The Instigator
Jlconservative
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Gear
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Evolution has been proven wrong in many different areas your tax money should not be paying for it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,081 times Debate No: 3188
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (9)

 

Jlconservative

Pro

Above says it all....the theory that our tax money pays for is a brilliant theory yes, however it has been proven wrong many times the far left simply has no fall back to counter religion and so they try and defend it.

I will let my opponent have the first true argument then I will provide facts.
Gear

Con

As a disclaimer, I am religious, Christian, in fact. However, evolution via Natural Selection has most assuredly occurred, and it would be foolish to say it hasn't. The extent of it is not certain, Darwin himself stated in Origin of Species that he was unsure on Man, but minor discrepancies within families of organisms. Look to micro organism and insect adoptions.

Specifically, Staphylococcus aureus, commonly known as Staph.

From the Medical Branch of the University of Texas at Galveston:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"Hospital strains of S aureus are often resistant to many different antibiotics. Indeed strains resistant to all clinically useful drugs, apart from the glycopeptides vancomycin and teicoplanin, have been described. The term MRSA refers to methicillin resistance and most methicillin-resistant strains are also multiply resistant. Plasmid-associated vancomycin resistance has been detected in some enterococci and the resistance determinant has been transferred from enterococci to S aureus in the laboratory and may occur naturally. S epidermidis nosocomial isolates are also often resistant to several antibiotics including methicillin. In addition, S aureus expresses resistance to antiseptics and disinfectants, such as quaternary ammonium compounds, which may aid its survival in the hospital environment.

Since the beginning of the antibiotic era S aureus has responded to the introduction of new drugs by rapidly acquiring resistance by a variety of genetic mechanisms including (1) acquisition of extrachromosomal plasmids or additional genetic information in the chromosome via transposons or other types of DNA insertion and (2) by mutations in chromosomal genes"

It is a form of natural selection when Staph acquires resistance to those numerous medicines. The drugs are as effective as ever, it's the organism that is evolving.

Moreover, we have seen frequent instances of rapid adapting in insects.

From PBS
http://www.pbs.org...

"It has the menacing sound of an Alfred Hitchcock movie: Millions of rats aren't even getting sick from pesticide doses that once killed them. In one county in England, these "super rats" have built up such resistance to certain toxins that they can consume five times as much poison as rats in other counties before dying. From insect larvae that keep munching on pesticide-laden cotton in the U.S. to head lice that won't wash out of children's hair, pests are slowly developing genetic shields that enable them to survive whatever poisons humans give them.

Rachel Carson predicted such resistance in her groundbreaking book Silent Spring, published soon after the chemical insecticide glory days of the 1950s. And the problem is getting worse. Farmers in the U.S. lost about seven percent of their crops to pests in the 1940s. Since the 1980s, some 13 percent of crops are being lost -- and more pesticides are being used.

It's a huge problem, but the pests are only following the rules of evolution: the best-adapted survive. Every time chemicals are sprayed on a lawn to kill weeds or ants for example, a few naturally resistant members of the targeted population survive and create a new generation of pests that are poison-resistant. That generation breeds another more-resistant generation; eventually, the pesticide may be rendered ineffective or even kill other wildlife or the very grass it was designed to protect."

Once again, demonstrating natural selection of creatures that have adapted and will continue to do so. At this point, you can not deny the existence of evolution, even at a micro-level.

As I have stated before, I am Christian, but it would be ignorant of me and indeed anyone to state that natural selection has not occurred. We see it in how illnesses are becoming resistant to medicines (Ask any doctor on drug resistance and you'll get a long list) or insect resistance, as the article has just shown. It has happened, and it will not stop. The question, then, is on what level?
Debate Round No. 1
Jlconservative

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Well lets begin,

Scientific Fact No. 1 Birds Prove Natural Selection is Wrong.

The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best example of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection sending the Theory of Evolution crashing.

The bird is said by evolutionists to grow hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.

Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take the fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs. They do not not exist because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural selection theory. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist.
Gear

Con

Of course.

You mess up big when you ignore the two examples of illness medical resistance and insect pesticide resistance. Staph is constantly changing and adapting to its environment and the chemicals that are being used to fight it. Indeed only a few complex drugs still work against Staph, and that won't last long. The same goes for insects, insects such as mosquitoes are constantly adapting to the pesticides used on them, they worked initially, but in places outside of the filled-to-the-brim with DDT USA, insects constantly adapt to pesticides. They have naturally selected favorable traits which grant resistance to pesticides, and thus, their generations will carry on that gene and along with it, protection against poisons. This is inevitable.

But let's get into your arguments:

[One of the best example of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment...]

You have a tremendous lack of knowledge on the theories that biologists have concluded as the development of the feather. You try and make the whole process sound asinine, appealing to feeling rather than logic, in this, you make your first mistake.

Wings did not develop in the fashion that you portray them to have. It was not a stub that eventually got a finger that along the way got feathers. Look to the times of dinosaurs. There are Avian Dinosaurs-Those with wings- And non-Avian Dinosaurs, obviously those without. Dinosaurs found with feathers have frequently been discovered, obviously in fossil form, and they are not all winged. The initial speculation for feathers came as a form of either quills, like porcupines, hedgehogs, etc. And as a means for homeothermy, maintaining a stable body temperature, which would offer many benefits to the creature. It has also been suggested that newly-hatched dinosaurs may have had feathers surrounding their bodies as a method of heat retention, given their being cold-blooded.

The natural selection of wings occurred in a simple enough manner. There were many feathered dinosaurs, and in the effort to catch winged prey, they eventually developed basic wings, and through time, mutations created stronger wings. Given that the aves-dinosaurs (dinosaurs in general) have powerful legs, while in flight it would be logical for them to use their legs. With a lesser emphasis on hand usage, and an increased emphasis on leg usage, eventually the arms will become weaker and more if not completely devoted to flight, and the legs will become much stronger. You also forget the pterodactyl, or the bat, both of which are animals that did not/does not use feathers to fly.

Even more so, you'll notice variation among closely related birds, in considering their beaks, and how they have also changed to fit their environments.

[We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing?...]

Once again you demonstrate a major lack of knowledge on even the basics of evolution/natural selection. If you had actually bothered to study upon your statements, rather than just spouting erroneous information, you wouldn't be making such egregiously wrong claims right now. I will not take your arguments at face value. You once again ridicule the idea of the development of breathing air, appealing to feeling over reason.

Lungs came about as external sacks off of the esophagus, anyway, as to allow organisms to take in more air were they to be in a situation where there was a lack of oxygen, or a lesser quality of it. Amphibians came about in this manner, when animals with an -albeit low- ability to breath on land mutated the propensity/capability for going on land.

[Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs...]

Where is the evidence that backs your claims? You don't provide any reason behind your arguments, merely unwarranted ranting. Again and again you resort to a rhetoric of irrational behavior, not of logic. Scientists will concede this, there are foggy places in evolution, this is true in all forms of science. In our enormous universe, scientists may have at most 1% of understanding of it, that information has not come to light on a subject does not deny it in any way, shape or form.

[Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie...]

Thanks a whole lot for citing your...Wait. You didn't cite a SINGLE source. So I took up your burden, and have done a lot of research on the matter, and not one site I visited mentioned anything even somewhat relative to what you're saying. This is crucial to your case.

---

Ultimately, you've done nothing except deviate from any actual thinking devoted to debate, and gone to a childish manner of ridicule. You are by no means qualified to speak on manners of evolution and natural selection, nor have you ever bothered to cite authors supporting your assertions. Both have I backed my claims, as in my first writing, with credible sources, as have I refuted your arguments. You have proven nothing, save for your far above-average ability to make outrageous claims.

Furthermore, consider within your very faith a curious bit. You no-doubt believe that a flood occurred and Noah took two of every animal onto the ark. If natural selection did not occur, why are there millions of species in existence? Oh! NATURAL SELECTION. Animals have selected favorable traits in the past, are selecting favorable traits in the present, and will select favorable traits in the future.

To deny natural selection is to deny that illnesses, such as influenza, have developed resistance to the main medications used against it.

To deny natural selection is to deny that insects, mainly mosquitoes, are not resistant to pesticides, namely DDT.

To deny natural selection is to deny that birds have different beaks, suited for their environment.

And to deny natural selection is to deny the most famous example of natural selection, and the cause for Darwin's Origin of Species-the Galapagos Tortoises don't have any differences.

Evolution, or at the very least Natural Selection, should most certainly be taught in school.
Debate Round No. 2
Jlconservative

Pro

Ok well I will apologize to you Gear my first argument was weak I simply dug up information and used it I was low on time.

Alright let me clarify this debate topic Mr. Gear

The THEORY of evolution has been proven wrong in many different areas

1. As the moon rotates around the earth it is slowly moving away about 3 inches every year. So by multiplying 3 inches by the 4.1 billion years required for the evolution theory to take place you get 1,230,000,000,000 inches(19,412,878 miles)
however at this time today the earth and the moon are only 250,000 miles apart your theory has a problem. According to the evolution time line the earth should cover that distance 77 times

2. I have had many debates (never on the internet) on this topic and no one has ever given me a rational answer to this question: How do we define right from wrong?

3. One of many questions left unanswered by evolution is how man's conscience could have developed. How could ideas of right and wrong (which seem to be firmly ingrained into every culture) have developed by evolutionary process? If we evolved, ideas of right and wrong must have also evolved with us. Therefore, a conscience, that is a knowledge of right and wrong, must have some intrinsic survival value. But does it?
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

In a struggle for survival, will the existence of a conscience help or hinder one's survival?

An evolving person without a conscience would be free to covet belongings, steal other possessions, and even kill another person without guilt. A man with a conscience is hesitating and soul searching. Where is the individual having the conscience? The conscience serves as a detriment to survival, not a mechanism which increases an individual's ability to survive. Unless the universe has been created by God who has established inherent values of right and wrong, it would seem there is no survival value to the development of a conscience.

If the conscience did not evolve, then it must have always existed. What could be the source of that which always existed and defines good from evil? The question itself defines the characteristic of God.

Almost all people of every culture seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong. There also seems to be universal guilt among humans and a desire to be free of this guilt. How could we be born with an innate sense of right and wrong? Maybe we feel guilty because we are…in reality…guilty.

One can ignore their conscience. If this happens repeatedly, their conscience will tend to atrophy the same way an unused muscle will atrophy. In Biblical language, to ignore one's conscience is to allow his heart to become hardened. There are many influential voices today who believe the solution to our social problems is to deny that there is an absolute standard for (or even existence of) right or wrong. Thus, a person with little or no conscience is as welcome as one with a highly developed conscience. In such a society right and wrong exist only by what is most expedient for those in power. Nazi Germany was such a society. A society which denies the reality of an external source of conscience often becomes a hell on earth.

Where does sacrificial love come into such a society? Why be sacrificial in a society which teaches any lifestyle is acceptable? The God of Christianity extols self sacrifice. This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce. The Bible is full of examples of loving sacrifices but nowhere can the concept of survival of the fittest be seen as a characteristic of God.

To summarize, according to the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest, a loving human with a conscience is at a great disadvantage and would be unlikely to have survived the evolutionary process. From a humanist viewpoint, attributes of the conscience (such as self sacrifice purely for the good of others) are weakness. Yet it is these very attributes which make us humans and not animals. No person has ever lived who has not violated his conscience in some way. Every person has fallen short of what God expects from us-obedience. So how do we make up for our disobedience to the One that put the standard in our soul? The Bible is very clear that we can never earn our way to heaven by trying to make up for our shortcomings. It is also clear that God has provided a means of forgiveness through the loving sacrifice of himself as payment for our sins.

4. Time = Amount / Rate
Amount = Measured - Initial - Contamination
Rate = Average Rate Over the Whole Time
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

It is hard to open a newspaper, book, or magazine without finding some implication to the earth being billions of years old. Given the overwhelming barrage of these statements, it is understandable why so many people have trouble considering the possibility that the earth might be only thousands of years old. Yet there is an intriguing possibility that the earth may be much younger than 'billions of years'.

Despite what people have been led to believe, there are no dating methods which give an absolute date for the formation of the earth. All dating methods are based on non-provable assumptions about some event in the past. Furthermore, there is a strong bias to reject any dating method which does not allow enough time for evolution to have happened. To understand the validity of any date, the reader must gain an understanding of how all dating methods work. The following illustration should help:

Suppose you were up at 6:00 a.m. and happened to see a friend who lives in a nearby town. You observe that he is walking along at 2 miles an hour and you know that he lives 16 miles away. You can easily use the formula at the top of the illustration to calculate that your friend left home 8 hours earlier. You have just performed a dating method of how long your friend has been on the road. However, something doesn't make sense. Why would your friend be up all night walking? Although you used the correct formula, your assumptions may not have been correct. Perhaps your friend stayed with someone in town and woke up just minutes before for a morning stroll. In this case, you have used the 'Wrong Initial Amount' in your calculation. Perhaps he took a shortcut which cut 12 miles of his walk. In this case there was 'CONTAMINATION' of the total amount. Perhaps since you last saw your friend, he has taken up marathon running and average 8 miles and hour (only having slowed down just before you saw him). In this case you have used the wrong 'Average Rate'. The point is, wrong assumptions lead to wrong answers.

In all dating methods the initial amount is an assumption, the estimate of contamination is an assumption, and the overall rate is an assumption. The only things which can be known for sure are the present amount and the present rate.

5. Homosexuality? how does that fit into the evolution plan?

I am in full agreement with your statements above I am not debating weather things can evolve or not of course they can the bible tells us that species of animals evolved. Gen 1:20 "and God said "Let THE WATERS bring forth swarms of living creatures"...... Gen 1:24 And let THE EARTH bring forth living creatures of every kind." You have misunderstood my argument and have taken a naive stand on the argument. Of course species evolve, however the EVOLUTION theory that my tax dollars go to support is a contradicting foolish one.

So far you have offered childish arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with this debate what so ever.
Gear

Con

Gear forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
Derek.Gunn you are spending way to much time apparently stalking my profile.

I have been using a good friend of mines account for a while since he never used it.

However when he moved he closed his e-mail account and his debate account so since I enjoyed it so much I started my own. me and "JLconservative" went to Church together.

So now that you know a good portion of my life on debate.org I hope it makes you feel a little better.

I have Uncle Sam which is patriotic and a cross of St. George which is a mention to my faith I am not sure why you could not put two and two together.

As far as the link goes. I was google searching the Kent Hovind thigh bone that I have read about and apparently you cannot type the mans name in the search engine without pulling up a smear campaign.

So now that I have explained myself to the authority of Derek.Gunn I am going to stop posting on an ancient debate comment page.

Also, if you would like anything else Derek let me know as it appears you are the "moderator" of the site and nothing gets past you.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
You are being very confusing JL.
Why did you close your Jlconservative account and open up your "TheConservative" account?
Now on this page, you refer to yourself in the third person.

You also appear to have youthed. You are no longer a professor, but instead a 19 year-old student?
Your photo on your Grand Canyon website suggests you are twice that age.

Your new icon shows another schism.
You have two versions of what appears to be Uncle Sam with the English cross of St George in the background.
Why?

Posting as TheConservative, you gave us this link:
http://www.kent-hovind.com...
to support your argument for humans once being much larger.
However the page linked to is actually debunking the claim about the thigh-bone.

I can only think ou are either being very sloppy in your agenda of deception, or are in need of psychiatic care.
Posted by sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
From your page:

"So in summary, Taylor made an oversized replica of a normal human femur to represent a bone whose only evidence of existence is a letter based upon rumor. Additionally, the proportions of the bone are wrong. Then along comes Kent Hovind who tries to pass off this fantasy as science and manages to turn a woman into a man in the process."

I did read it, and I did learn something. Someone made some stuff up. But let's entertain this thought of bigger people and bigger animals.

Genesis 6:13-16
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

So now we have an ark that's 450 feet long, 45 feet tall, and 75 feet wide. The Bible has set the constraints for the size of the ark. So you want to put bigger people and bigger animals in there to prove that they will fit?
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
It is absolutely not a hoax it seems to me that you have simply not clicked on the link. I think that if you did you may have actually learned something.
Posted by sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
That was a whole lot of crackers right there, but lets go with the fact that the link you put there says that the 13 foot tall human is a hoax. So, it seems we're back to square one.
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
(Continued)

So we have large humans, large animals, large plants (Oxygen)
Can you imagine the size of boat Noah being 15 feet tall could build chopping down a enormous tree? It would have been massive, more than enough to fit his family and the animals God intended on.

Besides, after the flood there is abundant proof in the bible than animals evolved which is why you have so many species of dogs, cats, bird we see today.
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
(CONTINUED)
So you have these super long living people with large eye brow ridges. "Ok so what dose any of this have to do with Noah's ark?" Well I will tell you, with our blanket of water covering the earths atmosphere it's not just people who are going to be living longer it's going to be everything, plants and animals also.

The changes that happened after the flood would include changes in the climate, composition of the atmosphere, hydro logic cycle, geologic features, cosmic radiation reaching the earth, ozone concentration, ultra violet light, background radiation, genetics, diet, and a host of other subtle and/or profound chemical and physiological changes. These changes caused a rapid decline of the longevity of post flood humanity.

Ok so we know by Genesis 6:4 that the bible tells us "Giants" walked the earth before the flood. "Giants? how is that possible?" well lets take a look at that water vapor covering the earth.

Due to the layer of water over the earth blocking the sun people did not just live longer they grew bigger also. And I don't just mean a little bigger

I mean enormous

http://www.kent-hovind.com...

Check out the link, this link shows a find of a thigh bone that would fit inside a 13 foot man! "Ok, so?" well also on this link are over 100 additional findings of large human bones and over 500 additional findings of large animals int he U.S. alone. That is difficult to comprehend how big these people where. Also what is amazing about it is that, scientists who study "large people" cannot find any dysfunction over there knees or joints meaning these people lived and breathed normal lived with out any complication of movement. wonders how an evolutionist can explain that one)
Posted by TheConservative 9 years ago
TheConservative
"Let's see...those are in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. Noah starts thereabouts of Genesis 6:1. Ergo, God created every animal in the beginning thus validating my question. Noah, at a minimum, had 2,017,930 animals on the ark. How is that even possible?"

I will explain this to you since JL is incapable apparently. Before "Noah's" flood people lived around the age of 500-700 years old. You might ask me "How is that possible?" I will tell you. The scriptures tell us that water fell in large masses from the sky, not the tiny drops of rain we see today but large sheets of water pouring from the sky. "How did that happen?" Well the bible is kind of like a connect the dots kind of game.

Let me explain; Since we have humans living to about 500 years old on average in the Old Testament there has to be something different about our climate and the climate these people lived in. And there is, before God struck down water on the earth. The earth was surrounded in water. A huge blanket of water covered the atmosphere until God decided that it was time to start over.

First, there used to be a water vapor canopy that encircled the earth, which God created on the second day (Genesis 1:6-8), making for an environment that was more uniformly tropical. The evidence supports the fact that the North and South poles were once tropical. After forty days this canopy was precipitated reducing the greenhouse house effect that would have supported a more stable environment.

This "blanket" of water shielding the sun would in turn make creatures live to an extraordinarily long age which is why "evolutionists" dig up skulls with a large eye brow ridge and call it an ape. No it's a really really old human, everyone knows that the only thing that keep growing your entire life are your eye brow ridges. Hence the fact that we dig up human fossils with giant foreheads ( They are about 500 years old give them a break)
Posted by sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
"He says right here he believes creatures evolve(d) it's in the bible."

Let's see...those are in Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. Noah starts thereabouts of Genesis 6:1. Ergo, God created every animal in the beginning thus validating my question. Noah, at a minimum, had 2,017,930 animals on the ark. How is that even possible?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pride_of_Scotland 9 years ago
Pride_of_Scotland
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by miraquesuave 9 years ago
miraquesuave
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by radical258 9 years ago
radical258
JlconservativeGearTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03