The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
142 Points

Really what is the truth about the earth and how we got here?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 10/6/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,169 times Debate No: 5664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (122)
Votes (27)

 

GodSands

Pro

20 billion years ago. Nothingness. Then suddenly some unknown atom massed outwards into space, if only we could get our hands on this "atom", as there was space for this explosion to expand into there had to be time and existing matter there before. According to science outside the universe, it's a void where nothing can exist. So how did anything come together to begin with? So far I would say im being logical. Then the next part is chemical evolution, how and where did all these chemicals get here. Even though iron can't compose anything other than mixed elements other than the ones below it on the reactor chart. like gold silver copper. So as iron is the most reactorable metal how did all these chemicals other that Hydrogin and carbon doxide, iron can not react with anything else other than those two so where did all these other gasses and elements get here? This ruins the theory of the Big Bang, thats all what is here now couldnt have come from such a bang which contanded so little variation of elements. We wouldnt be here if there was only hydrogin and carbon. This leaves us with only one other solution, God made everything in 6 days about 10,000 years ago. Proof of this is overwelming. The moon tells us alot about the age of the universe. Over years cosmic powder lands on the moon, in 1969 when the mission to the moon was going to take place Nasa thought that the moon would have gathered 50ft worth of the cosmic powder and s accurate calulations refuring the earth is 4.5 billions years old, readed that there would be at-least 34ft worth of cosmic powder. Preparing for this the landing space shuttle was equipted with large sourses on each on it four legs to ease the landing as safe as possibale, like walking on think snow you wear tenis racets. Once on the moon the space crew found out thatthere was only a eighth to a ich of cosmic powder actually on the surface, thats 8 thousands years worth not 4.5 billions years worth.

My next point is petrofied fossils and trees, this is where fossils or tree go beyond the limit of what evolution will allow. Like for example a bug would fossilise within 50 years. Actually thing like that has actually fossilied, like a cowboys foot in a boot and a cowboys hat. These both have formed much much quicker than how evolutionsists clame. Now on to petrafied trees, in the evolutional collum of layers repersenting the different ages you get tree trunks which have been found right through these rock layers. petrafied trees have been found thousands of times across the glope, poking out of the ground. This intercates Noahs flood that all the rock and elements where washed about juring the flood. Otherwise there would be no petrafied trees but only crushed matter, remaining within its stable orderd layers. This also intercates that the earth is 10,000 year old. It logical not "bad science" but prober science.

Now onto evolutional means on why its a religon just as much as christian. A religon doesn't need a god, it needs to be accepted in a large social group, and if it was worldy known would help too. Evolution is a religon because no one has witness anything evolving into anothing kind of creature, therefore you need faith to believe it happened and happening. I used to believe in evolution, i soon came to relise how wrong i was because the teacher seemed to be clever and more brighter than me. So at that time what goes, went. Now i stopped building faith on evolution with no god but started to build faith in a religon with a God which love you.

There are big big gaps in evolution like when did none living matter turn sides to living matter, and where, and how can we know when life all started, theres no fossils of cells or where is the creature which is inbetween the cell and the fully evoled creature. E.g. you get monkeys and they all climb. Where has there been a fossil where you find a monkey/other animal becomming a fully evoled monkey. Ans even so you do not know if the fossil had offspring to continue its rain of "better" DNA. This is one reason why evolution can not work. When you take in glocoses or enzymes by eating, the glocoses and enzymes can be changed into protien or used up as energy depending on if you worked your muscles enough to create space for protein. In nature this happens alot as animals are costantly on the move, aspecaily mamales. So when protein is made DNA gets copyed into RNA which can enter out side the cell to turn glocoses and enzymes into protein, but RNA only has 20 minutes to do this, no more, otherwise the glocoses and the emzymes will be used as energy. 20 minutes isn't 200 million years, thats why evolution can not happen (this won't appear in science text books).

Lots of sciencesists get mixed up with macro and miroc evolution. Macro is where a creature over time changes into another kind of creature e.g. dog into bird. Micro evolution is where a kind remains in its kind but produces different types of its own kind. And that is ever lastering. so macro evolution has no place to fit in. Its exists is unable to make its place. Theres 260 types of dog, different sizes, shapes, colours but still all dogs, same with cats, birds, fish, whales, snakes, lizards, cattle, horse, rodent...etc.

I think the reason why evolution is still around is because there hasn't been another option or solution to solve why we are here. And God is the only reasonable one, and understandable one, we do not like this though because it puts us in a lower persition rightly to be jugded and told what we can or can't do, evolution is not an exsuse to use, but it helps us not feel bad and guilty if we get drunk or do bad and reasonably wrong things, like stealing sex before marrage, which brings dieases and poverty into the world.

Im going to wape up here give you a chance to question me. Look forward to this debate. Ta!
beem0r

Con

I am honored to be the one to show my dear opponent the complete and utter falseness of his position. Evidence is quite unilateral on this issue of creationism vs. real science. I am sorry to say that Kent Hovind was not telling you the truth.

My opponent first claims that the Big Bang theory says that there was nothingness 20 billion years ago. False. It only says that the stuff of the universe [matter/energy] was contained in a singularity. This is the 'unknown atom' my opponent speaks of, which is not an atom at all. Atoms did not begin forming until minutes after the Big Bang occurred. So you see, the Bag Bang does not say that there was ever 'nothing.' We don't even have any scientific theories about what was before the Big Bang, if anything - though there are various hypotheses. the problem here is that we cannot extrapolate things back that far, since we do not understand physics in a singularity.

After the arguments about this supposed 'nothingness' turning unto something, my opponent goes on about 'chemical evolution.' It is difficult to even understand what he is trying to claim. My opponent seems to be implying that since certain elements do not have reactions with one another, they cannot have been formed via the Big Bang theory. First off, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the creation of elements. At the time of the Big Bang, there were no elements. Elements began forming minutes after the Big Bang. The first few elements came into existence when the universe cooled to below a certain temperature, which allowed protons and neutrons to form the nucleuses of atoms. Other elements were mostly made by way of nuclear fusion - the combining of two atoms' nucleuses to form a different atom.

Next, my opponent claims that this leaves us with one solution - that God created everything in six days 10,000 years ago. This is clearly a fallacious claim - even if the Big Bang theory were proven false, this would not mean that Creationism must be true.

My opponent's first 'evidence' for Creationism is the famous moon dust argument. Even answersingenesis.org, a creationist website, claims that this is not a valid argument. However, I will explain why my opponent is wrong. This argument uses faulty calculations of a man named Hans Pettersson - calculations that place the influx of moon dust in the order of tens of millions of tons per year. However, it was found many years ago that the actual influx of moon dust is roughly 20-40,000 tons per year, significantly less. Even so, this does not account for the layer of powder being less than an inch thick, does it? Here is a quote on just that from talkorigins.org:
"However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands."
- http://www.talkorigins.org...

Next, my opponent contends that petrification of various stuff 'goes beyond what evolution will allow.' First off, evolution has NOTHING to do with the process of petrification, nor does it make any claims on that subject. Further, claims of things becoming 'petrified' within only a short amount of time are false. Something is 'petrified' only if none of the original substance remains - it has ALL been replaced by a stone-like substance. In all accounts of petrification taking only a short amount of time rather than millions of years, much of the original substance still remains.

Next, trees with intacts parts that remain upright through multiple geolgical layers. In most cases, it is obvious from the roots of the trees that while the tree was alive, it rooted itself in a lower geological level, probaly composed of soft clay at the time rather than hard minerals. After that, all you need is for a layers to build up around the tree. John William Dawson, a geologist of the 1800's and a devout Christian, more or less gave this explanation, which still stands as feasable [unlike the global flood, which contradicts many scientific facts].

Re: Evolution as a religion. No. It is a scientific theory, which has been tested numerous times. We have even created new species via evolution many times - one must only search 'instances of speciation' in google to find numerous examples.

Next, my opponent notes that evolution does not explain how life came into existence. For once, this is completely true, since it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is how less complex life turns into more complex life. _Abiogenesis_ is how life came about. Largely, we do not know how life came about; though there are many hypotheses the seem to work, they have not been tested well enough to be considered theories.

Then my opponent makes some really odd argument about DNA synthesis or something taking 20 minutes instead of 200 million years. I don't know what this point is attacking, so I'd like to ask for clarification on this point next round.

My opponent talks about Macro and Micro evolution, and how one 'kind' of creature cannot change into another 'kind.' A 'kind' is a completely arbitrary thing, like state lines. Just as a person can take a large number of small steps to get to California from New York, many instances of 'micro'evolution can lead to 'macro'evolution. These are not even real scientific terms.

My opponent says that most people only believe in evolution because they don't want to believe in God. Unfortunately for him, most people who believe in evolution DO believe in God, it is not some atheistic consipracy. People believe in evolution because it is the only theory for the complexity of life that has stood up to criticism. While only 40% or less of scientists believe in a God, the fact that 95+% of scientists accept evolution clearly shows us that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

However, young earth creationism is inconsistent with science.
We can see light coming from sources billions of light years away. This means we are seeing the object as it was billions of years ago. We would only be able to see things 10,000 light years away if the universe was 10,000 years old.
Various radiometric dating techniques have shown that Earth itself is much older than 10,000 years old.
We have climate information from the past 800,000 years from ice cores.
Continental drift rates indicate an earth much older than 10,000 years old.
Science seems to all work in an old-earth, old-universe model. However, the claim that the universe was created in 6 days less than 10,000 years ago creates a great number of discrepancies. There is a reason the scientific community comes to overwhelming consensus on this issue - it is because there is overwhelming evidence.

Back to my opponent for now.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

Firstly im going to say dont be lowered in by my opponents slick and great use of combinational way of ordering his words like evolutionists he used well written sentences to make it sound scincetific, but creationists use real science is observed not predicted and pretty much regional terms claiming to be science. I use logical references here too, eg there is a creation therefore there's a creator.

So round 2. I cant see how everything was shrunken down into a container which was a trillionth of a mm, all ready to be set free. And yes nothingness does come into it big time here, the space where this micro dot exploded into. Where did this kinetic energy evolve from to make the blasted or was this dot here forever like you argue against God, how God couldnt have been around forever but you claimed there was a dot containing everything to build up what is now in the middle of emptiness just floating there forever reasonably scincetific. Thats real bad science there fellow views.

You claimed that the universe cooled down to a certain temperature before protons and neutrons well where the heat developed from. Logically I would have thought that the protons and neutrons made friction to create heat, by rubbing together. So where did the head develop from? To form nucleuses of atoms, well the nucleuses controls the atom cell alike. Like cells with out the nucleuses the atom wouldnt have formed.

Nuclear can't react past iron, as you may have learnt at school Gold, sliver, bronze don't react much at all, when some other elements like potassium does, it burns in water. So again where did all the elements come from under iron?

"Even if the Big Bang theory were proven false, this would not mean that Creationism must be true." You dont explain yourself there, why Creationism still wouldn't be proven. You just say no there might still be another idea; I would like to hear a brief conclusion of another idea apart from God and the Big Bang.

About the moon dust. The 20-40,000 tons per year times 4.5 billion years I think logically again yes it would be much much more than a inch in thickness. Just by using a rough calculation in my head, so i used a actually calculator. Say 33,000 divided by 355 days = 92 tons times by 4.5 billion = 3.685x10 to the power of 11 so 36.85 to the power of 11. That's 11,000 zeros after the 36.85. Doesn't match the moons deputation as the moon weighs 7509, 3494 tones. 8,000 years worth people not 4.5 billions years worth. This is more of a argument its very valid and it derives to be too.
So that's mathematic a scincetific proof.

Yeah evolution takes time doesnt it? So if these petrified trees dont say anything guess what they wouldnt be preserved in layers of rock. And there has never been geological formed layers ever found, you know the one in the school text books with each creature placed in where they seem suited never has one of these layers actually been found.

I also like how you quote petrified, like you dont know what it is. Ill explain, its where trees stand through layers of hard not soft clay. But hard rock. Another thing is that layer didnt build around a tree, thats what the layer is made from crushed trees and minerals. So why would that one tree stand out, no you got it wrong petrified trees proved that the earth is much younger that most scientists think because layer, according to evolution, build up over millions of years not thousand like my proof shows. This also shows that if the layer were proven to be younger by petrified trees through the layers, it wouldn't give time for creatures to evolve.

John William Dawson who attended the University of Edinburgh, wasnt a devoted Christian, he actually rebuked the Bible and came up of the idea that the earth was millions and millions of years old, he was born in Canada in 1820 and once heard about evolution he then like many people disposed of God and thought the evolutional way made more sense. John William Dawson came up with the geological structure of layers, before dying in 1899. But now its starting to wear on as carbon 14 dating is beginning to get dated. Now scientists use the rock layer to get the fossils age and there get the layers age but the fossils age. Go into a museum and ask how old is this fossil and the professor says 51 million years old, then you more on to a really old rock and you ask how old is this rock the professor says 51 millions years old. And then ask him how you date the rock he will say by where the fossils where found and ask him the same about the fossil he will say we date this where there was found, in the layers of rock. But wait that circular reasoning which doesnt have a conclusion and is stuck on the actually answer. I also said that you don't know if the fossil when it was alive gave birth, you seemed to ignore that. As you wouldn't know what it might have evolved into. Evolution is random after all.

Richard Dawkins said to be the worlds brightest professor in this decade. In his resent channel 4 documentary "The Genius of Charles Darwin" He told the audience that evolution has no end to it, its a unstoppable force almost. New scincetific evidence says that the human race has stopped evolving. And that the wanted god like humans has faded because we have less environmentally things to face as a whole, like central heating etc. So does this mean people in poorer countries like Africa and India will continue to evolve? I see this whole evolutional aspect like one big predigest and discriminatingly process. And in a few million year these poorer people will no longer be people as they have evolved differently, therefore racism will kick off, bigger than the black and while historic backgrounds. So firstly Richard Dawkins is either wrong or evolution is contradictory. Dont you just love Richard Dawkins though?

About that taking small steps to New York from California. That you can't do that with out moving. Well as you walk you cover ground MISSING ground like the missing link. And if you cover all the ground like say you travelled by tank, you would remain the same. Like the same kind of creature. As i said there is an unlimited amounts of same kinds eg dear, cat, and dog which can be produce. Think about that for a minute.

The DNA part is slightly hard to put in words. So I do apologise. What happens is when you eat, say tuna, it will be turned into protein. Even if it says protein on the label say 25g worth it means it will be broken down and sorted into protein. Through are amazing factory of a body. So you eat and when the food (glucoses and enzymes) is adsorbed into the blood stream and delivered to all the muscles, by the muscular cells, DNA inside the nucleolus of the cell copies its self into RNA which is allowed to exit the cell once the food has entered the blood stream, RNA uses the information from the DNA to turn the food into protein. The catch here is that RNA has only 20 minutes unless the food will be used up by the movement of the muscles, so RNA will have no use and dismisses it's self by finding there is no food containing the processes needed to make protein because not all food have protein in them. In those 20 minutes there are no changes to your body unless you have protein in you so there you will gain muscle slightly, that's why exercise helps. Making room for protein. Anyway these 20 minutes your body will allow, but not 200 millions years. Plus you couldnt live that long. But this means your DNA will be parsley passed on to your children so if you are built, then if you have a boy he has a better chance than someone's father who wasn't built much in musclar terms not evolutionary terms. And as females haven't got testosterone, which enables people to build muscles. That why we are protein based beings. Which can't change only by a low or a high level of protein, but we are still human. This goes to every protein based creature. We are not machines where we can transform
beem0r

Con

First, my opponent "Can't see how everything was shrunken down into a container that was a trillionth of a mm." First, this is inaccurate - it's not as though we know that things were expanded [like they are now] and then got 'shrunken' down into a singularity. WE simply don't know what happened before the big bang.

Next, my opponent says that I am not allowed to argue that matter/energy has been around forever, since that's impossible in the same way some people argue against God. Fortunately, this is not an argument I have used against God, nor am I even arguing against God in this debate. It is possible that a God was the cause of the Big Bang. In this debate, I don't care what the cause of it was - I am simply arguing for the scientifically accepted viewpoint of how the universe arrived where it is today - the Big Bang and Evolution, among other things.
Further, I never said the singularity was there forever. I said we simply don't know, which is the truth.

My opponent asks where heat developed from. Perhaps it is from the extremely massive amount of energy confined in an extremely small space. Heat comes from energy, and there was plenty of it.

Next, my opponent claims that only elements up to Iron can be formed by fusion. This is not true. It does however seem to e true that only the elements up to Iron can be formed inside a star. However, when stars supernova, heavier elements are created through fusion. These elements then eventually form new planets and stars.

Wow. My opponent is literally claiming that if the Big Bang is false, creation in 6 days 10,000 years ago by God must be true. No, the explanation we would go for if the Big Bang was disproven is "We don't know." That is at least until another theory that was well-supported came along. For instance, let us assume neither of us know anything about math. I claim that 2+2 is 10, you claim it is 5. Just because I am proven wrong does not mean you are right - indeed, in this case, no one had the right answer.

Regarding the moon dust, I already explained this.
First, you have errors in your math. 3.685 * 10^11 is NOT the same as 36.85^11. Nor is even THAT equivalent to 36.85 with 11,000 zeros after it. No, the actual answer would have been 368500000000 tons. Whether this is an accurate number or not, it is true that there should be more than an inch of moon dust. HOWEVER, like I said last round, most of this dust is NOT in the lunar soil - which is the powdery layer at the top. Most of it is compacted below this layer. The regolith, this layer that holds most of the dust in a compacted form, varies from about five meters to 10 meters. Not only is your argument not mathematically valid, it assumes a false premise - that the moon dust is ALL in the top layer of lunar soil. Indeed, only a small portion of it is in lunar soil, which is the only layer where something would act like dust.

Next, my opponent goes on about these petrified trees. I understand that TODAY they stand through different layers of hard minerals, but when these trees were alive, it is likely that the layer below them was still soft clay. After the tree sank its roots in, and probably after the tree died, the layer below it hardened. I am not saying that these layers are STILL soft clay, I am saying that, when the tree rooted itself in these layers, they were soft clay.

John William Dawson was a devoted Christian.
http://www.biographi.ca...
His biography seems to indicate that he was:
"A devout Christian, William Dawson felt it...."
"His deep faith had been inherited from his father, an elder of the Presbyterian Church, whose theology was strongly evangelical."
etc.

Simply because he accepts scientific explanations that are arrived at through the great scientific method does not mean he is not a devoted Christian. Being a devoted Christian does not mean treating the bible as a science textbook. We learn new science through the scientific method, not through some books somewhere that say to believe something. That is not science. Keep in mind that even the majority of scientists who are Christian accept evolution, the big bang theory, etc. This is because they are the predominant scientifically valid theories, and they each have quite a bit of scientific backing.

Scientists do not use circular reasoning to date things. They use radioactive dating methods AS WELL AS dating things in the same layer [for things that cannot be dated radioactively]. The notion that scientists date layers by their fossils and date fossils by their layers is another of Kent Hovind and friends' many blatant lies.

Next, my opponent points out that we don't know if a fossilized creature gave birth before it died. This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if that specific creature gave birth or not. That is not a piece of information we base evolution off of. We only use the fossil record to get a general idea of the history of life. And what does that history look like? It looks like a bunch of very small changes that end up adding up to dramatic changes.

My opponent says that "New scincetific evidence says that the human race has stopped evolving." First, that would be an impossible thing to find out if evolution was not real. Second, there is no such evidence - hence why my opponent did not give a source. We are still evolving and will always be evolving. Unless we A> Eliminate random mutations, or B> Eliminate an type of selection process, evolution will continue. It is still true that more successful people can and do have more kids than less successful people [on average]. Evolution continues.

My opponent also argues that since evolution may make poor people and rich people evolve differently, which it would if there is no intermarriage, that this makes evolution lead to racism and therefore to being incorrect. Unfortunately, the truth of evolution has nothing to do with whether it will lead to racism or not.

My opponent also says that Richard Dawkins is either wrong or evolution is contradictory, although my opponent never disproved anything Dawkins said. Also, while he is very bright, Richard Dawkins is still wrong sometimes, though he was not wrong on anything my opponent brought up.

Next, my opponent argues against the small steps from NY to CA analogy for evolution. Here, he brought up the notion of 'missing links,' by which I assume he means blank spots in the fossil record. This makes sense, considering how rare it is for something to be fossilized. Chances are, I will not ever be a fossil. Fossilization requires very rare environmental conditions. This is why for entire species, we only have a handful of fossils, and for others, we might have none at all.
Next, my opponent simply asserts that even if you went from NY to CA, you would still be the same kind of creature. Unfortunately, in my analogy, state lines represent 'kinds' of creatures [just like 'kinds,' state borders are arbitrary], where 'steps' are the small changes. What my opponent would have had to do here is show that there is actually some barrier that would stop these small changes from eventually setting a creature apart as a whole new 'kind.' He brought up no such barrier.

Next and last, the DNA argument. My opponent seems to literally be under the impression that evolution says a person's DNA will change throughout their life [based on what they eat]. Totally false. Evolution acknowledges that a person's DNA does not change. Changes are made through the very observable processes of random mutation and natural selection. They are changes made at the beginning of a new generation - they are not changes to the DNA of people who are already alive. My DNA will never change. However, if my genes are good, I am more likely to have kids and therefore pass on my good genes. Therefore, the best genes continue onward [new genes are introduced through random mutation].
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

I can understand where you coming from, as once I use to believe in evolution. Firstly before I start my 3rd round of points, let's remind our self of what the word science means, it means knowledge or knowing, scientists use observable physical evidence to collect data. Evolution isn't observable physical evidence, once you understand that you will realise what you see is, and real science is not wild speculation, some myth like story. You have heard the fairy tale when the princess kisses a toad into a prince; add time and that becomes reality. If I called you a maggot like creature you would be insulted, but if i called you a maggot from that species 200 million years ago you would accept that as science. When you clearly know science needs to be observable and evolution is not. So it makes evolution a belief. And the fossilized trees did not sink into soft clay because according to you each layer represents millions of years so how clay can be soft over millions of years. In a way you're helping me out here and im helping you out here too. Yeah your right these trees did sink into the soft ground because Noah's ark made all the ground soft.

True Christians take God not as fact but as an act of faith. Say you were walking down some dark ally way one your own, you need faith to think you wouldn't get attracted, same with God you need that God created the universe not construct the foundations and let it build it self, get where im coming from? Alone with prove that man walked with dinosaurs (which i will bring up later) we refer back to the Bible, and see what the Bible tells us, so far its matched its description.

You got to think how a god would use the powers he processes. Would this god make the big bang with all the construction needed and letting there be no meaning in till billions of years have passed or as this is a god show that he is powerful by creating the universe in 6 days and make the meaning of the universe to happed instantly or even worse there to be no god and let the human race be no more significant than a ant, as both die, letting the ant has win as it knew the universe is meaningless, as from a human perspective it knows its pointless just as much as a human, so it would think what's the point if it could. So if you believe there is no God my atheist friends go trash you home and rob your friends, go on a mass murder, because in the end you are no more or no less than the one who follows the law and believes in a god. The human race is no more than a little glitch in nature, this occurs to all nature as all will pass, even the stars and the planets will rot and pathetically wither away like it didn't ever happen leaving nothing but the emptiness of space and unusable matter and all your memories which are so valid are worth nothing to no one as there is no god and everything will wither away like nothing changed. I know you aren't a true atheist as you would do and believe that.

I get the point on 2+2=10 and 2+2=5 yeah completely understand, i use that on religion, as im a Christian i claim mine to be the true one, so the sum is 20+20 Christians get 40 Islam get 46 Jews 43 and Hindu get 38. Atheists get 0 as they don't believe in this sum.

So How much of this moon have of this dust. With out the cosmic power, seems like a lot of this lunar soil isn't actually dust but soil, im talking about cosmic space dust/powder not soil and 50ft of it would have landed if 4.5 billions years did occur, again your proving my point by saying no there is not that much on the moon, yes im aware of than, you say yes there is some cosmic powder but not enough to be 4.5 billion years worth as we both mathematically sorted that out.

Again you say soft clay. But do you really mean that on your behalf as wouldn't you want the layer to be old and hard like old rock. the oldest trees on earth are about 4400 years old, look in the Bible add all the names up from Jesus Christ down and your find it + 2400 roughly + 2000 from are time (now) and + all the names from Noah downwards, this also = 2000 which in total = 6000 all based on the age of the oldest trees on earth. That intercates Noah's ark did happed as all life in the land and sky animals died about 4400 years ago, just as the Bible says, the people who wrote the Bible knew nothing of this.

Next im going to prove that man and dinosaur did live together. To make a fossil you need 3 key things 1. Rapid death 2. Rapid burial and 3. Rapid pressure in order to make a fossil. If you look a read the Origin or species, you will find that Darwin was quite confident that in the future we would find lots and lots of intermediate fossils, which Darwin said we should ore to find.

Over 100 million years ago near the Paluxy River, Texas, there was countless dinosaurs that left there foot prints to be fossilised and preserved. Carl Baugh an Anthologist, researched these foot prints for 12 years, reason why, because human foot print were found in the same Cretaceous layer of rock. Him and the team started to dig up actually limestone rock, following dinosaur foot prints, 18 inches from that dinosaur foot print they found human foot print (same layer) They extroverted 12 foot prints in a series, which had a left right left right pace to it, with the same stroll as a man has today, you got to say that is a human with dinosaurs. It have been claimed that the human foot prints were a hoax imbedded into the rock as a tourist attraction. But Carl Baugh claims the team removed the lime stone one slab at a time. The trail of human and dinosaurs foot prints continued underneath the rock ledges. This is real observable physical proof. Separate scientists tested the lime stone, making out it was real lime stone and a real human foot with five toes. No hoax! As it was under REAL limestone rock.

On to that "have humans stopped evolving" has scincetific been proven, I found out just by scanning the net at college on mailnews.com look it up. If according to evolution, we have stopped evolving therefore people who don't have the 21st centaury technology like in Africa and India and other poverty supported countries. People will keep evolving and that would make the old racism black and while conflict nothing compared to what is to come. Evolution is very dangerous, if you believe in evolution there shouldn't be anything wrong with racism, murdering, stealing, well anything as it is all part of the evolutional process. You can say that isn't correct, but really it is, unless where else would these morals come from. A Christian God who created a young earth or did we just come about them while evolving. Making nothing you do is morally wrong or right.

Evolution is the Devils lie as said in the Bible "The truth will be exchanged for a lie" and it has come, Evolution. Once you turn from that it comes so clear that you have been lied to.

Back in Darwin's day the cell seemed simple enough to evolve and he didn't know about DNA too. So what are you basing you theory on, someone who made it up who didn't know of DNA and how complex the cell is. So you can base your theory on that. But don't expect me to believe that complex cells can trance form into complex organisms I won't budge unless I actually see a protein based creature change into another kind of creature like that in front of me. The same would go for you, or are you just so tight up about it because you don't' like that fact of a God controlling you?

Because for a hundred and 50 year there hasn't been a change of kind even through scincetific testing, and if evolution was science then that would happen. End of.

When you get a random mutation it alwayws has a effect where the DNA already knows of it, the information was alread there nothing new.

You havent really given me proof on how evolution is fact, just commented nagtively on proof i've given you, you haven't wow me once, you have just quoted me and commented me.
beem0r

Con

My opponent reminds us that science is based off observable evidence. Evolution is no diffferent. Evolution is based off processes we KNOW exist - natural selection and random mutation. The fossil record also seems to indicate that evolution is true - sometimes showing us what seem to be gradual changes from one thing to another. This is no fairy tale, and if it were, what would be the reason to believe it?

If you called me a a maggot I would indeed be insulted. This is because maggot is a word with many negative connotations, at least when we're talking about a person. However, that does not disprove the notion that humans and maggots have a common ancestor. Evolution is indeed observable. Earlier in this debate, I referenced instances of speciation. We have seen new species form in the lab. My opponent's rebuttal was that there are 'kinds' of animals, but after being challenged on the issue, he did not show one reasons a 'kind' would be a barrier for the small incremental changes that make evolution happen.

Next, my opponent claims that a layer could not possibly be soft if it is not the current layer. This is a statement with absolutely no backing except my opponent's assertion. It is scientifically accepted that these trees likely rooted themselves in soft clay below the top layer - that very fact has much more weight than my opponent's assertion to the contrary. This is because the scientific community is a much more reliable authority than my opponent.

My opponent claims that true Christians take god as fact rather than a matter of faith. If this is the case, true Christians are ignorant.

My opponent asks - does God seem like the kind of guy who would A> set up rules and a starting point and let the universe run as it will, or B> make everything just the way he wants it in six days.
I would say A seems much more likely. God does not seem to be interfering in worldly affairs much these days. Science seems to explain almost every phenomenon. He seems to be just looking at the universe unfold, if he does indeed exist. Why would he have changed since the beginning of the universe?

My opponent then suggests that all life is meaningless without a God. This is ridiculous. Life has whatever meaning we place on it - that is why an ant is less than a human.
My opponent also suggests that I should go trash my home, rob my friends, and become a mass murderer. I would suggest my opponent get some help. Like you or the next guy, I have morals. Atheism does not imply immorality, and even if it did, that would not disprove evolution and the Big Bang.

My opponent sees that everyone is claiming different things on the unknown question of religion. However, he also claims that he is right and everyone else is wrong, including all non-Christians and atheists. This is an ignorant position. My opponent does not know that Christianity is right, he believes it is. Just like every other Christian out there.

My opponent claims that the oldest trees are 4400 years old, and this makes complete sense given Biblical history. Sorry, but that just isn't true. The oldest trees LIVING tree is 80,000-100,000 years old. This is Pando. It's more than just a single tree, but all the trees share the same network of roots, and have been shown to be part of the same organism.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(tree)

There is also a 9550 year-old tree in sweden: Old Tjikko
]http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent now says that humans walked with dinosaurs near the Paluxy river in Texas. To rebut this, I will quote a good source of info:
"[...] However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock)."
Here is the website I used as a source - it has a great deal of in-depth information on the subject for those interested.
http://www.talkorigins.org...

My opponent insists on telling us that science says we are no longer evolving, but this is simply not true. We have not eliminated random mutation and we have not eliminated natural selection. My opponent's mystery source is almost certainly not credible scientists. Many lay people might claim that we're no longer evolving due to our technology and medicine, but they are wrong. More successful people still have more children than unsuccessful people, on average.

My opponent says that if we believe in evolution, there should be nothing wrong with racism, etc. This is ridiculous. Evolution is NOT a system of morals. It does not dictate whether a person should be a racist or not, whether a person should kill or not. A moral philosophy does that. Also, even if Evolution did lead to racism [which it doesn't], this does NOT have anything to do with whether it is correct or not.

Evolution is a theory about how life becomes more and more complex over time. Whether Darwin knew the process happened through DNA codes or not, he had sufficient evidence to posit that more useful genes will become more and more present as the generations go on while harmful genes will become less and less present as the generations go on. And science has continually verified this fact.

My opponent assumes that I, as well as the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, only believe in Evolution because it lets me feel like a God isn't controlling me. Wow. Whether I believed in Evolution or not, I would not feel like a God is controlling me. Don't we have free will? We obviously control ourselves. If I didn't believe in evolution, I simply wouldn't have a theory on how the complexity of life came about. That is all that would happen. I would not be forced to believe the universe is 10,000 years old. It isn't.

Random mutations do create new information. Here is a source.
http://www.nmsr.org...
Through a type of mutation called frame shifting a bacterium gained the completely new ability to metabolize nylon. This is almost certainly not a part of the bacteria's original genome, since Nylon was made in 1935.

Also, note that my opponent never addressed the numerous scientific discrepancies with his views. How can we see light that has traveled billions of light years if the universe is only 10,000 years old? 10,000 years as an age for the Earth contradicts the continental drift rates. The continents were once one large land mass, Pangaea, but it's certain that is was far more than 10,000 years agobased on current rates of continental drift. If the Earth is only 10,000 years old, how do we have climate info from the past 800,000 years in ice cores? Why does radiometric dating place the age of some things much greater than 10,000 years old? I pointed out all these inconsistencies at the end of my first round, and they were never answered. That is because there is no answer - young earth creationism simply isn't a working theory. I, on the other hand, have consistently addressed my opponents concerns about the scientific theories he so disagrees with.
Debate Round No. 3
122 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Your entire argument is worthless then. The bible makes barely any claims on things that are capable of being proven wrong. Those that it does make claims on are either wrong or there were people before the bible was written who thought the same thing. The bible is not some source of scientific knowledge.

Science, however, by means of the scientific method and detailed observation, IS capable of producing scientific knowledge. Your argument surely does nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence that the earth and universe are 'old,' it's simply an ad hominem on science - claiming that "It hasn't always been right." True, it hasn't, but that isn't an argument against its current claims. Rather, if you want to discredit science's current claims, you have to show why all the evidence for an old earth is wrong, and why a young earth is right. However, it is safe to say that from an unbiased standpoint, young earth creationists are defeated at every turn here.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
i didnt talk about weather those examples were in the Bible, i was saying that the Bible has always been right and science hasnt, e.g. the jaw i mean how obivous, humans only have one jaw, which is located at the bottom of the mouth and yet science thought we had two. There are many reason based on the past why evolution could be a compelete mistake. I already think it is.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Religion never said anything stupid on the matter of how mouths open because that is not an issue religion has ever been a part of.
Most of the world didn't think the earth was hanging on a tortoises back, and if they did, it certainly wasn't a scientific claim, but a mythological one.
The bible does not say the earth is round, nor does it say it is flat. It has statements that can be wildly interpreted as meaning either, though.
While religion and science can get together quite well, it is NOT by means of religion trumping science in matters of science. The only way they can get together is if people realize their bibles aren't science books, nor are they a valid source of scientific insight.

If you want me to list a multitude of times the bible has been factually incorrect on matters of science, I will do so. Until then I will let you choose whether or not to accept defeat gracefully or continue perpetrating the wild speculations you call science.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Go back a number of years and scientists thought the top and bottem of the mouth opend, when clearly you can only see the bottom jaw opens, religon never said sush stuipdity. The Bible says the earth hangs on nothing when others believed it was on two toitories backs. The Bible said that the earth was round in 3D form when others thought it was flat. In the book of Jonah it said there are mountians under the sea when people didnt have a clue, and the Bible was right. In Genisis God said only the same kind will give birth to its own kind, and thats true macro evolution doesnt happen, mirco does. All these points ive pointed out are from the Bible and are scientific, so i don't know what your talking about. Science gets on with religon very well. Evolution is false science.
Posted by vibrodigits 8 years ago
vibrodigits
Why on Earth do religious nutters try to argue about religion vs science?

They have no interest in rationality or facts or reality.

They are only interested in their own particular fantasy varient.

Why would any sane person argue with such a fool? If you manage to convince them of some fact, it has little effect on their madness. This fellow choses to disbelive the oldness of the universe, but it is becoming popular amongst the nutters to be happy with an old universe, yet disbelive an old Earth. Go back a few years and they were insisting the Earth was the center of the universe, but now none do. It makes no real difference to them, and yet they argue. In the Compo del Fiori there is a statue of a monk who was burnt at the stake for suggesting the Universe was large. No one disputes it now.

So, if it make no difference to the nutters, why do they insist on making fools of themselves repeatedly with endless childish ignorant "arguments"?

Odd.
Posted by GodSands 9 years ago
GodSands
ok downloaded skype
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I don't use MSN, but I use AIM and Skype if you use either of those. My account names for either are on my profile.
Posted by GodSands 9 years ago
GodSands
Beem0r you got msn or add me crispy 211@ hotmail.com (no spaces). this is slow progress and isnt the way God works. ahhhh lol
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Once again, GodSands, there is absolutely no evidence that we do anything but die when we die. Since our brain stops functioning, we cease to have any consciousness at all. That seems to be the simplest and most supported answer. The only way to come to another conclusion is through sheer belief.
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
what does that mean
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Hizashi 7 years ago
Hizashi
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bigg3r_trigg3r 8 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SixSigma 8 years ago
SixSigma
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07