Creationism vs. Evolution

How did human beings come to be: through creation, or evolution?

  • Creationism

  • Evolution

39% 52 votes
61% 83 votes
  • yes, there is microevolution. However, it is the foundation of the earth that concerns me. I believe that the best theory to explain earth's existence is the theory that explains it is Christianity and God made it.

  • Contrary to what most scientists believe, science does actually support creationism. No time now to explain, but if you'd like, please challenge me to a debate or email me @ admin@projectwhisper.com

  • Science says that something cannot come out of absolutely nothing. And if anyone wants to say something like "dark matter that can't be seen was the thing that did it", well then the dark matter is an intelligent being, and that being was God

  • There is no observable evidence for evolution, while there is historical evidence for the bible. You simply cannot believe in both the bible and evolution.

  • Intelligence can only come from intelligence. Things do evolve (adaptations) but the idea that things came from a rock is simply impossible. Plus if early earth had little to NO oxygen how did it rain? The rain may seem unimportant, however it is necessary for the equation to work, since it rained on the rocks and created the soup that turned into life.

    Posted by: GoHerd
  • Evolution is not a well backed up theory that many people doubted at the time of it's creation. Those who believe it now, only do for the sole purpose that it is taught as fact and the many, MANY flaws in the theory are not taught.

  • i believe that creation and evolution igoes hand in hand

  • I believe in a combination of the two.

  • The Bible give a complete break down of creation which agrees with the majority of scientific research of creation. No matter what you bring forth as far as science I will break it down and destroy any scientific argument against creation. From The big bang, to evolution, and Even the So called Ice age.

  • There is so much evidence for aa creator, for example if we lived on any other planet in the universe we would die; earth is unique and there is no other planet like earth in the universe. So evolutionists, tell me that was all by random chance.

  • Evolution. I understand in America, the Creationism front is dangerously high. However, in the rest of the world, it's not a problem. The facts are: a) Most people don't understand evolution (even the people who accept it). b) Most Creationists will use cop outs such as "speciation is not evolution" (hint, hint, it is). [No offense to any Creationists, of course, but I've yet to meet one that doesn't.] c) It is the foundation for modern biology. d) Insulting Mr Darwin as racist or otherwise over one hundred years after his death based off rumours and lies is not honourable - it's shameful. If anyone wants to debate me on it, please, let me know! c)

  • It is scientifically supported.

  • Because, Duh !

  • The question isn't Creationism vs Evolution it's Fact vs Faith.

  • Anyone who chose creationism would be well-served to read a book other than the Bible or to spend some time in a museum.

  • Just because it does not yet have 100% of the answers, does not mean that it will.I am highly skeptical of people who think they know everything before they had the technology to really determine these things.

  • For the obvious reasons

  • Logic and observation

    Posted by: eblue
  • It isn't rectum-derived pseudoscience, unlike creationism.

  • Only uneducated conservatives who don't understand evolution deny it.

  • The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is as important to science as the theory of gravity or the geocentric theory, with an equivalent body of evidence to support it. To anyone who distinguishes between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", please explain at which point evolution stops taking place in certain organisms and why. Until you can do so based on facts and logic, your erronous vocabulary is pure fiction.

  • It's impossible to say this without sounding arrogant or rude, but everyone voting Pro is simply uneducated. It's not a matter of opinion anymore than alchemy vs. chemistry is, or the stork theory vs sexual reproduction. Creationists are scientifically and demonstrably wrong!

  • Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same thing, the only "difference" is time. Fossil records also show evolution.

    Posted by: SNP1
  • Evolution. It has so much evidence from so many different scientists around the world that it's hard NOT to believe in it. It's appalling how people can just dismiss hundreds of years of hard work and effort in this field of research with the simple reason that "Goddidit."

  • "No visible evidence for evolution," hah! That's funny, there seems to be tons of evidence for evolution. Try the Silver Fox experiment in Russia, where they turned foxes dog-like in decades. There is far more visible evidence for evolution than there is for a god.

  • This debate is really simple there two sides, That's mostly about opinion and gets all there info from a book which was also written in the past, where many of our descendants made wrong accusations which made thousands of mystical creatures. Than their is the other side which took years to experiment and observe also has actual facts not from one source. We have genetics DNA mutation, Heredity, Natural selection. In Archaeology their is fossils such as our descendants and prehistoric creatures. . That the life equivalent to modern bacteria started about 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago. If God created life, he created bacteria almost 4 billion years ago.The universal genetic code, Mitochondrial DNA, Common traits in embryos, Bacterial resistance to antibiotics here adapting equals evolution.

  • Sorry... No wizards creating universes... magic isn't real.

  • Evolution of course, as Creation is an argument out of Ignorance Fallacy, it is pseudo-scientific and complete Nonsense. Evolution is the only Rational process.

    Posted by: Sagey
  • Proof, this is what creationism lacks and evolution has plenty of, there's proof of humans evolving but none of a great flood, there's proof the earth is 4.5 billion years (science) old but none for 10,000 years old theory (creationism.) Ps. creationist the bible doesn't count as a source.

  • It has been scientifically proven, plus Christianity and evolution can coexist, but it depends on how you interpret the bible. Why would God create our world and make it seem like something was true if it really wasn't?

  • The one reason why I will always support evolution: there's actual evidence. There's fossils that date back millions upon millions, if not some things left behind by bacteria go back billions of years ago! And we can see light evolution happening today! And what does creationism have a proof? A book that was written by people who thought up of a God that only humans believe in and worship. The Bible doesn't count as a source of information when a lot of the things in their are biased. Prove to me there's such thing as a God and maybe I'll change my mind.

  • Evolution has proof to back it up. Creationism does not.

  • Evolution has been proven a couple centuries ago and yet people still think that some guy just created us into existence.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
yesuke says2013-10-22T16:42:44.4448789-05:00
For both evolutionists and creationists, this link might be helpful in understanding the concept of evolution: http://www.Talkorigins.Org/faqs/evolution-fact.Html
retroman000 says2013-10-22T19:17:14.5886637-05:00
Cowboy, evolution and the formation of the Earth have literally nothing to do with each other.
Lordgrae says2013-10-22T19:59:16.7417111-05:00
Yes, evolution is from the beginning of life to now. It has nothing to do with before hand, and describes an observable phenomenon that can be applied to discover more about our reality. Did you know that cancer cells, due to how fast they replicate, often times will mutate and evolve while in the persons system? It's that knowledge that tells us not to target one type of cell, but to target multiple general cell types. You know why cancer treatments cause hair loss? Because the treatments target all fast dividing cells, such as hair. It's evolution that taught us how to treat these things, like diseases that evolve and mutate. Creationists don't bat an eye when they go down to the doctor to get a vaccination (if they're smart enough to believe that that doesn't cause mental retardation, which was never a wide scale problem and was immediately fixed once recognized.) for the latest flu strain, little realizing that its the knowledge of evolution that allows us to develop and distribute it fast enough to get to you before you get sick.
pipin916 says2013-11-20T17:45:51.1832388-06:00
There is no proof of DNA or Chromosomes being able to generate and become more sophisticated out of a simply small amount of DNA to start with. That idea is one that people have been mislead with by the evolutionists. All evolution really boils down to is faith in evolution. Evolution tries to defy the laws of entropy and can be considered invalid in many teachings of evolution.
Lordgrae says2013-11-20T17:54:09.3455953-06:00
Well, besides the fact that entropy takes a long time, Entropy also requires a closed system. The earth is certainly not a closed system, and even if the Universe was a closed system (which we are unsure of) it would take even longer for it to degrade energy enough to significantly impact other things.
Lordgrae says2013-11-20T17:57:33.8317061-06:00
And even though we have not seen a DNA suddenly get more complex (which should be true, we've only been looking for about thirty to forty years, so big changes should not have occurred in this time), we see a chain of vestigial structures and a family tree. We see a clear path of creatures that when you line them up,, make a perfect chain of creatures who's DNA is getting more complex, and who's DNA is getting closer to a specific modern species. If evolution is false, then why have we never seen a dead human lying next to a dead dinosaur? Why is it that we have animals that are all dated to similar years all cropping up in the same layer of earth, and no matter where you go the layers are always in the same order?
Lordgrae says2013-11-20T17:57:37.4353292-06:00
And even though we have not seen a DNA suddenly get more complex (which should be true, we've only been looking for about thirty to forty years, so big changes should not have occurred in this time), we see a chain of vestigial structures and a family tree. We see a clear path of creatures that when you line them up,, make a perfect chain of creatures who's DNA is getting more complex, and who's DNA is getting closer to a specific modern species. If evolution is false, then why have we never seen a dead human lying next to a dead dinosaur? Why is it that we have animals that are all dated to similar years all cropping up in the same layer of earth, and no matter where you go the layers are always in the same order?
Trom88 says2013-11-20T22:14:17.2091037-06:00
There is no fact supporting evolution the definition of evolution is for something to gain info and get more complex but evolution trys to say an example of that is with dogs. They are within the same species and they are losing info in that process there for that can't be used as an example
Lordgrae says2013-11-21T14:34:55.1236645-06:00
What? We have seen mutations many times over. We have so much room in our DNA that is wasted. We have fossil records. We have seen mutations. We have seen one species become two (flies. Want to see something bigger? Put a wall between a group of field mice and stare at them for a few hundred years). The big gap seems to be that we don't see a lizard give birth to a kitten. However, that would take such a long time to occur. Have you even taken a middle school biology unit? Or did you just not pay any attention?
Lordgrae says2013-11-21T14:34:55.6087818-06:00
What? We have seen mutations many times over. We have so much room in our DNA that is wasted. We have fossil records. We have seen mutations. We have seen one species become two (flies. Want to see something bigger? Put a wall between a group of field mice and stare at them for a few hundred years). The big gap seems to be that we don't see a lizard give birth to a kitten. However, that would take such a long time to occur. Have you even taken a middle school biology unit? Or did you just not pay any attention?
Trom88 says2013-11-22T12:10:50.5589035-06:00
How is an animal supposed to survive with a half developed lung in the water or on land?
Trom88 says2013-11-22T12:10:52.9625219-06:00
How is an animal supposed to survive with a half developed lung in the water or on land?
jrrjacques says2013-11-22T13:24:32.9650857-06:00
This is a comment to Lordgrae. You say we have seen mutations over time. That I agree with. But what I do not agree with is the extent of those mutations on which the theory (religion) of evolution proposes. First of all before I go too deep I wish to say that the U.S. Government in the 1950s put out a reward of $500,000 for anyone who can give them true, unaltered facts that support Evolution. No one has collected that reward as of yet and it is doubtful anyone will.
jrrjacques says2013-11-22T13:24:57.0436633-06:00
Now to the argument... I will start with a fairy tale. Once upon a time, there was a princess and a frog. The frog wanted to become a prince so he asked the princess to kiss him to turn him into one. She did so and instantly he was a tall, hansom human male. You will agree with me that this is absurd and that this could never happen scientifically. But what happens if we add "millions and millions of years" and many generations. Now suddenly it is possible for a frog to turn into a human. Or this is according to the many different analogues in the Evolutionism bible. I beg to differ.
jrrjacques says2013-11-22T13:25:21.9399865-06:00
In the DNA strands there are amino acids and amino acid counts. Did you know according to research done by evolutionist scientists in the 80s and 90s that they discovered that if the number count increased even by the smallest margin that the creature will die? (Thus proving Evolution unlikely. (Also when they found this out, they instantly stopped research)) And the tobacco plant has the highest count? (meaning according to Evolution, some people have already evolved farther than others, really, just take time to smell some people and you'll see what I mean) According to Evolutionism, everything came from an amoeba, now this amoeba has the lowest amino # of any other biological creature. Now (however unlikely) how did life "evolve" past this point.
Lordgrae says2013-11-22T14:05:53.7295836-06:00
"How is an animal supposed to survive with a half developed lung in the water or on land" They didn't have no lungs. They had the ability to hold oxygen for a while. They came up on land to eat plants, so being able to stay up longer became an advantage. So those who could hold their breaths longer, or process some oxygen in the air had a higher survival rate. Minor mutations, as well as genetic shifts allowed these animals to stay out of the water for longer and longer, until out of the process that allowed their gills to process oxygen was complete, and they became amphibians. There are no processes that need every single part to work. Go onto YouTube and look up "Dawkins explains the origin of the eye". That should be enlightening. And of course no one collected that reward. Nothing in science is ever fully proven. Even gravity isn't something we are sure is a constant. However, if we have never seen an instance where gravity is not in play, much like evolution (except in certain cases. Evolution requires certain things to be in affect) than we can assume it is a constant until proven otherwise. Gravity is an assumed constant. We have these assumed constants because it would be ludicrous to assume there are no constants for every experiment. So we disregard things such as Evolution and Gravity as natural constants. Yes it is possible for the frog to turn into a human. However, it is not a modern frog. We share a common ancestor with the frogs. We have seen types of isolation. When these occur, the species is divided and evolve separately, experiencing different stresses in the environment and different mutations. We have seen this before with plenty of animals separated and then many years later unable to inter-breed. By definition that means they are two different species. Now compound that over and over and over, and you begin to see major physical differences. Well, yes. Mutations in certain areas of our DNA is fatal. However, there is a lot of space and areas where mutations can occur without fatal results. Most mutations occur in unused areas of our DNA. A few occur in places that are not helpful, such as a mutation that gives you less teeth. A few are fatal. But just a few give a slight advantage. When we speak of mutations, we rarely mean anything very significant. Even an extra finger is larger than the mutations we speak of. We talk about mutations that just make the animal a little faster, a little more elusive, a little more resistant to toxins in its food. And many of the times, mutations are unnecessary. Many mutations are minor things, like a change in hair color. It might not mean anything now, but say there is a large number of field mice. Some are grey and some are brown. The fields they live in are green, so neither is very beneficial. However, since neither is more harmful, they both remain in the species. Then, when the conditions of the field become poor, they move to a rocky field. There, the grey is a camouflage. So now, the brown mice are less likely to live to have children, and if they do, it is less likely that their children will make to adulthood. So in just one or two generations, almost none of the mice are brown. In another generation, the gene for brown fur is only recessive, and rarely crops up. The species has evolved by definition. Now compound this a hundredfold. I have found no sources on your question. Nor can anyone on the web tell me what an amino number is.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T14:28:49.3948214-06:00
You know you are very gullible considering you basicly quote the text book. I agree what you said about the mice but that's not evolution. They are within the same species. If two mice have a baby you don't get a new animal. By the way if you want to debate this with my friend he has a debate in the challeng phase on this subject. PS. He wasn't finished with what he was saying
Trom88 says2013-11-22T14:28:51.9531230-06:00
You know you are very gullible considering you basicly quote the text book. I agree what you said about the mice but that's not evolution. They are within the same species. If two mice have a baby you don't get a new animal. By the way if you want to debate this with my friend he has a debate in the challeng phase on this subject. PS. He wasn't finished with what he was saying
Trom88 says2013-11-22T14:28:54.2462348-06:00
You know you are very gullible considering you basicly quote the text book. I agree what you said about the mice but that's not evolution. They are within the same species. If two mice have a baby you don't get a new animal. By the way if you want to debate this with my friend he has a debate in the challeng phase on this subject. PS. He wasn't finished with what he was saying
Trom88 says2013-11-22T14:29:22.1619067-06:00
You know you are very gullible considering you basicly quote the text book. I agree what you said about the mice but that's not evolution. They are within the same species. If two mice have a baby you don't get a new animal. By the way if you want to debate this with my friend he has a debate in the challeng phase on this subject. PS. He wasn't finished with what he was saying
Lordgrae says2013-11-22T15:02:55.9697529-06:00
Well, these theories are all tested, evidence is gathered and then it is peer-reviewed. When something is wrong it is brought to light. The scientific method is the best for discovering facts. And evolution is just a genetic shift. When many of these occur you cross the species line and get a new species. The species line is arbitrary anyway. A species is any group of animals that can interbreed and create fertile offspring. If mules were fertile, then horses and donkeys would be considered one species.
Lordgrae says2013-11-22T15:02:58.5438963-06:00
Well, these theories are all tested, evidence is gathered and then it is peer-reviewed. When something is wrong it is brought to light. The scientific method is the best for discovering facts. And evolution is just a genetic shift. When many of these occur you cross the species line and get a new species. The species line is arbitrary anyway. A species is any group of animals that can interbreed and create fertile offspring. If mules were fertile, then horses and donkeys would be considered one species.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T15:27:12.0110690-06:00
You are referring to microevolution which is not the same thing. That would be like mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey. With microevolution an organism becomes morecomplex but mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey the organism becomes less complex. PS. I did pay attention in biology. Do more research.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T15:27:12.6385759-06:00
You are referring to microevolution which is not the same thing. That would be like mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey. With microevolution an organism becomes morecomplex but mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey the organism becomes less complex. PS. I did pay attention in biology. Do more research.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T15:27:13.9922182-06:00
You are referring to microevolution which is not the same thing. That would be like mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey. With microevolution an organism becomes morecomplex but mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey the organism becomes less complex. PS. I did pay attention in biology. Do more research.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T15:27:16.6753494-06:00
You are referring to microevolution which is not the same thing. That would be like mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey. With microevolution an organism becomes morecomplex but mix breeding dogs or a horse and donkey the organism becomes less complex. PS. I did pay attention in biology. Do more research.
Lordgrae says2013-11-22T15:29:41.5956334-06:00
Well, when you compound millions of years, microevolution becomes macroevolution.
Trom88 says2013-11-22T16:49:02.5733684-06:00
Wow you are ignorant. Did you just read right over what i said? Macroevolution more complex macroevolution less complex. They are completly different things. Now another thing. In the laws of physics it says matter cannot be created or destroyed. But evolution says that in the beginning there was nothing, and then all that nothing came together and exploded to create everything. That as you can see is against the laws of physics. Now on to one more thing. What are the odds of a tornado to blow through a junk yard and form an air plane? Impossible right? Now lets give a single cell enough time and all of its billions of parts will form together by chance to the exact spot they are needed in order for the cell to work. Knowing that there would have to be a creator and evolution is impossible.
yesuke says2013-11-22T16:52:15.4905819-06:00
"But evolution says that in the beginning there was nothing, and then all that nothing came together and exploded to create everything." Seriously, that doesn't even make sense. How does evolution 'say that'?
Trom88 says2013-11-22T17:10:55.0830941-06:00
The big bang theory says it which was created by evolutionists.
Lordgrae says2013-11-22T22:11:30.7608000-06:00
Actually, the big bang theory is proven by math. The question is not whether the big bang occurred, it's what's before. We have no idea the cause. We can guess. We can make educated guesses. We can't know right now, and may never know. And postulating theories of a divine being with no evidence, even though it is a positive assertion, is not helpful.
retroman000 says2013-11-23T03:01:23.6807538-06:00
"But evolution says that in the beginning there was nothing, and then all that nothing came together and exploded to create everything." Wow. You are literally the most blatantly stupid person I've seen yet. That is The Big Bang, and it has literally nothing at all to do with evolution in the slightest. As well, it doesn't state that nothing existed, it states that all matter was condensed together into a singularity. "What are the odds of a tornado to blow through a junk yard and form an air plane?" That analogy doesn't work at all. That is completely random, but natural selection is just that, "selection". It's not random. "Macroevolution more complex macroevolution less complex. They are completly different things." Microevolution (or, as it's known by biologists, just evolution) is the change of allele rates in a population. Macroevolution (or, creationists' convoluted synonym for speciation) is when two species diverge. Saying evolution exists yet speciation doesn't is like saying that you can drive down a block, but your car magically can't go into the next city.
jrrjacques says2013-12-03T13:52:49.3307135-06:00
Question. How does "The Big Bang THEORY (Emphasis on Theory)" nothing to do with Evolutionism. According to Evolutionism it is because of the "Big Bang Theory" that evolution happens. According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today. First of all, your honor, I would like to point out to the court that THEORY means unproven or unobservable or untestable. Second, this is how The Big Bang is deeply connected with (in fact was created by) Evolutionism. And Mr. Lordgrae you show me the math to this THEORY and I'll show you the error in it. Mr. Retroman000 did you know you can have multiple species but still be in the same KIND, yes that's it K-I-N-D. I'm so proud you can say that. Maybe you should look at your THEORY and see that if we find fossils of dinosaurs and birds and mammals then we should also find the creature that came between them, or as they are otherwise known, the "missing link" (no not the character from Legend of Zelda (though it would fit in perfectly)). We have never found a missing link because they don't exist. Unless you are suggesting that these animals stayed the same for millions of years then made a drastic change in the next generation. Side fact, did you know the trilobite still lives in the Baltic Sea? Hmm... If it isn't extinct yet then why is it in the "Geologic Column"? You show a "fact" that supposedly supports Evolutionism, and i'll show you the fraud underneath it. Have a nice day gentlemen and gentle ladies.
retroman000 says2013-12-04T18:25:55.0296522-06:00
"According to Evolutionism it is because of the "Big Bang Theory" that evolution happens." ...No, It's claimed in the Big Bang Theory that the Big Bang happened, hence why it's called the "Big Bang Theory". " According to Evolutionism" *According to the Big Bang Theory "20 Billion years" *14 Billion years ago "THEORY means unproven or unobservable or untestable." Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. One based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. A theory is the highest form of scientific verification a hypothesis can attain. Gravity is a theory. "The Big Bang is deeply connected with (in fact was created by) Evolutionism." No, it's not. They are entirely unrelated and mutually exclusive. "Mr. Retroman000 did you know you can have multiple species but still be in the same KIND, yes that's it K-I-N-D." "Kind" is not a scientific term, it is simply a word used by creationists in order to move the goalposts later on. "if we find fossils of dinosaurs and birds and mammals then we should also find the creature that came between them" We have. Ever heard of microraptor, archaeopteryx, or Xiaotingia? " We have never found a missing link because they don't exist." ^^^ "Side fact, did you know the trilobite still lives in the Baltic Sea?" Really? I would love to see where you got this information.
jrrjacques says2013-12-05T09:59:41.2339542-06:00
I must admit when I read your reply it made me laugh. You are a great comedian. ""THEORY means unproven or unobservable or untestable."" "Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. One based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained" Exactly a supposition that has no fact. Ever here of something that is quite known in the scientific world as "The Scientific Method" The definition of "The Scientific Method" in http://dictionary.Reference.Com/browse/scientific+method?S=t Scientific Method, noun: a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested "a method of research in which a problem is identified..." The problem was that the Evolution Theory (For that is what it is called) could not explain how this evolutionary process started. So the took a few things, distorted the truth to fit their theory then called it "The Big Bang" Ooooo. Wow. More like the Big Flop. "relevant data are gathered..." There are no relevant data. Show me solid, undistorted fact. Please I beg you too. "and the hypothesis in empirically tested." You can not test the Big Bang, not even on a miniature scale. Now without the Big Bang how does Evolution work I have read books written by the World's leading Evolutionist scientists have written. They have said in one way or another that if the don't have enough time that there theory is the world's biggest and childish theory ever in the history. In order for Evolution to have that time they need the Big Bang. Now to another aspect of Evolutionism. How do you or anyone else know that the Earth or even the Universe is billions and billions of years. Don't say Carbon Dating, Potassium-Argon Dating, the "Geologic Column", or Radiometric Dating, or the Red Shift. Because they have been proven by Evolutionists and Creationists that they don't work. If you don't have time you have a fairy tale. About Trilobites, they are a nuisance to Baltic sea fishermen, and have been captured and transported to many Creationist museums. The reason why you've never heard about them is because the Smithsonian is very active in keeping it out of media and out of Evolution museums. I suppose you have never been to a large Creationist museum? If you did go, there is a high chance that you would see a trilobite. Go to the Creationist museum "Dinosaur Land" in Pensecola (I hope that is how you spell it) Florida whenever you get the chance. Before I go I want to ask you a question. Is your profile picture of a man dressed a woman, or a woman trying to appear like a man?
jrrjacques says2013-12-05T10:01:09.0917538-06:00
Please excuse the typos I was in a rush. Thank you.
jrrjacques says2013-12-05T10:01:12.9916788-06:00
Please excuse the typos I was in a rush. Thank you.
retroman000 says2013-12-06T16:44:14.8407774-06:00
"So the took a few things, distorted the truth to fit their theory then called it "The Big Bang"" Evolution is the change in allele frequencies among a population. The Big Bang is the rapid expansion of matter from a singularity that formed The Universe. How are they at all related, again? "Show me solid, undistorted fact. Please I beg you too." Here's the link to the Wikipedia page for Lenski's E. Coli experiment, although I assume you will systematically dismiss it and talk about how it's somehow not sufficient. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment "Now without the Big Bang how does Evolution work" Again, The Big Bang and evolution are completely unrelated. Even if one is untrue, how does that at all affect the other? "Because they have been proven by Evolutionists and Creationists that they don't work." When were they "proven" false? Because it's also been proven that radioactive elements decay at a set rate, thus enabling us to utilize radiometric dating. "The reason why you've never heard about them is because the Smithsonian is very active in keeping it out of media and out of Evolution museums." Then do you have any link or reference to this at all?
jrrjacques says2013-12-13T13:14:16.3589634-06:00
Harty har har. Tell me Mr. Retroman000, do you not trust yourself to give me the "facts" that your link gives? You wish me to read something that I can not debate back with. You have been eluding the true arguement by posting different sources that only give half the truth, thus you do not take any humility for yourself. Excuse the language, but are you really that arrogant and ignorant? Also here is how the Big Bang is related; 20 billion (sanctamonious tone) years ago the Earth cooled down after it formed from the Big Bang. 6 billion years ago terrential rains poured over the rocks of the Earth. About 4 billion years ago, with the combination of rock minerals and rain there formed a primordial soup, and from this soup boys and girls came the very first existance of life. Oooh. Wow. That is one amazing fairy tail. Now may I ask a question teacher? When do we study real science? Now tell me, how is the Big Bang not related with evolution? How is it not one of the main principals of Evolution? About radiometric dating. Yes, I agree Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate in our time. But in order to use it one must make some serious assumptions. 1. That the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (just in case you didn't know, an animal has the same number of C-14 as is in the atmosphere) has always stay the same. Which it hasn't as we have found from air pockets in amber. 2. That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres. It is like this analogy. You walk into a room and you see a candle burning. I ask you how long has it been burning? You can find out how tall it is, and how much of it burns an hour, but you can tell how long it has been burning unless you make the two assumption on how tall you think it was when it started and that it has been burning at a constant rate. There are many times since the 1930s that radiometric dating has been proven wrong. Look it up, and not on biased Evolution sources like National Geographic, Smithsonian, Scientific America, and other such organizations. As for my sources? Www.Drdino.Org and www.Answersingenesis.Org. You didn't answer my last question.
jrrjacques says2013-12-13T13:14:17.9226268-06:00
Harty har har. Tell me Mr. Retroman000, do you not trust yourself to give me the "facts" that your link gives? You wish me to read something that I can not debate back with. You have been eluding the true arguement by posting different sources that only give half the truth, thus you do not take any humility for yourself. Excuse the language, but are you really that arrogant and ignorant? Also here is how the Big Bang is related; 20 billion (sanctamonious tone) years ago the Earth cooled down after it formed from the Big Bang. 6 billion years ago terrential rains poured over the rocks of the Earth. About 4 billion years ago, with the combination of rock minerals and rain there formed a primordial soup, and from this soup boys and girls came the very first existance of life. Oooh. Wow. That is one amazing fairy tail. Now may I ask a question teacher? When do we study real science? Now tell me, how is the Big Bang not related with evolution? How is it not one of the main principals of Evolution? About radiometric dating. Yes, I agree Carbon-14 decays at a constant rate in our time. But in order to use it one must make some serious assumptions. 1. That the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (just in case you didn't know, an animal has the same number of C-14 as is in the atmosphere) has always stay the same. Which it hasn't as we have found from air pockets in amber. 2. That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres. It is like this analogy. You walk into a room and you see a candle burning. I ask you how long has it been burning? You can find out how tall it is, and how much of it burns an hour, but you can tell how long it has been burning unless you make the two assumption on how tall you think it was when it started and that it has been burning at a constant rate. There are many times since the 1930s that radiometric dating has been proven wrong. Look it up, and not on biased Evolution sources like National Geographic, Smithsonian, Scientific America, and other such organizations. As for my sources? Www.Drdino.Org and www.Answersingenesis.Org. You didn't answer my last question.
retroman000 says2013-12-13T20:56:19.6645592-06:00
"You wish me to read something that I can not debate back with. You have been eluding the true arguement by posting different sources that only give half the truth, thus you do not take any humility for yourself." And how can you not debate back with me on it? I could post the results of the experiment, but that would take up a needlessly large amount of space, especially when you can just read it for yourself. And how, may I ask, does this give only "half the truth"? "20 billion" Again, it was a little less than 14 bya, not 20. "That is one amazing fairy tail. Now may I ask a question teacher? When do we study real science?" And when are you going to give your beliefs any legitimate, well-based evidence as opposed to simply stating how an opposing theory is wrong, despite the literal mountains of evidence for it? "Now tell me, how is the Big Bang not related with evolution? How is it not one of the main principals of Evolution?" I will, once you tell me why you think it is. The Big Bang is the explanation for the start of the universe, Evolution is the explanation for the change and diversity present among living things. Not only are these events 10 billion years apart, but they deal with completely different aspects of our world. "1. That the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere (just in case you didn't know, an animal has the same number of C-14 as is in the atmosphere) has always stay the same." That isn't assumed at all. We know that the amount of C-14 has been different in different time periods, we simply need to know the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere at the time, and we can figure out the rest. "That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres." No, no it doesn't. I'm not sure where you got this information, but decay rates do not change. They have not, in any observation, changed their rate of decay, so why would it be different at a different time? "Www.Drdino.Org and www.Answersingenesis.Org." Drdino.Org got nothing but some sort of advertisement hub. As for Answers in Genesis, you tell me not to use supposedly biased sources, and then tell me this is one of your sources. Even though I've been there before, I wouldn't even need to to know it's extremely heavily biased towards a Christian, creationist point-of-view. "You didn't answer my last question." That's because it is irrelevant to this entire conversation, but it is a man made to look like a woman.
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:48:00.9245159-06:00
I hope you enjoyed your Christmas? After all it is a Christian holiday. Now enough of these niceties, and to what we were speaking of before Christmas. I apologize for not making myself clear (do to my being in a hurry), Mr. Retroman000. I tried to condense my thought into one sentence. I will rephrase more plainly. You wish me to read entire resources, and then pick and choose certain aspects of it to debate with. This way I would be literally quarrelling the article and not you. Which is what this website is about, isn’t it? Another option I have is to debate with it sentence for sentence, which would take to much of my much needed time for important things in life, and would undoubtedly annoy the Dickens out of other readers. Another alternative is to agree with you fully, not question any of your sources, and thus I would become like the many people who have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of your religion. A last choice, is that you bring out the main points and bring forth your “evidence” and I will retaliate showing the plain error in it, show my data, and then possibly your mind, that has been saturated with the world’s most dangerous doctrine, just maybe you will see as it were “the light.” When I say “half the truth” I mean exactly that. Evolution takes some common day sights, looks at some basic fact, and then adjust it greatly to fit their theory (whereas one is suppose to take the theory and adjust it to the facts). Example, I suppose you have heard of Homo Erectus, AKA the Nebraska Man? During the mid 1900s Evolutionists were running out of “evidence” because they were being proven to be false and distorted. They went digging in Nebraska and found a humanoid skeleton with a bent back. For the next 40 years they preached that this Homo Erectus was a chimpanzee slowly coming up from a bent back to a straight back, and it had big eyebrow bones, big jaw, and a big nose. Then a doctor got a close look at it and said that this wasn’t a chimp slowly coming up it was an old man with arthritis who was slowly coming down. Also did you know that your eyebrow bone, jaw, and nose never stop growing? Let me emphasis this for you the skeleton was a man who had lived to a very great age, and thus had arthritis, protruding eyebrows, big jaw, and a large nose. The Evolutionists KNEW this when they found it. Now it has been proven false and it is STIL being put inside text books, STILL being used as evidence for evolution, STILL being used by “science” channels, and STILL fooling people as it did then. This isn’t the only example. I could write a book on every single account in which data was altered KNOWINGLY by Evolutionists to fit their dieing theory. In fact, there have been books written on these accounts. There have been videos and television lectures done on talk shows on this. You speak of my resources being biased. As far as I know (and trust me I have been researching and debating on this subject for nearly five years) there has been no true, devout Christian Creationist scientist that has slightly or dramatically altered facts to fit our beliefs. Whereas yours is still desperately trying to fit puzzle pieces by trying to cut them into shape. In other words Creationists look at the unbiased statistics and form their hypothesis to fit the facts, and it fits perfectly. Evolutionists do their tests, look at the unbiased statistics, then pick and choose which could be altered to fit their religion. In 1970 an article was published telling how dates were selected in carbon dating, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” What kind of “science” is this? If looking at data and adjusting your theory to fit the fact is biased; then how biased is it to start an experiment with the fixed idea that no matter what data is gathered you will FORCE it to fit your theory? Also the only unbiased resources are plain, original statistics, and that is what I look at. I don’t just read, copy and paste, then change it slightly to fit my wording. I look at the statistics, look at the many different theories, correlate which theories fit the statistics best or perfectly, analyze in detail looking for some mistake, then adopt it as the most likely. I was completely open minded when doing this with an unbiased opinion. I soon eliminated Evolution and its branch of the Big Bang due to the untrustworthiness of it “scientists” and ridiculous hypothesizes and assumptions.
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:50:18.3917159-06:00
Also I can’t believe you use Wikipedia! Don’t you remember about 4 ½ bya (sorry I meant just years) ago how someone added a sentence to the file of Queen Elizabeth II? They wrote, “Queen Elizabeth is a Hippie.” It was all over the news for about three days. Anyone can edit anything on there as long as you have an account, and unless it is something obvious no one is going to notice. Everyone will continue on and take the additive to be fact. No one should ever trust Wikipedia, and I have heard this said by Evolutionists, schools, informational writing contests, and creationists. I don’t trust Creationist profiles on Wikipedia. “…literal mountains of evidence…” Please show me this “evidence” every Evolutionist I have talked with whether in person or a person online they rarely ever give this “evidence”, and when they do it is very weak and is easily dealt with solid fact. So I ask the question. Who resources are more reliable? Hmm? (You said, “ A theory is the highest form of scientific verification a hypothesis can attain.” If that is so then why is Creation also called a theory if it is supposed to be pure religion? Why is it up there with the Theory of Relativity? Also the Evolution Theory began to called so by those who supported it which was in the minority until 2000.) “…it was a little less than 14 bya, not 20.” Is this really necessary to point out that I didn’t say it exactly according to your view of the Big Bang? I have read in multiple textbooks since I have had science class that it varies anywhere from 6 to 50 billion years. Many Evolutionists have their own idea on it. Does this show how desperate you are to keep the debate going, by attempting to change the subject? Tut, tut, tut, naughty boy. Alright, time for some “legitimate, well based evidence.” Prepare to be blown away. It will come as a storm and that hits your frail twig house that has been set on a foundation of silver sand. Evolution will be as a stormtrooper to Master Yoda, a Cardassian to species 8472, a goblin to Gandalf, 1+1=500 billion to E=MCsquared, A panzer 1 to a M1 A2 Abram, Benedict Arnold to George Washington, and fairy tales to science laws. How evidence fits with my beliefs. I suppose you have heard of our Flood? You know the one that reconfigured the world? How the world was covered by the big blue wet thing? First of all, what would do we find constantly in the ground? Fossils. What are fossils? Dead things. How many do we find? Millions. Now put it all together and what do we have (no not bibbidy bobbity boo)? Millions of dead things underground. Now what would you expect to find buried after a world wide flood? I think the answer is millions of dead things underground. Now in what order would you find some of them to be in? Evolutionists remember the order by using the acronym FARM: Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals (with birds with or above mammals). Do you know why they are in this order? You may say because this is the way they evolved, from primitive trilobites to the Homo Sapien Sapien (or Wise Wise Man). I am sorry to break the news to you, but that is false. Don’t worry you’re not the first to realize this. Here is why. When the Flood occurred who do you think were t he first ones to be buried? The sea plants, the mollusk, and the fish. The amphibians tried to swim but soon found themselves either in to swift a current or water to deep to swim up (thus sunk quickly to the bottom to be fossilized). So was the same fate for those that were unable to find floating debris to sit before they were exhausted and also drowned. Then reptiles being denser than mammals and fowl sank to the bottom on top of the already covered amphibians. Drowned mammals being not as dense as reptiles, floated around awhile before sinking atop the covered reptiles. The birds flew until they ran out of gas then plummeted into the water covered earth and sank with those few remaining mammals and on top of the mammals already buried. And even then one rarely finds them in this order. Another side fact; did you know a trilobite has the most complicated and best eye ever studied? If most of the creatures that “evolved” after it are suppose to be more complex and better than their predecessor, then why didn’t they keep this very useful aspect if it would have given them advantages to survival? Did you know moving water sorts dirt and rocks into automatic predictable layers? To test that, it just a simple experiment. Get a jar, fill it 1/3 of the way with dirt, fill the rest with water, seal the jar, shake the jar for a while, set it down, then watch. You will see that it will separate into layers. This is what happened during the flood. This is why we have distinct Geologic layers with smooth seams. This is why there are thousands of petrified trees running through a half dozen layers that are suppose to be 100 of millions of years in age difference.
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:53:09.6329159-06:00
This is why we have coal and oil. This is why we have mountains and trenches and valleys and plate tectonics. This is why the oldest trees re only about 4,000 years old. This is why the biggest dessert in the world is only about 4,000 years old. This is why recorded history only goes back as far as a little under 4,000 years. This is why we find plants in Antarctica. This is why we find the same fossils all over the world. This why there are over 250 surviving world wide flood legends all across the globe that have not had any contact with Christianity. This is why the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mesopotamians, Native Americans, Africans, Mongolians, South Americans, and all other civilizations over 1,000 years old have hundreds upon hundreds of written encounters with dinosaurs (the modernized name for dragons). This is why in cave painting there are dinosaurs painted with the elk, mammoths, lion, tigers, and bears (Oh my!). This is why there are thousands upon thousands of sighting of sea dinosaurs and land dinosaurs since 1900. This is why the world population curve comes down to about eight people about 4,000 years ago. This is why the migration of humans seems to come from a central point around Turkey. This is why human life spans are becoming smaller. This is why humans are becoming smaller and shorter. Shall I go on? I have written 260 words of “This is why.” There is a lot more. But if I did, I would annoy the Dickens out of you. This is just proof for the flood I could go astronomical and biological evidence that confirms everything in our Bible. The Bible is perfect. It never contradicts itself and always supports what it says itself, even though it was written by over 50 people in a period from about 3500 BC to almost 100 AD. The only mistakes one possibly could find are regular typos in the revised editions of the Bible (which I advise no one to trust fully). Have I not said thrice so far why the Big Bang is one of the main principals or are you not even reading? Or are you doing selective reading and only paying attention to certain supposed mistakes like “…14 bya not 20”? I will repeat again what I have thus far stated. “According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years [14 bya for your benefit] the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” Now without the Big Bang what do we have? “6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals. Then out of this soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” If Evolution only had the latter part, people would ask how do you know? Where did the Earth come from? Why did the Earth cool down, and from what? In fact before the Big Bang this is what evolution had, “…out of this [primordial] soup came an ameba that somehow was made out of a random selection of amino acids. It then EVOLVED into what we see today.” People didn’t believe this as much because the Evolutionists had no explanation for how this soup got there. So evolutionists to deal with these questions that endangered their beliefs, came up with The Big Bang Theory. Now we add, “According to Evolutionism, 20 Billion years [14 bya for your benefit] the universe was empty then it all compacted together and spun really fast and exploded. 6 billion years ago the earth cooled into a rocky surface. There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. It then rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of it came an organic soup made of complex chemicals.” Now do you see the connection? Without the Big Bang the primordial could never happen. Without this soup the ameba could never “EVOLVE”. Without this ameba everything could not evolve from it. When the Big Bang is proven false, Evolution will begin to crumble for one of its foundations have been removed. Hey! I think I see a little glow in your head. Could it be that another thin layer made of stubbornness and Evolutionism is beginning to peel away, and the true light of thinking is finally starting to think for itself? (Different aspects of our world? Yes. No relation at all? No. What you said is like the following statements.
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:53:44.2493159-06:00
The two events of God creating everything and the Flood destroying the world are two different aspects with no relation (God created universe in general. Big Bang created the universe in general. “Flood reconfigured the world” is specific. “Evolution made all life” is specific). The beginning of a battle, and the end of a battle, two different views or aspects of the same thing but still very much related. The overall view of a car, and how the gas gets to the engine; two different aspects but still the same thing.) You have made it clear to me that you believe that the Big Bang Theory created everything. This is good, for I now know exactly how to contend with you on this subject. This is according to your group of Evolutionists view. In the beginning there was absolutely nothing. Not even the laws of time and space. Then suddenly matter and universal laws popped out of nowhere like Jack-in-the-Box and all the matter clumped into a fast spinning dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence (that is one crowded dot). It spun so fast that it gained enough energy to separate itself or explode or expand however you wish to say it. Galaxies and solar systems formed by the collision of rock, water, and all of the other elements. They began revolving and rotating around the center point of which they came. This is what you believe about the Big Bang. Now already there is one plain unbreakable law that the Big Bang has tried to bypass. That is The Law of the Conservation of Matter which states that matter can never be created nor destroyed. If matter can never be CREATED then how did The Big Bang occur? What set it off? Also did you know space and time must be in existence simultaneously or else neither can exist without the other. You CANNOT have them as separate elements. You CANNOT have time come into being first then space or visa versa. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Have you heard of the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum? I doubt it since it seems insignificant in our argument. But really this simple law brings the Big Bang Theory to its knees as it were. Here is an excerpt from a previous argument that demonstrates this law perfectly. “You take some kids in fourth grade to a merry-go-round. You place them on it and then bring out the high school football (or handball I believe it’s called in England) [I was debating an Englishman] team to spin the merry-go-round. We start off in Phase 1; the players begin to spin it clockwise and the kids are yelling, “Go faster, faster!” As they approach 30 miles an hour (sorry I don’t know how to convert that into metric) the kids enter Phase 2; they become quiet and silently concentrate on holding on for dear life. Their speed is now about 60 mph as the players spin them faster and the kids enter Phase 3; they begin to yell again, but this time it is, “Slow down!. Please slow down!” Then comes Phase 4, the last one. They have now reached about 100 mph, and the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round, and continue flying until they encounter resistance (like a street lamp or a tree). You will notice that as they fly off the contraption that is rotating clockwise that they themselves are also rotating clockwise. This is called the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In a frictionless environment (which is what the Big Bang was in) the pieces of the original object must ROTATE AND REVOLVE the same direction as the swirling dot of which it came. So this means that ‘the direction they are rotating in is irrelevant’ is an irrelevant statement in itself for it denies a proven physics law.”I will clarify, EVERYTHING should be ROTATING AND REVOLVING the same way if The Big Bang Theory is true. Some of Jupiter’s moons are spinning in the wrong direction. If you search you will find there is even a whole galaxy spinning backwards. How does the mighty and all knowing personage of your grand wisdom in Evolutionism explain this!? It is good to know that you know that the atmosphere has been different in the past. I thought I was in contention with incompetence again. Oh, please forgive for assuming that you, you the man that knows all the answers was incompetent. So now, oh great one, how do you find “the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere at the time”? I believe I know already but I will wait for you to explain that. Now as for, “`”That the decay rate has been constant. C-14 decays at different rates in different atmospheres.”`” No, no it doesn't.” Yes, Yes it does. You either had forgotten your great wisdom, oh wisest of all Evolutionists, or you misunderstood. I hope it is the latter. Allow me to enlighten you. It all depends on the amount of UV radiation that is striking these C-14 atoms (I suppose you know C-14 is nitrogen after it has been hit by UV light?) Before the Flood no one had any exposure to UV light (for further explanation look up Dr. Kent Hovind’s Seminar “The Hovind Theory” and listen closely with an open mind.
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:54:31.3112592-06:00
. If I did type it down in its entirety it would be well over 100,000 characters.) So as a result C-14 did not decay very fast if at all. However after the Flood things were different. Now there was this sudden onslaught of UV light (which is why humans have been getting smaller and our life spans shorter). C-14 begins to decay quicker. Here is an excerpt from one of my previous debates. “Radiometric dating, I suppose you know, is the measurement of the half life of Carbon-14. Now before Evolutionists can date the bones, they first look to see what the bones belonged to, and where it appears on the Geologic Column. They then make some faulty assumptions. 1. They assume that they animal was breathing the exact air we are breathing today. (dinosaurs lived in a very different atmosphere before the Creationist flood) [I suppose from what you have said that some Evolutionists have finally realized that the atmosphere in the past was different] 2. They assume the decay has been constant (in order for this to be true, they need to know how much was in it when it died). When trying to date something this way it is like this analogy. You walk into room and see a candle burning. I ask you when was it lit? You take some measurements on its height and find it is 10 centimeters tall. I ask you again, when was it lit? You still don’t know and you take more measurements. You find that it is burning 1 centimeter an hour. I ask again, when was the candle lit? In order to know you need to make the assumptions on how tall it was before it was lit, and has the rate of burning been constant. You don’t know so you guess. Here are a few examples on its unreliability in chronological order. 1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000. 1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old. 1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” 1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old. 1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old. 1985-11 human skeletons that were suppose to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less. 1992-Two Colorado Creek mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,000 years old, the other was 16,000. 1996-At Berkley University, the Evolutionist Karl Swisher was reevaluating one of the Homo Erectus bones. It was thought that it was 250,000 years old, but Mr. Swisher was startled and confused to find that the dates he was receiving ranged anywhere from 53,000-27,000. I might add that that is a 96% percent error. When using this method on an object of known date it never works. But when using it on an object of unknown age it is assumed to be correct. This is not commonsense science. This is an act of desperation on the part of the Evolutionists scientists to try and trick unsuspecting bystanders. With this evidence, it is apparent that Radiometric dating is far from accurate. I have many more examples, but I believe I have made my point.” I would also like to add that as C-14 is decaying in the atmosphere it is being replenished at a slower rate. Eventually the atmosphere will reach equilibrium. Such as, when you have a barrel full of water and you poke a hole in it. The water starts spewing out, and at the same moment you start refilling it with a water hose. Now the rate at which the barrel is emptying is faster than the rate you are filling it. Eventually you will reach a stage in which you are filling just as fast as it is emptying, thus you have the equilibrium. This is the case of our atmosphere today. The atmosphere should have reached equilibrium within 80,000 years. It has yet to reach that point. In fact according studies for the past 30 odd years in 2003 there was 28-30% more C-14 in the air than in 1983. How could this be if the world is suppose to be billions of year old? Unless, it isn’t! As I said before, “…I believe I have made my point.”
jrrjacques says2014-01-02T13:54:41.1113159-06:00
As for www.drdino.com it used be a website started and maintained by Dr. Kent Hovind and family. It was discontinued by the federal government due to him being sent to civilian’s prison for almost 20 years. The IRS said he was tax evading which is untrue and a completely different debate so don’t bring it up because this is about Evolutionism Vs. Creation not federal conspiracies and the financial status of one man. There are no websites out there that are unbiased, as I said it is the statistics that are unbiased. I have just typed 3,372 words in answer to your 444 words. I believe I have made my side of our argument clear, and I await your hopefully sensible reply. If you do not reply on these particular subjects mentioned above within the next 45 days it will be considered that I have won this argument against you. I have noticed Mr. Lordgrae has dropped out of the argument I do not know whether he has accepted defeat by way of stubborn silence or he is unable to reply. The latter I doubt because he has been on quite often since his last reply, and he denied an invitation to debate with me. Thank you for answering my question that appears at the end of my posts, I was just curious. Another question, though, out of inquisitiveness, is this man that is made to look like a woman, in actuality a picture of yourself?
retroman000 says2014-01-02T23:16:01.9491316-06:00
Well, didn't get notifications for these replies for some reason. Prepare for a massive wall of text. "You wish me to read entire resources, and then pick and choose certain aspects of it to debate with." Not at all. The entire page has to deal with only one topic, there's nothing to choose between. "thus I would become like the many people who have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of your religion." And what, pray tell, is that religion? "A last choice, is that you bring out the main points and bring forth your “evidence” and I will retaliate showing the plain error in it," Again, you could just read it yourself, but I will if you insist. The Lenski E. Coli experiment was started by Richard Lenski in 1988. It began with a dozen flasks of E. Coli, kept in a solution of water and glucose. They have all evolved to have a much larger cell size (0.3725 to 0.655 - 1.100 depending on the strain by generation 10,000, reached in 1992). I think a tripling of size is very significant, wouldn't you agree? The most significant adaptation, however, was Ara-3 evolving the ability to grow on the citrate present in the solution, allowing a much faster growth rate. Here's an image, I'm sure you can tell which one is Ara-3. Http://myxo.Css.Msu.Edu/ecoli/citrate2008/_images/FlaskInMidGroupForWeb.Jpg "Evolution takes some common day sights, looks at some basic fact, and then adjust it greatly to fit their theory" How so? All evolution is stating is that since we can see that species change over time, those changes must build up after millions of years. "For the next 40 years they preached that this Homo Erectus was a chimpanzee slowly coming up from a bent back to a straight back" "Then a doctor got a close look at it and said that this wasn’t a chimp slowly coming up it was an old man with arthritis who was slowly coming down." That's not what happened at all. First of all, the identification wasn't accepted by the majority of the scientific community, it was kept as a sort of pet project by its founders. Second of all, a second excavation of the site happened 4 years after the original find, not anywhere near 40. I honestly have no idea where you got the story of it being from an arthritic man, as it was discovered to be from a peccary, an animal similar to a pig. I'm also not sure where you got any statements about backs, noses, and jaws, as the finding was of a tooth. "The Evolutionists KNEW this when they found it." No, they didn't, which is why the original founders retracted their classification in 1927, 5 years after the discovery. "it is STIL being put inside text books, STILL being used as evidence for evolution" No, no it's not. Any text book that uses that as evidence has to be not only terrible quality, but made 90 years ago. " I could write a book on every single account in which data was altered KNOWINGLY by Evolutionists to fit their dieing theory." I look forward to its publication, then. "In 1970 an article was published telling how dates were selected in carbon dating, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” May you provide a link to the article? "I soon eliminated Evolution and its branch of the Big Bang" I take it you still somehow are shoehorning the Big Bang Theory into the Theory of Evolution? "Also I can’t believe you use Wikipedia!" Say what you want, but they run a tight ship. Yes, anyone can edit anything, but admins have access to a history of all edits made. Edits are checked, and if it's believed to be a fake edit, then it's simply undone. Most joke edits last no longer than a few minutes. "lease show me this “evidence” every Evolutionist I have talked with whether in person or a person online they rarely ever give this “evidence”, and when they do it is very weak and is easily dealt with solid fact." That right there is your problem. Whenever evidence is give, you simply dismiss it. What about the homologous bone structures between different animals? The similarity in DNA and proteins? The fact that organisms change by generation is literally as easy as looking towards your parents, how is it a stretch to say that those changes add up after a few million years? "why is Creation also called a theory if it is supposed to be pure religion?" It's not. At least, not by the vast, vast majority of the scientific community. Of course, creationists are going to posit that their belief is a theory. "I have read in multiple textbooks since I have had science class that it varies anywhere from 6 to 50 billion years." I'm sorry to say, then, but those textbooks are false. You may need to talk to your teacher about the validity of the textbooks. It's entirely possible, though, that they are simply outdated, as discoveries are constantly being revised improved upon. "Millions of dead things underground. Now what would you expect to find buried after a world wide flood? I think the answer is millions of dead things underground." I'm sorry, but this is just plain ridiculous. How are reptiles more dense than mammals? This would depend on individual species, not on something as wide and unspecific as a class. "did you know a trilobite has the most complicated and best eye ever studied? If most of the creatures that “evolved” after it are suppose to be more complex and better than their predecessor, then why didn’t they keep this very useful aspect if it would have given them advantages to survival?" Most likely because trilobites went extinct. Their believed to be most closely related ancestors, the horseshoe crabs, have compound eyes similar to trilobites. This is significant because they are the only chelicerate that have them. As well, trilobite eyes were complex for their time, but certainly aren't the most complex ever studied. That would likely be the mantis shrimp's. "This why there are over 250 surviving world wide flood legends all across the globe that have not had any contact with Christianity." You do know there have been multiple floods throughout history, right? There has never, though, been any global flood. That would certainly have been extremely well-recorded. "all other civilizations over 1,000 years old have hundreds upon hundreds of written encounters with dinosaurs (the modernized name for dragons)." I didn't know that dinosaurs breathed fire. "This is why in cave painting there are dinosaurs painted with the elk, mammoths, lion, tigers, and bears (Oh my!). This is why there are thousands upon thousands of sighting of sea dinosaurs and land dinosaurs since 1900. This is why the world population curve comes down to about eight people about 4,000 years ago." Source for all of these, please? "This is why human life spans are becoming smaller. This is why humans are becoming smaller and shorter." You do know the average lifespan has been increasing, right? As well as the average height? Julius Caesar, tall for his time, was likely no more than 5 ft 10 inches, and that's a bit of a stretch. "People didn’t believe this as much because the Evolutionists had no explanation for how this soup got there. So evolutionists to deal with these questions that endangered their beliefs, came up with The Big Bang Theory." The Theory of Evolution doesn't state that that's how life was started, that's abiogenesis you're thinking of. It simply makes the statement of common descent, which even that is being challenged as of late, due to the possibility of multiple occurrences of life beginning. In short, the Theory of Evolution doesn't state how life began, simply that life changes. "That is The Law of the Conservation of Matter" Again, matter didn't 'pop' into existence, it was already in existence in a singularity. As to what caused the Big Bang? We don't know. That doesn't mean we'll never know. That also doesn't mean that it is automatically false. "the pieces of the original object must ROTATE AND REVOLVE the same direction as the swirling dot of which it came." First of all, who's to say the singularity was rotating? Second of all, even if it was, that only applies to the initial outburst of energy. The clumps of matter that would form into stars and planets would have a gravitational pull on each other, affecting their movement outward. "how do you find “the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere at the time”? I believe I know already but I will wait for you to explain that." Simple. You date objects with other ways (tree rings, for example), and then test it using radiometric dating. Using the two results, one can 'tune' the data until the ages match up, an then we can see the levels of c-14 in the atmosphere at the time. "It all depends on the amount of UV radiation that is striking these C-14 atoms" No, it doesn't. Radioactive decay is when radioactive isotopes (which are unstable) lose energy. This is an internal process, and is not affected by external changes. "1949-The lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old and the skin 21,000. 1963-A living mollusk was dated to be 2,300 years old. 1970-An article was published telling how dates were selected, “If the date supports our theory we put it in the main text. If it is not entirely contradicting, it is put as a foot-note. If it doesn’t support our theory at all it is dropped and we test again.” 1971-A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old. 1984-The shells from living snails were dated at 27,000 years old. 1985-11 human skeletons that were suppose to be the earliest remains of North American humans that were thought to be about a quarter of a million years old were dated at 5,000 years old or less. 1992-Two Colorado Creek mammoths were found side by side, one was 22,000 years old, the other was 16,000. 1996-At Berkley University, the Evolutionist Karl Swisher was reevaluating one of the Homo Erectus bones. It was thought that it was 250,000 years old, but Mr. Swisher was startled and confused to find that the dates he was receiving ranged anywhere from 53,000-27,000." Sources for these? "I would also like to add that as C-14 is decaying in the atmosphere it is being replenished at a slower rate. Eventually the atmosphere will reach equilibrium." Except that sometimes that 'hose' is barely on, causing more water to trickle out, and sometimes it's on max, putting more water in. The hose doesn't put water in at a constant rate. "Another question, though, out of inquisitiveness, is this man that is made to look like a woman, in actuality a picture of yourself?" It's strange that you wouldn't recognize him as Paul Ryan, the one who ran as vice-president of our country, along with Mitt Romney?
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-04T14:56:51.9918835-06:00
Dying theory? Ha.. - Reading Skill Increased - 81
jrrjacques says2014-05-28T07:39:23.2104233-05:00
In three days, my friend Mr. Retroman000, I shall be excused from school for the duration of the next three months. During that time I shall be unable to reach any source of electronic to reply to your post. But! I shall continue to endeavor to formulate my reply. I shall reply to every aspect of your post as I have done before (and I have noticed you have failed to do (not to imply anything just pointing out)). I wish you as joyous a Summer Break as God can give to you. May He bless your life, like he has many billions. Jrrjacques at your service.
jrrjacques says2014-12-12T09:25:32.4326788-06:00
My dear Mr. Retroman000, I have returned from the grips of internetless vacation and time devouring school work. As I have thus made my daring escape, I can now renew this quarrel. That is after Christmas break. Over the break I will finalize my reply and will submit it to your scrutiny. I wish you luck in the future. Merry Christmas Mr. Retroman000, Mr. Lordgrae, and Mr. Comrade_Silly_Otter may the yuletide for you be gay! Jrrjacques at your service.
Lordgrae says2014-12-12T10:14:26.5438729-06:00
I am simply frothing with anticipation.
arthurjeremypearson says2015-04-12T13:23:40.0796926-05:00
What is WRONG with you people? Four evoution questions, and four times where both evolution and creationism are left UNDEFINED! SERIOUSLY what is WRONG with you people? Are you HAPPY throwing out buzzwords and inciting POINTLESS "debate" for the sake of debate itself?! I agree with both. As defined by both camps. I disagree with both, as defined by their opposite camps. I CAN GIVE NO ANSWER TO A QUESTION THAT IS UNDEFINED!!! By ASSUMING people "already know" what evoultion and creationism are as YOU define them, you don't actually ask anything at all.
radz says2015-05-07T06:33:50.4242754-05:00
Macroevolution never occured. Speciation at the macroevolution level never happened. Macro-evolution is a mere scientific hypothesis ( i.e. Educated GUESS). Macroevolution is basically talking about the origin of new species from new genes. Up-to-date, science fails to tell us the origin of new genes in a genome. This is the reason why macroevolution is still a "theory" in science.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.