Creation vs. Evolutionism
Now to the facts. I wish to start astronomically. First of the shape of the galaxy. Our galaxy is speculated to be a spiral. We have also seen many other spiral galaxies. Now according to observations that all sides agree with, gravity is weakening throughout the universe (side fact; "uni" means one; "verse" is a spoken sentence; we live in a single spoken sentence). When a spiral galaxy looses gravity (which takes less than 20,000 years according to current observations) it becomes an elliptical galaxy, then that to an irregular galaxy. Question. If the universe is billions of years old, why do we have spiral galaxies? Mmmm, could be that the universe isn't millions of years old. (Moment of silence in shock)
According to the Big Bang Theory this is how the universe was created. In the beginning (sound familiar) there was nothing. Then all of the matter in the universe compacted together and became so dense and turned so fast that it exploded. Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. It says that nothing exploded? That contradicts science's most sacred law the Law of the Conservation of Matter. Now if Evolutionism is based on scientific "fact," then why in the first sentence does it contradict a proven law?
Now if it exploded then everything that came from it should turn the same way that the single mass was turning. Question. Why are there moons, planets, stars, and galaxies spinning backwards?
I believe this is substantial evidence to get you thinking. I await eagerly for you reply so I may then add much...much more. It is your stage.
The oldest rocks found according to radiometric dating are at least 4.28 billion years old, and have been found on an island near Quebec.
The most distant starlight found from Earth is from 13.1 billion years old, and is from the z8_GND_5296 galaxy. It also has the most redshift of any galaxy found, 7.51, which beats the closest competitor by 0.30.
There are many more points, but I’ll save them for later.
Evidence for Evolution
The fossil record clearly shows evolution of species as well as the passing of time. The layers of rock, as well as the fossils found in them, offers clear evidence as to the evolution of species.
The existence of dinosaurs is pretty undeniable, given the overwhelming evidence for them. Transitional dinosaur-bird and dinosaur-mammal fossils have been found, which indicates that the Cainozoic is a direct continuation of the Mesozoic period. These species have been found in layers of rock above dinosaurs, indicating that species that came after dinosaurs were transitional species between the familiar species of today and the species of the previous period.
Human-Ape Transitional Species
Many different transitional species from Apes to humans have been found, and these point to a common lineage.
In fact, upon examining these skulls, creationists are in disagreement as to which ones belong to humans and which ones belong to apes.
I’ve provided three pieces of evidence for an old earth and three for evolution, and I await your evaluation.
jrrjacques forfeited this round.
religion n. An objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.----The American Heritage Dictionary: Second College Edition 1985
religion n. A belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion.----The Concise American Heritage Dictionary 1987The definition of religion does not only include monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs (Example Buddhism, Humanism (Because the basic belief is that man is god and man decides what is right), and Atheism (Atheism because you have to believe that there is no god or a beginning in some cases and pursue it with zeal and devotion)). (EV) is pursued by a group of scientists who believe it with all of there being and refuse to believe that anything can disprove it. Now why don"t you admit that (EV) is a religion. I admit Christianity is a religion. Now, when we both agree that we both are part of a religion; I now ask, why does your religion get federal money to be preached in schools?
I am at fault for I did not clarify myself, do to time constraints. Allow me to rephrase the sentence about (ES), "An (ES) will not in God because if God were real to them (which some do know) then there be eternal consequences for their scoffing of him (if they do not repent and see that God does exist), and their actions and/or beliefs are usually sinful, immoral, and/or out of ignorance. Now I am afraid you are the one "making quite a sweeping generalisation." By the way what are the kind of people that make these countries less culturally thriving? It is people who have been indoctrinated with (EV). (EV) says they came from animals, that there is no point to living for it will all be gone, and that if you something wrong the worst that can happen is that you get put in jail or killed (which is just as good because when you die you blink out of existence). Evolution encourages "If it feels good, do it because there is no one with any real power to stop you." It is from (EV) that Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Socialism have been based on. Hitler was an advent believer in (EV). The two kids that did the Columbine shooting were strong believers in (EV), and did the shooting on Hitler"s birthday on purpose. They shot Isaiah Shultz because he was an African American. (EV) encourages that there is a superior race of human (just look to see how far Hitler took that). Take you for example, you believe in murdering unborn innocent children, but you don"t believe in executing criminals for murdering people out of enjoyment, or executing criminals who have killed whole families just to prove a point. That is a hypocrite belief. Here is something I bet you didn"t know. Did you know Mexico is one of the biggest drug markets in the world? When Christian missionaries entered Mexico they began converting people by the hundreds. In about 10 years the drug market dropped by nearly half. People in Mexico were not buying drugs like they use to. The drug lords found out it was because of the Christian missionaries. For the past two years those drug lords have been slaughtering those families; men, women, and 8 month old babies. The USA was founded by Christian believers. Now USA has moved far away from Christianity and look at the result, the government is in chaos and the people are going wild because they believe they came from senseless animals. Nigeria and Iran are Muslim countries. It says in the Muslim bible that they must kill nonbelievers that won"t convert in order to get to their heaven. How can you compare Christianity to that. It is (EV) that is ruining my country not Christianity. Now I never said that there are no moral atheists (but first we have to define morality and that is a completely different debate that I will not address nor you), in fact I have met quite a few good character atheists. I am fine with atheists, it is (EV) I am picking a bone with. I never said anything about Cologne and Stockholm being Sodom and Gomorrah, where did you even get that idea? (About Japan, did you know they have the world"s highest teen suicide rate of any two countries combined? Some thriving democracy.) (EV) came into the public view in 1957. Do you know what happened in that year? One word Sputnik. Before it launched Creation was being taught in text books and (ES) did not like. So they started screaming at the U. S. public and government (who were at the time frantic over the Communists beating the Capitalists into space), "The reason why they [Communists] beat us [Capitalists] up there is because they are teaching Evolution in their schools and we are not!" What does (EV) have to do with making a rocket that can go into space? The government in its chaotic state listened to the call. Within they next ten years of (EV) entering public schools teen pregnancies, crime, teen suicide, and adultery skyrocketed like the Apollo missions.
To briefly start with is Dr. Hovind. Now if Dr. Hovind is so dumb and fallacious, why did he win all of his debates with (ES) (which numbers above 40 total with no losses). If all he said could be proven incorrect, why didn"t his opponents say so. Why did they begin to refuse to debate with him in person? Was it because they could never win? As for the Density Wave Theory, where do all of these stars come from? Other galaxies? Are galaxies swapping stars in underhand deals? It"s a long way to another galaxy. Or is it that there are rogue stars between galaxies being attracted to galaxies? Or is it something like the Ort Cloud, something that no one has ever seen or can possibly exist but it is an (ES) only explanation for something they have no answer to. And if so, how did we see it? Also this still doesn"t answer the question of gravity weakening. Since gravity is weakening how does adding more stars help with keeping the central gravity of a galaxy constant?
Forgive me thinking you are a traditional (ES) that believed that the Big Bang Theory created everything. Instead you are of the other kind that has no explanation for the making of the universe and believe that the Big Bang is part of a long cycle. Again you have assumed something that is irrelevant. You wrote ""the universe is still expanding, though I assume you disagree with that." I happen to support that the universe is expanding, for it says three times in the King James V Bible that "God stretched out the heavens." I agree with you that space is a vacuum and not matter. The traditional (ES) Big Bang Theory does contradict the law I mentioned.
Allow me to demonstrate why planets and galaxies should all rotate and revolve the same way if The Big Bang Theory were true. You take some kids in fourth grade to a merry-go-round. You place them on it and then bring out the high school football (or handball I believe it"s called in England) team to spin the merry-go-round. We start off in Phase 1; the players begin to spin it clockwise and the kids are yelling, "Go faster, faster!" As they approach 30 miles an hour (sorry I don"t know how to convert that into metric) the kids enter Phase 2; they become quiet and silently concentrate on holding on for dear life. Their speed is now about 60 mph as the players spin them faster and the kids enter Phase 3; they begin to yell again, but this time it is, "Slow down!. Please slow down!" Then comes Phase 4, the last one. They have now reached about 100 mph, and the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round, and continue flying until they encounter resistance (like a street lamp or a tree). You will notice that as they fly off the contraption that is rotating clockwise that they themselves are also rotating clockwise. This is called the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In a frictionless environment (which is what the Big Bang was in) the pieces of the original object must rotate and revolve the same direction as the swirling dot of which it came. So this means that "the direction they are rotating in is irrelevant" is an irrelevant statement in itself for it denies a proven physics law.
Radiometric dating, I suppose you know, is the measurement of the half life of Carbon-14. Now before (ES) be date the bones, they first look to see what the bones belonged to, and where it appears on the Geologic Column. They then make some faulty assumptions. 1. They assume that they animal was breathing the exact air we are breathing today. (dinosaurs lived in a very different atmosphere before the Creation flood) 2. They assume the decay has been constant (in order for this to be true, they need to know how much was in it when it died). When trying to date something this way it is like this analogy. You walk into room and see a candle burning. I ask you when was it lit? You take some measurements on its height and find it is 10 centimeters tall. I ask you again, when was it lit? You still don"t know and you take more measurements. You find that it is burning 1 centimeter an hour. I ask again, when was the candle lit? In order to know you need to make the assumptions on how tall it was before it was lit, and has the rate of burning been constant. You don"t know so you guess. Here are a few examples on its unreliability in chronological order.
1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000.
1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old.
1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, "If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradictant, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn"t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again."
1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old.
1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old.
1985-11 human skeletons that were suppose to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less.
This is all I could fit there is much mor
henryajevans forfeited this round.
jrrjacques forfeited this round.
henryajevans forfeited this round.
jrrjacques forfeited this round.
henryajevans forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|