mythology.

I agree god did not create a imperfect world, he created a original perfect creation with no death diseas suffering etc.

Then he was a he was a huge and clearly not benevolent as your mythology claims.

Also, I am not a "liberal" as I know you are using it. I have in fact worked for the Conservative Party. So you can drop the moronic attacks and try to type something yourself rather than copy and pasting nonsense mixed in with smilies.

[total relism]

ferrets no offense but this is getting ridicules, you ignore 85% of my post and responses, you keep making the same logical fallacies,and want to debate something i already agree with you about. you dont back up anything just make statements, please one more closing post each? there are some who will engage in discussion and debate.

i dont want to sound mean,but you are by far the worst at debating evolution i have had the privilege of debating, you make claim after claim and never back up, you ignore post after post without responding.

why continue this? please answer, i think im going to have to do what i did with J to get him to leave lol nothing new braght in, ill just keep posting everything you ignore every response..I miss tankbuster he at least challenged and discuses

I've done so several times. Previously you have responded by bastardising what I said, which caused me to correct you, which caused you to bastardise the correction. Do not do this again:

so please stop this with me. why debate someone who agrees with you? I have no more want to debate you, we agree

No it doesn't.

no my definition of evolution does require espaliering the origin of life.

If you insist. You'd be wrong entirely.

again a claim, not backed up

Then it didn't come from Edward Blyth. Indeed, it came from Darwin's Origin of Species - he was the first to use the term. He did correspond with Darwin, so perhaps that is why some creationists have been able to abuse his memory.

in name only it came from darwin,what do you mean by abuse his memory? he was a creationist who taght of natural selection b-4 darwin, yes darwin named it natural selction instead of natures law or something, who cares, he made a new name for it, this is like me looking at venus renaming it total relism and claiming it as my own, i discovered it

This is a completely meaningless statement. It is also, of course, inaccurate. I am not going to explain it to because of two reasons;

1) I don't think I can explain it properly
2) I don't think you are even slightly willing to listen to an opposing view

All the evidence and explanation you could need is to be found in this New Scientist article;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...formation.html

you take a piece of a sentence and say it is meaningless lol i explained it to you last post you are running from truth yet again
Im glad you have found goggle to type new information this article has been posted many times before and i have replied on other debates, witch example do you see as your best evidence? ill start by offering to never come back on these forums if you can here show me one example of information gaining mutations so give me your single one best from that article,and ill respond.
also im more than interested in any evidence for evolution thats why im here

What evidence is that? The only coherent argument you have produced so far is that Jesus has more followers than the Great Rhinoceros, which I consider to be irrelevant. The Great Rhinoceros and your Storm God have exactly the same amount of evidence for their existence - none.

i will not keep responding until you answer my replies to you on this.

That's not what the word materialistic means.

evrything is just matter,matter is all there is.

No, you quoted many creationist propagandists.

anyone who reads actual responses go check out the names of the qoutes under the qoute tag, leading evolutionist. ferrets would not know because he knows almost nothing of evolution, witch makes it werid he chose to get into this he here also admits he does not read any replies barley.

There has been nothing to ignore. You have provided literally no evidence for creation. None.

please there are others ready to debate who actually will respond to things i post, lets start with my first post you ignored, if you truly want to debate, no offense but ovisluy scince is not your thing lets be done with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lead

Unfortunately, although you clearly know your propaganda, you do not know your physics.

Im not sure what you wanted me top read from your wiki article? i think you have great lack of understanding. please show me what your referring to, i already said a half life can easily be calculated using todays rates no offense but if you weren't so liberal you might read responses and see why your missing the point on this

The Gnostics were Christians. They did believe in the God of the Old Testament. These are the historical facts that you cannot change. You will have to face the facts that Christians have always disagreed about how to explain the inherent contradictions of their mythology.

lol yet i ask what contradiction and you ignore it? over and over, ferrets in a debate your suppose to respond to what i say

Then he was a he was a huge and clearly not benevolent as your mythology claims.

Also, I am not a "liberal" as I know you are using it. I have in fact worked for the Conservative Party. So you can drop the moronic attacks and try to type something yourself rather than copy and pasting nonsense mixed in with smilies.

first part, i cant help but notice your lack of response how is free will being evil? letting man chose, i already told you it is required for lovebut you damn liberals wont read responses
hmm nothing was copy and pasted that i did not already write and saved on my usb port, and i doubt you worked for the conservative party

[removeduser_487563287433]

ferrets no offense but this is getting ridicules, you ignore 85% of my post and responses

I will always make sure I put as much effort into replying to your points as you put into making them. Therefore I have ensured I have responded to every point I can identify that you yourself formed and typed. However, yes, I will continue to ignore your wall of copy pasted text that you have made no effort to understand, you have just regurgitated it from propagandist websites. I did attempt to respond to some of it, challenging your specific examples with scientific acknowledgement of faulty techniques or explanation of commonly understood reasons for your misconceptions. You ignored this, so I will not waste my time again. I will instead focus on the things you appear to be willing to respond to.

no my definition of evolution does require espaliering the origin of life.

And your definition of evolution is utterly incorrect and alien to the Theory of Evolution, and therefore entirely irrelevant to this debate.

in name only it came from darwin,what do you mean by abuse his memory?

I mean the reality that Charles Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection, but that of course, as any scientist, he was actively learning about other people's discoveries and ideas. In this case you want to abuse this by claiming that one of the people who corresponded with and influenced Darwin was instead the man who developed Natural Selection. That is a lie. Your only interest is to bastardise the facts so you can claim that Natural Selection was developed by a man who believed in God, and that is not so. Not that I believe it would make any difference if it was, of course.

also im more than interested in any evidence for evolution thats why im here

I have given you much evidence in support of evolution. In response you have only been able to blither barely understandable nonsense about how mutations cannot "add" information.

lets be done with this.

Then go. Please. I will wear the fact that I was the first person to face down your tedious, stupid, unscientific and willfully moronic bollocks as a ing badge of honour. But I will not end this. You have attempted to lie about what The Theory of Evolution proposed at every opportunity and that is intellectually bankrupt. You run away if you ing can't take the heat! But I will point out you are creating a ing lie so long as you post here.

how is free will being evil?

And how, for example, a 21 year old girl developing breast cancer an evil linked to "free will"?

[total relism]

I want you to show me one thing i have not responded to of yours


wow that was fast, so ill put in spoilers what you ignore over and over, your responses hope that people listing dont read all the way down, just our latest responses

ferrets im going to pretend you are defending my definition of evolution from know on that all life "evolved" from a single common ancestor. otherwise why debate with something i agree with? so if you want to defend it you can if not, than well im not sure

your most trusted source for a liberal wiki says of evolution
Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".[6]

mutations can even create entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA
New genes can be created from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function
The creation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combination with new functions


so here your must quoted source claims new genes are needed for evolutionknow all the stuff you ignored on my first post alone, I will do later post you ignore, one post you ignore every new post. So second post ignored next etc.

ignored

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

predict that the world and living things would appear designed

evolutionist and atheist dawkins says
"Richard Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with [this statement:] ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’; whereupon he requires an additional three hundred and fifty pages to show why it is only an appearance of design."—*Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1; quoted in W.A. Demski, Signs of Intelligence, p. 23.

famous evolutionist Francis crick said

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5
Crick, F. 1988. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. London: Sloan Foundation Science, 138.

So it seems to me the most ovius answer is it was created, easiest simplest explanation.

there are systems in biology that if it were not part of "evolution"and did not contain theological implications would be recognized as designed and should be.

If you could build a motor one millionth of a millimetre across, you could fit a billion billion of them on a teaspoon. It seems incredible, but biological systems already use molecular motors on this scale.1
Feringa, B. L. 2000. Nanotechnology: In control of molecular motion. Nature. 408 (6809): 151-154.

biological machines can store repair transmit decode and translate information.
each cell has enough information to fill books to the moon and back 500 times over, and you want me to believe this all came from matter, from lightning hitting rocks or dirt? and that all fits on the pin of a needle.

The DNA can make 300,000 proteins and tell them how, were ,how many and when.
Some functions of cellular machines
DNA maintenance robots that proofread information, unwind the double helix, cut out defects, splice in corrections, and rewind the strands

• Intracellular elevators
• Mobile brace-builders that construct distinct internal tubular supports
• Spinning generators that move molecules from low to high energy states
• Ratchet devices that convert random molecular forces to linear motion
• Motors that whirl hair-like structures like an outboard motor
• A microscopic railroad with engines and tracks

A 1997 Nature article by Steven Block detailed the "Real engines of creation" that included a discussion of sub-cellular structures composed of springs, rotary joints, and levers--all made of protein.2
Block, S. M. 1997. Real engines of creation. Nature. 386 (6622): 217-219.

all point i believe to the ovius conclusion and easiest explanation creation.




Information and mutations
evolution has to be able to add new information to the genome of organisms if you are to evolve a bacteria or single celled organism to a human fish bird etc.
originally there was no information in the dna code to construct wings brains blood feathers etc. So were did all this originate?
In our dna we have coded information that is needed for life and to construct our bodies all organisms bodies, mutations is the only way for this to come about according to evolutionist but this has never been observed the origin of new novel functional genes.
Information always comes from intelligence if evolution cannot explain its origin than it is dead in the water.
They give examples of natural selection, bacteria resistance, bacteria ddt Resistance not one has been observed to do what evolutionist must believe it has many times over[which is to add information to the genome]. I believe it has been falsified already. No mutations contradict creation because they are heading in the wrong direction for evolution but fit perfectly with creation

There is no evidence for evolution direct observable evidence at all in any field upward complexity evolution.
So creation says any change that happens will be downhill or variation and this is all we see loss of information or variation of already existing information.
my only links to quick article describing how variation happens through natural section
read under natural selection and adaptation
http://creation.com/refuting-evoluti...rsus-evolution


dna is “letters and instructions manual” on how to assemble organisms
genes spell out the information required to build proteins
p42 oct 2010 scientific American
jonathan k pritchard professor of human genetics at the university of Chicago


“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome . This surly shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory evolution demands.”
L.spetner not by chance 1997
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Sha.../dp/1880582244

A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.24

There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.25

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.26

Werner Gitt
After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.

So information fits perfect within the creation model being a non material thing with original outside intelligence needed to create it which in turn is needed for all life.
How does atheistic evolution explain information arising from matter?


Not enough time even assuming billions of years
one cell needs a minimum of 400 different proteins to make the machines needed for life.
Just one of these essential machines rna polymerase [see www.mun.ca/biochem/courses/3107/lectures/topicks/rnap- bacterial. Html.
One protein component of machine less than 10% of total machine , that protein is 329 amino acids in length, the chance of getting that one protein by random chance is 1/20 times 1/20 times 1/20 etc is a probability of 1 in 10 to the 428 power
there are only 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the universe.
10 to the 18th power is the amount of seconds in the supposed evolutionary history of the universe.


noahs flood

If a global flood happened what would we expect to see?
Wouldn't we aspects to see trillions of dead plant and animals buried laid down rapidly by water all over the earth?
Rock layers spread continent wide? thousands of feet of water deposited sedimentation? examples of large scale rapid erosion? Sea creatures buried on top of mountain ranges all over earth?
Billions of fish and deep sea creatures buried rapidly together with land animals?
This is just what we see, found in rock layers all over the earth.
Also many extinct animals




age of earth
Earths surface is constantly being eroded, this rate of erosion is easily measured , the average height reduction for all continents is 2.4 inches per thousand years.

J.N Holleman 1968 the sediment yield of major rivers of the world,water resources research 4:737 747 E W sparks 1986 geomorphology,in georaphies study S H Beaver ed london and new york: Longman group 509-510 J D Milliman and J P M Syvitski 1992 geomorphic/tectonic control of sediments discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers journal of geology 100 525-544 A Roth origins linking science and scripture hagerstown, MD review and herald publishing 264



Using this rate the north American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in “a mere 10 million years”



S Judson and D F Ritter 1964 rates of regional denudation in the united states journal of geophysical research 69; 3395-3401 R H Dott Jr and R L Batten. Evolution of the earth fourth edition , new york,st Louis and san Francisco Mcgraw- Hill Book company 155




Even using the slowest possible rates of erosion the continents would have eroded in 623 million years


The resulting measured rates [lower than normal ] would give only 9.6 million years until all above sea level continents would be totally eroded.




As one evolutionist said
“ if some facets of the contemporary landscape are indeed as old as is suggested by the field evidence they not only constitute denial of commonsense and everyday observations but they also carry considerable implications for general theory”
C R Twidale 1998 antiquity of landforms an “extremely unlikely” concept vindication Australian journal of earth sciences 45 ; 657-668






Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).12 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).

• S. Bowman, Interpreting the Past: Radiocarbon Dating (London: British Museum Publications, 1990). Back

• G. Faure and T. M. Mensing, Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), pp. 614–625. Back

So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!


But every piece of supposed ancient carbon has radiocarbon, supposed to be millions and even billions of years old.
This has been reported in the secular radiocarbon journals over 70 times.
P. Giem, “Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon,” Origins 51 (2001): 6–30.



These finding have also been done and found by creation scientist many times

• A. A. Snelling, “Conflicting ‘Ages’ of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilised Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia,” CEN Technical Journal 14.2 (2002): 99–122.

• A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144.

• J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147.

• Ref. 11.

• J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

It has even benn found in diamonds



R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287



J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630.

• D. B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.

comets

comets disintegrate rapidly so that they can have a maximum ages long term comets of 200,000 years at most all evolutionist and creations agree on that.
So why if these are suppose to be billions of year old universe do we still have them? they assume imagine hope for a oart cloud or kupitor belt but none are observed to supply more comets.



salt in oceans

Many processes continually add salt to the oceans and seas, but salt is not removed as easily from the sea , resulting in a steady increase of salt in the oceans.
This has been used as a way to date the earth since 1715 when it was first calculated to be maximum of 80 to 90 million years old.
Today every kilogram of sea water contains about 10.8 grams of dissolved sodium, the oceans contain 1,370 million cubic kilometers of water making a total of 14,700 trillion tons of sodium in the oceans.
Every year rivers and other sources dump 457 million tons of sodium into the oceans.


M ,Meybeck, 1979 concentrations des eaux fluvials en majeurs et apports aux oceans, revuede geologie dynamique et de geographie Physique 21 [3] 215-246 F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779




The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.




F.L sayles and P C Mangelsdorf,1979 Cation-exchange characteristics of amazon with suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, geochimica et Cosmochica acta 43 767-779
S.A Austin and D R Humphreys 1990 the seas missing salt proceedings of the second international conference on creationism vol 2 R E Walsh and C L books,eds Pittsburgh Pa creation science fellowship 17-33



Assuming the oceans originally had no sodium and given the best possible assumptions and rates for evolutionist, than the current sodium would have accumulated in less than 62 million years. Far less than the 3 billion they claim the oceans to be.


Also more recent studies show salt is entering much faster than previously thought, showing more groundwater which is higher concentration of salt is being discharged via river flow more than 40% than the previously thought 10%.


W S Moore 1996 Large groundwater inputs to coastal waters reveled by 226 Ra enrichments Nature, 380 [6575] 612-614 T M church 1996 An underground route for the water cycle Nature 380 [6575] 579-580



Also additional calculations for for many seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/




dino blood vessels cells hemoglobin and proteins, there decay rates from observable science proves they cannot be millions of years old. Some cannot last 2.7 million years frozen.

There are also many bacteria dna etc that have been found that also could not last that long

1. Schweitzer, M.H. et al., Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291–6296, June 1997. Return to text.
2. http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c> Return to text.“Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Show that Molecules Preserve Over Time”, www.physorg.com/news160320581.html, accessed 3 May 2009




collagen found dated as 80ma , yet proven cannot last more than 2.7 ma frozen.

Schweitzer, M.H. et al., “Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. canadensis”, Science 324(5927):626–631, 1 May 2009 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069,
<www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/324/5927/626?ijkey=47dc1272e069cf51caab0651d4462cbe5045f92c>
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf




It has been pointed out many times that fragile, complex molecules like proteins, even if hermetically sealed, should fall apart all by themselves from thermodynamic considerations alone in well under the 65 million years that evolutionists insist have passed since Schweitzer’s T. rex specimen was entombed.
Nielsen-Marsch, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 12–14, June2002. Return to text.Doyle, S., The real ‘Jurassic Park’? Creation 30(3):12–15, 2008.





Also dna and material that should have decayed away has been found in these supposed ancient ice cores
Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
http://www.icr.org/article/bacteria-...from-greenland

• Loveland-Curtze, J., V. I. Miteva and J. E. Brenchley. 2009. Herminiimonas glacieisp. nov., a novel ultramicrobacterium from 3042 m deep Greenland glacial ice. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 59: 1272-1277.

“Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.”
"Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"
Schweitzer, M. H. 2010. Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue. Scientific American. 303 (6): 62-69.





multilayer fossils [commonly tress]tress prove 100% rock layers were laid down rapidly, there are trees sometimes 90 feet in length fossilizes between layers supposedly separated by millions of years.
No erosion between layers,if those rock layers were separated by millions of years there would be evidence of erosion between the layers, instead there is only rapid or no erosion constant with deposition during Noah flood.





1Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.
Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.
Also
"We have found it impossible to reproduce the traditional theory, but stars move with the spiral pattern in our simulations at the same speed.2 The "traditional theory" held that stars are channeled into arms by "density waves." However, this explanation merely pushes the problem back one step to another puzzle—what caused the density waves? And clearly, Grand was unable to make the physics of the "traditional theory" of density waves work in his simulations. 3
Scheffler, H. and H. Elsasser, Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352–353, 401–413. Return to text.
D. Zaritsky et al., Nature, July 22, 1993. Sky & Telescope, December 1993, p. 10.
3 NAM 21: New theory of evolution for spiral galaxy arms. Royal Astronomical Society press release, April 20, 2011.
http://www.icr.org/article/6069/









2 decay of earths magnetic field
10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle.



The strength of the magnetic field has been reliably and continually measured since 1835. From these measurements, we can see that the field's strength has declined by about seven percent since then, giving a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that in 1,400 years it will be one-half as strong, in 2,800 years it will be one-fourth as strong, and so on. There will be a time not many thousands of years distant when the field will be too small to perform as a viable shield for earth.
Calculating back into the past, the present measurements indicate that 1,400 years ago the field was twice as strong. It continues doubling each 1,400 years back, until about 10,000 years ago it would have been so strong the planet would have disintegrated--its metallic core would have separated from its mantle. The inescapable conclusion we can draw is that the earth must be fewer than 10,000 years old.
Compare this "clock" with others used to estimate earth's age. This method utilizes a long period of measurement, amounting to over one-tenth of a half-life, whereas radioisotope decay has been accurately measured for only about 100 years, while its half-lives are typically measured in the billions. The short half-life should be favored by uniformitarians for it minimizes the chances that something dramatic has happened to change things, since longer spans are more susceptible to out-of-the-ordinary events. Magnetic field decay also involves a whole earth measurement, and on this large scale it cannot be easily altered or "contaminated," as could any rock selected for radioisotope dating. The young-earth implications are even stronger when the energy of the field is considered rather than its strength, for the energy's half-life decays each 700 years.
http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field/
http://creation.com/the-earths-magne...earth-is-young










3 earth-moon system
the tides when the moon would have close enough would have drowned all life on earth twice a day and shattered the moon

How long has the moon been receding?
Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.7 The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.8 NB: this is the maximum possible age — far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks) — not the actual age.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2006/0811.asp











4 Comets disintegrate too quickly

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical ‘Oort cloud’ well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.
Lately, there has been much talk of the ‘Kuiper Belt’, a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. [For more information, see the detailed technical article Comets and the Age of the Solar System.]
Steidl, P.F., ‘Planets, comets, and asteroids’, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73–106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983) 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092










5 human population growth giving generous numbers to the evolutionist


It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.


say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square meter per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square meters. If every one of those square meters were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people



fossil record
creationist would predict variation within the basic bodies types but all the major phyla and basic bodies types to be separate. we would predict sudden abrupt appearances of organism not slowly evolving.
when multiple experts that would favor one outcome admit to another i think that certainly says something.
So i m going to use just for know the biggest experts and most famous evolutionist who all admit the fossil record does not support evolution.


"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.







After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.
"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89




"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.
"There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.



"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.




"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.



‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’

• Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

“T
he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977,





“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.




". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979





2001 staunch evolutionist Ernst Mayr wrote the following: “ Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[80]




“in the years after Darwin his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept in the textbooks”
raop David education and the fossil record science vol 217 July 1982 p289



many more quotes from evolutionist can be used also, but it goes to show the fossil record points to creation not evolution.



"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

know that was first post only ill go more after you respond

I will always make sure I put as much effort into replying to your points as you put into making them. Therefore I was ensured I have responded to every point I can identify that you yourself formed and typed. However, yes, I will continue to ignore your wall of copy pasted text that you have made no effort to understand, you have just regurgitated it from propagandist websites. I did attempt to respond to some of it, challenging your specific examples with scientific acknowledgement of faulty techniques or explanation of commonly understood reasons for your misconceptions. You ignored this, so I will not waste my time again. I will instead focus on the things you appear to be willing to respond to.

you claim to respond but that was all first post one post you ignored that much than you just make claims that are false on why you ignore themmaybe try a answer? yes i have no idea what i post, what is going on here anyways? what are we talking about, i have no idea whats happening to meeeeeeeeee.
I agree radiometric dating methods are faulty, i told you i agreed with youproving my point, you seem to think when i agree with you like your definition of evolution [or radiometric dating is faulty], that somehow i must disagree or you still say like i dont agree with you?


you said this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We can and do know the age of the Earth within a 1% margin of error. Assumptions are not used. Physical rocks have had their ages measured, and as I have explained the decay of lead isotopes gives us the age of the planet itself. This is simply not debatable, it is scientific fact, tested with a variety of measurement techniques, all returning the same result.

Newly formed rock will only date billions of years old if the wrong measurement technique is used. This cannot explain the age of the Earth, as a variety of different techniques have produced the same result.

Your young Earth idea is based purely on the extrapolations of a monk counting back the generations of people listed in the book of the Great Rhinoceros. And it is wrong.

and this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is creationist propaganda:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

In summary, the result does not reflect the age of the seal, it reflects the age of the minerals in the water that had been travelling the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years, and travelled up the food chain to the seal.

Scientists realised this and explained it. Shaman use it to try to keep people in the Dark Ages.

The rest of your examples are all simply the wrong technique being used.

notice you did not back up your first claims at all,only the talk origins one

so i responded and as a liberal you ignored this


How do you not see the assumption here? when we date things of unknown age? contamination, know this would be a good response if you could show rocks cannot be contaminated, witch is obviously false, so this answers nothing.
talk origins

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Peer review
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
TalkOrigins contributors, havebeen kindly asked to submit their criticisms to our online, peer-reviewed technical journalso that they can be professionally peer-reviewed. They have refused to do this.Instead, TalkOrigins has a highly unprofessionaland unscientifichabit of hurlingvoluminousreferences at people and making themreadscoresof articles to figure out what they are talking about.I would recommend that you e-mail Mark Isaak and challenge him to have his ideas peer-reviewedin our online journal. Until he does, his criticisms do not merit our time, and will be treated as blog posts, etc.
Kind Regards,
Alexander Evans
Correspondence Representative
Answers in Genesis

P.O. Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The rest of your examples are all simply the wrong technique being used. wow the rest of your examples are wrong techniques, you said it sister
So every radiometric dating method is know wrong according to you all the major ones that were all used, so you can no longer argue a old earth with any of these
could it be you do not read my responses?

I wish i could be a evolutionist just brush off anything we dont like with a unsupported false claim

yet you ovisuly have lack basic knowledge, you showed nothing, you made a claim from talk origins that does not deal with the argument, than ignored the rest how is that showing all it all wrong?

I than gave more examples of false dates and showed how many dating methods disagreed with each other

great evidence for the age of the earth, make statements ignore mine with a statement, anyone a little concerned with truth, look at the dating methods involved there all the main dating methods he lacks total understanding in this perticluar area, witch is why his response is the way it is, and his evidence is just claims as well.
here are just a few more for fun, notice the methods uses

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

uranium thorium lead date of 97 million years, in a supposed 20 million year old granite, it zircon dated 1,483 million years
r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450


range of 343 million to 4,493 millon
a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27


age of 9.588 billion older than earth
tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149



recent lava 1969 flows in Africa rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572



uranium thorium lead 1,753 million suppose to be 21 million
ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079



128 ages were recorded from 161 million years to 514 million
cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

this one he has to ignore he claims all dating matches , yet we have here 128 different "dates" but we must have faith in this method, the earth is billions of years old its proven

to much fun

3,500 million supposed to be 426 million
is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458


Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. [Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]


The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years.
Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning.3
Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011. Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

sochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geolgical magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."—*T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].


"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." [Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]


‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with

"Since its development as a dating tool, archaeologists have struggled with the interpretation of radiocarbon data due to its limitations in accuracy and precision"

Douglas S. Frink [2]

North American Archaeologist Vol 15(1) 17, 1994


but its a fact the earth is billions of years old because radiometric dating says so watch his evidence closely not his statements

wow, when he does try to back up he uses wiki

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions.

In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640

].

yes like the one that had over 200 different results from same rock? or the rock that was dated 6,000 and 4.5 billion? you back up claims with no evidence as i said. Also lets pretend the earth is billions of years old, the assumptions are still there,even if correct

ok high school student hers the problem with your idea. yes at a constant rate of decay in todays decay rates, you can easily figure out the half life fully agree. easy.
know the assumption is, have these rates always been consistent throughout the rocks history,always decaying at the same rate a unprovable assumption.
know evolutionist have increased decay by a billion fold in laboratories, and they can theoretically be acelled by trillions. we have evidence for it in past such as polnium halos and helium defusion from rocks and coal that should have decayed away in the time of its half life,showing the Unitarianism asumtions are wrong. all of witch has been published in peer review evolution journals. plus the 100 or so young earth dates further showing the assumptions that the present is key to the past is wrong.


no one does, you do yes lots of decay and contamination true, how do you exspalin this



age of 9.588 billion older than earth
tm harison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

so you have to explain also more decay in fact 9.588 billion years worth

i show source showing over 200 different results from same rock, i show the dates are selected. you ignore as a good liberal must do.


here is a creationist article that exspalins why the dates come back wrong, witch is what talk origins does, yet that ignores the argument entirely [tell how they were contaminated etc]. we dont think the dating machines are wrong or they magically appaer "old"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n4/assumptions


so these were all my responses you ignored on radiometric dating

And your definition of evolution is utterly incorrect and alien to the Theory of Evolution, and therefore entirely irrelevant to this debate.

so alien to the theory that your number one source wiki agrees with me

I mean the reality that Charles Darwin developed the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection, but that of course, as any scientist, he was actively learning about other people's discoveries and ideas. In this case you want to abuse this by claiming that one of the people who corresponded with and influenced Darwin was instead the man who developed Natural Selection. That is a lie. Your only interest is to bastardise the facts so you can claim that Natural Selection was developed by a man who believed in God, and that is not so. Not that I believe it would make any difference if it was, of course.

no,no he did not, he made the name for it, you only get your info from wiki, so you think the only relation is were ir refers to correspondence ouch that shows liberals rely on only wiki and talk origins

I have given you much evidence in support of evolution. In response you have only been able to blither barely understandable nonsense about how mutations cannot "add" information.

here again is your great evidence

There is, of course, a large fossil record suggesting evolution is the mechanism here.

You are also incorrect. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...n-the-lab.html

We also frequently see it in the wild, as bacteria evolve a resistance to human medical drugs, generating the "super bugs" such as MRSA.


Evolution is not a mechanic for life to march to ever increasingly complex organisms. It is the mechanism that allows species to exploit ecological niches. This might be something very complex - such as penguins adapting their limbs to use as flippers and not for flight, or for whales using their rear limbs to make their bodies more suitable for travel under water. But it might be something very simple, like a single celled bacteria developing an immunity to penicillin.


yes this proves your definition of evolution, but remember as long as your still here im debating wikis evolution otherwise why are we here?



lenski great, you must first understand that the whole bacteria resistance study was started by a creationist
This as all evidence does fits under the first definition of evolution, not under the one i gave.


lenski ecoli experiment- Loss of information
took 44,000 generations they increased fitness – by loss of ability to degrade sugars regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.
this is a loss of a already existing flagella gene, so how can this exspalin the origin of? your definition yes I agree origin of biological system no, new information no, increase complexity no.


to me if your atheist trying to exspalin life, than you have to explain everything no? did god create some things earth stars but not life on earth?

here is a article on what causes bacteria to become resistant
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

every one can fall into one of these categories

here is article on super bugs
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

not one example falls into my definition exspaling the origin of


penicillin
Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene’s loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less ‘fit’ because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.

but you have to ignore my replies because you know you cannot respond to them, how is evolutionist can ignore anything they feel like? do you care for truth at all? or just what helps the liberal cause?


lenski ecoli experiment- Loss of information
took 44,000 generations they increased fitness – by loss of ability to degrade sugars regulatory controls flagelle genes. They are less fit compared to e coli in real environment.
this is a loss of a already existing flagella gene, so how can this exspalin the origin of? your definition yes I agree origin of biological system no, new information no, increase complexity no.


to me if your atheist trying to exspalin life, than you have to explain everything no? did god create some things earth stars but not life on earth?

here is a article on what causes bacteria to become resistant
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm

every one can fall into one of these categories

here is article on super bugs
http://creation.com/superbugs-not-super-after-all

not one example falls into my definition exspaling the origin of

so true they fit "evolution" that we both agree apone your 100% right ive told you i agree with you


so that was all your great evidence that i ignored that i responded to that you ignored



Then go. Please. I will wear the fact that I was the first person to face down your tedious, stupid, unscientific and willfully moronic bollocks as a ing badge of honour. But I will not end this. You have attempted to lie about what The Theory of Evolution proposed at every opportunity and that is intellectually bankrupt. You run away if you ing can't take the heat! But I will point out you are creating a ing lie so long as you post here.

And how, for example, a 21 year old girl developing breast cancer an evil linked to "free will"?

you ignored my earlier post again

I agree god did not create a imperfect world, he created a original perfect creation with no death disease suffering etc.

god has to judge to be just. if he allowed us to do whatever we wanted kill each other etc. there would never be a heaven or paradise. it would really be no different than know kind of god hates sin and cant be around it so really all suffering death etc. is a consequence of being separated from god. according to the bible


but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.
Isiah 59.2

original sin created a separation from us and god.

god gave us free will to accept or deny him we chose to deny. he could have made us all perfect pray all day always do the right thing follow all his rules.
but thats not love god wants us to chose to follow him out of love which only comes with free will.

According to the bible sin caused separation from god he no longer is with us. All the once very good creation know is falling apart death disease etc have entered everything is wearing old. god is perfect and cannot be around sin. He has to judge sin because it is imperfect.
Everything bad that happens according to the bible ultimately is caused from separation form god. Does this mean if i go get drunk and crash my car god did it? not at all this is my will not his we have free will thats why we pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven, matt 6 .10 gods will is not done here ours is that is why when Jesus was around he spent time fighting disease death etc. the bible says death is the last enemy that will be defeated.
When people asked Jesus if the 13 people that were builders died because they sinned in Jerusalem he said no, sometimes bad things happen to good people the whole creation is under this


that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now.
Romans 8 21-22

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Matt chapter 6 9-10



this is why we say your will be done on earth as it is in heaven




Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
matt chapter 4 8-9

16 The highest heavens belong to the LORD,
but the earth he has given to man.
Proverbs 18 -17





it is no longer gods creation it was given to man, psalm 8.6 ,gen 1 26-28 jesus calls the devil the prince and ruler of this world.
John 18 36 jesus says I am not of this world
matt 4 8-9 god is not the ruler of this world.




Death is the last enemy to be destroyed
Corinthians 15.26
.

when god is in control
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
Revelations chapter 21 1-5


The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD
Isiah 11 6-9


The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.
Isiah 65.25


4 He will settle disputes among the nations
and provide arbitration for many peoples.
They will turn their swords into plows
and their spears into pruning knives.
Nations will not take up the sword against [other] nations,
and they will never again train for war.
Isaiah 2 1-4


This is a wrong question to ask in haven and when god restores the earth and he is in total control there will be no violence death etc so when god is in control yes no pain etc
you have missed again the whole free will part god created earth for us we are in control free will. God has to give free will love has to let us chose

[removeduser_487563287433]

ferrets im going to pretend you are defending my definition of evolution

And I intend to make that difficult for you. I am not defending your definition of evolution. I think your definition of evolution is a pathetic fantasy. Acknowledge what I have said.

[total relism]

And I intend to make that difficult for you. I am not defending your definition of evolution. I think your definition of evolution is a pathetic fantasy. Acknowledge what I have said.

than welcome to my world finally, im glad to have you on my side ferrets, can you believe those people who think all life came from a common ancestor? I wish i could send you a beer, well know what do we talk about?

if i may, it seems your objections to god are not based on science but theological? is this true? also were are you from homie? oh and your sig picture guy is creeping the crap out of me

[removeduser_487563287433]

Excuse me? How did you manage that? I very clearly explained what you understand to be evolution simply is not evolution. You do not know what evolution is.

[total relism]

Excuse me? How did you manage that? I very clearly explained what you understand to be evolution simply is not evolution. You do not know what evolution is.

what you have defined evolution as, than im a evolutionist i agree,im with you, not sure how else to say it. nothing to discuss, lets be friends etc

[removeduser_487563287433]

But you have just spent the past week and a bit saying you adamantly did not agree with my definition of evolution, and produced a legion of pseudo scientific nonsense against it.

[total relism]

But you have just spent the past week and a bit saying you adamantly did not agree with my definition of evolution, and produced a legion of pseudo scientific nonsense against it.

no sorry from my very first post i said this, after you defined evolution as

"This is not the case. Evolution is simply the process of change, over time, in the inherited traits found in populations of organisms, via a variety of mechanisms. These are primarily mutation, gene flow and genetic recombination."


this was my first response
"Well I agree with you here as well, no one in the world would disagree with this statement, creationist or evolutionist".


i than went on to define wikis [your source] definition Darwin definition public schools definition dawkins tankbusters definition etc

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors, that evolved into all the life we see today.
That this original organism [or few] gave rise to all the information in our dna to construct the proteins and biological systems transport systems,regulatory systems enzyme specificy etc.
This is a very different definition of evolution than the one you gave, this requires evolution [mutations] to explain the origin of things.
So will you agree that this is indeed what evolution needs to explain, the origin?
If you stick with your original definition, than we have nothing to discuss as I agree with you 100%. Will you adopt this new definition to defend?


and every post after i kept asking you to decide what you wanted to defend, you choice your first choice that i agree with. as i said. So there is nothing to "debate" i want to debate someone who will defend this statement

However what i mean by evolution, is that all life started from one or a few common ancestors

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't see the link between evolution implying all present life shares common ancestry and your imposition that this means evolution must therefore explain the origin of those ultimate ancestors.