agreed.

To reiterate my points above:

1.) There is no such thing as "true scientific proof". Everything in science is considered to be unproven.

2.) There is no proof, no working hypothesis and no potential for experimentation in any creation theory other than evolution.

3.) You are not a biologist, you are not a scientist, and you very clearly don't even understand the scientific method. You have no place talking about this at all.

As some of you are, such as Jon'C, are lazy enough to click on a link, I shall post 17 evidences against evolution, that are, not influenced by religion, but no more than 2 occasion that I counted, and still made perfect, logical sense.

1. MOON DUST
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.


2. MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

3. FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

3. It had teeth.

Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

4. It had a shallow breastbone.

Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.


4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.
The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.

The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.

Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.


5. PROBABILITY
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.


6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.


7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.

7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.


8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.


9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.


10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.


Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences

Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%

Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences

Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%

Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!

11. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.


12. DINOSAURS
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.
Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.


13. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

15. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

16. WRITTEN RECORD
The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists thirty-seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for creation at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

17. THE BIBLE
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.

SOURCES

Baker, Sylvia, Evolution: Bone of Contention (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Evangelical Press, 1986) Second Edition, p. 25

Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma, Fossils and Other
Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 74

Parker, Gary, Life Before Birth (El Cajon, CA: Master
Books, 1987), pp. 41-44

Kennedy, D. James, Why I Believe (Waco, TX: Word Books,
1980), p. 56

Chick, Jack T., Primal Man? (Chino, CA: Chick Publications,
1976), p. 23

Cook, Charles, "God's Young Earth Signature," Bible-Science
Newsletter, August 1989, p. 5


OTHER BOOKS ON CREATION/EVOLUTION

Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon: Master Books, 1987)

Chittick, Donald E., The Controversy, Roots of the Creation-
Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984)

Morris, Henry, The God Who Is Real (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House, 1988)

Wysong, R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland,
MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)

Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985

Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE
Publishing, 1984)

Morris, Henry, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984)

Morris, Henry, The Genesis Record (Published by Creation
Life Publishers, Santee, CA, for Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1986) Eleventh Printing

Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record (Santee, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1985)

Ackerman, Paul D., It's A Young World After All (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986)

Also: There is only evidence against (and for!) evolution. Nothing even close to conclusive. Everything in evolution, by its very nature nature, is chance.

Oh, and I formally request that SF_GoldG_01's last post be returned to a link. Save that length posts for the ISB, buddy. Don't say that we don't click on links.

{Edit: Text deleted because I'm not the kind of guy to flame. Blatantly.)

I think were derailing this thread too much, I doing the majority, perhaps it would be wise we continue this divine discussion in its own thread.

[QUOTE=Spi Waterwing]BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT:[/QUOTE]

Gee, my efforts were all for naught. For once, it appears SF_GoldG has had a good idea. After me.

So, to reiterate:
[QUOTE=Spi Waterwing]
It would be easy for a few seeds from plants to arrive on an island via wind. Birds arrive by air, and other animals can arrive by storm or other means.
Islands in lakes, however, are much easier to explain. Some event can change the course of a river into two paths, cutting off an inhabited area from the mainland. Also, some animals could probably swim the gap.

Sorry if I'm a bit spoiled on the subject of evolution; I managed to hear Dr. Frances Collins (head of the Human Genome Progect, or something like that) speak a couple months ago. He's great; if you ever have the opportunity to hear him, take it.[/QUOTE]

Peh... straight to the morale:
Time and unforseen occurences.

Thats all thank you.

Buddy, I didn't click on your link because I've heard it all already, and I know a snake oil salesman when I see one.

Even ignoring the compelling evidence in the favor of evolution and the fact that even the roman catholic church now acknowledges evolution as the system God used to create us all (which is also what I believe), where is the experiment that demonstrates creationism?

There isn't one and there never will be one, because religion is about faith. Science is about skepticism. If you don't want to expose your religious beliefs to public dismissal don't try to tie them to a false scientific label.
Having faith is important. If you're so dead-set on trying to "prove" them you're just a coward.

Oh? Favorable scientific facts for evolution? Show them to me to bash them with other scientific facts! :p

EDIT: No offense, but I wouldn't trust the catholic church, history, their current actions, study of the bible and reasoning would give you more than one good reason to atleast know not to listen to them.

EDIT2: I can't see how man could ever find out how things were created if they didn't take atleast 49 000 years to study it. The fact is, there is no true solid evidence/theory/fact/proof that makes evolution favorable in a way that is undoubtable.

On a side note, lots of recent scientific research have found proof that would fit perfectly with genesis, such as all modern men come from one female that dates back to no more than 6000-6500 years ago according to cell research and stuff like that (forget the link, but it was a VERY long article)

Jesus you're thick, kid. You're one hell of a ballsy hypocrite for telling me I was too lazy to read your tripe when you respond to my posts without paying attention to them.

Here, learn something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Read that, conduct some experiments, and maybe I'll let you play with my toys.

Edit: Here is the part that you need to pay attention to:



Examples:

"God exists!": Cannot be disproven using scientific method, therefore it is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
"Humans evolved from apes": Can be disproven using scientific method, therefore it is a scientific theory. However, it cannot be proven as a universal fact because we don't know everything in the universe!
"Gravity exists": Can be disproven using scientific method (but hasn't yet), therefore it is a scientific theory. However, it cannot be proven as a universal fact because we don't know everything in the universe!

How do you explain dog breeding and plant breeding?

And the mitochondrial eve has been put at several hundred thousand years in the past. I don't know what you are talking about but you are not backing up anything you say with credible scientific evidence.

I want peer reviewed reports, not little paragraphs citing stuff that may not even be true. Ever think of that?

It doesn't matter what term I use, the message is still the same... Where is your proof? I have shown you my arguments, where are yours?

Ahh theres a point... there are different breeds of dogs, and plants, alas I've seen no different breeds of humans.

If you aren't willing to use the tools of science you have absolutely no right talking about it. This is my point. Your biology teacher isn't telling you "lies", he's telling you the current state-of-the-art theories within the field of biology.

You just... don't... understand... what... science... is. I'm sorry, you're beyond help. Maybe your children will evolve into something a bit less like you.

Asians? Africans? Indians? Caucasians?

What do you think a breed is?


Edit: Dude, I think you need to spend less time making fake video games and more time paying attention to your biology teacher. I'm done with this.

I still have not seen anything that makes evolution favorable...
Asians, Africans, Indians, Caucasians, Americans are not breeds, they still have the same organs as us, they still have the same number of cromosomes, they still have the same type of organization functions as all humans do, unless you count the ones that are born with some sort of genetic defect.... unlike different breeds of dogs and plants.

EDIT: They only thing that changed in your "human breeds" are a physical appearance.

Are you kidding? What race are you? I am semetic and the last girl I dated was white. If we had a child they would be half semetic and half white.

Physical appearance is not a breed, these are just characteristics dominating one over another, in all other terms, if you do not have a genetic defect or disease, you are exactly the same as another human.

Guys, let's just let this thread die, the kid has 0 idea what he is talking about.

Let us stop feeding the troll.

[QUOTE=SF_GoldG_01's copy and Pasting of Stupidity]
13. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal overflows would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

15. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
[/QUOTE]

erm, hasnt that guy been taught Higher Level Science?

He's simplified statistics to the point where they dont seem physically possible.

Here's a thought, physical behavior in those circumstances ARENT ALWAYS CONSTANT???

[QUOTE=The same stupid post]
17. THE BIBLE
Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created the universe and every living thing, so the world must have been created. In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can see how evolution theory undermines the omniscience and even the existence of God. And if there is no God, why not do our own thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put our trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these humanistic ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn.
[/QUOTE]

/falls over laughing

Lmao

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

"Christians must take a stand for the Word of God, or be accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those whom we did not warn."

In other words, don't stand for the word of men.

Can you prove they were not always constant? Is there any reason to believe or suspect such a thing?

I agree.

Men are weak. Their line is broken.

The Blood of Numenor is all but spent.

But there is one who could unite them.

Though he turned from that path a long time ago.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

18. My grandmother is 5'6" but, due to osteoporosis, her height is decreasing roughly 0.5" per year. Being that she is 76 years old, at the time of her birth she must have been 8'8", thus proving the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

Erm, I already explained how this is NOT an example of Macro-evolution in another thread. Did you read that? THere are plenty of other good points that poke holes in creationism, but this is not one of them.

http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=38194&page=2&pp=40#post597029

Yeah, by measuring it. Periodically.

omg

well for one, the suns diameter statistic.

From what I know of physics and Nuclear Fusion, a big ball of superheated hydrogen plasma = star does not have a constantly changing size.

Its to do with the atoms in the sun.

It may be shrinking now, but thats cos the atoms in the sun are changing, ie, more helium/iron/oxygen. To begin with, it was hydrogen, and the sun wouldnt be as it is now.

I'm fairly certain it would increase in size as it increased in temperature, then stopped getting bigger.

Some stars will continue to shrink, some become red giants, ie, they grow real fast.


ps. Masq sums up what I meant.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Gold, I was once a creationist. Exhaustive arguments on this very board and simple reason have since convinced me that creationism is utterly worthless nonsense sold by deceitful charlatans to the willfully ignorant.

I have not lost my faith. If anything, it's stronger now that it is not weighed down with all the human, fallible baggage creationism brings with it.

Now, it took me a couple months of being hammered away at daily with (often the same) irrefutable proofs by people who haven't posted in years. I don't think anyone has the time or the energy to really have a go at it now, which is why no one is responding to your copy-and-pasted lists and articles. However, since I'm still ashamed I ever believed in creationism, I'll outline the steps I went through in the hopes you'll find something that's beneficial.

1. I realized that, since I wasn't even in high school yet, there was no way I was going to be able to read and evaluate papers published in Nature. I tried. This meant that I was relying solely on other (now clearly dubious) sources to provide not just evidence, but arguments. I was spewing talking points without understanding anything.

2. I realized a group consisting of shady creationists with degrees from diploma mills was not more trustworthy than a group made up of every respected, legitimately educated professor and post-doc in the field.

3. I realized that, while there is no theory of creationism, there is a theory of evolution that is constantly being revised and improved in reams of scientific papers reporting the results of thousands of hours of research by dozens of very smart people, of which only the simplest outlines filter down to the plebes. Who then argue about it, despite being completely clueless.

4. I realize those lists of 17 evidences against evolution I was posting were complete bull****.

For example, moon dust, which is one of the most debunked creationist claims ever. (1, 2, 3)

Now it's customary to direct you to talk.origins if you have any further questions. There's a refutation there for every creationist argument.

No I must have missed that post.

I know that, but, the point stands, it is evolution. He is trying to throw the whole thing out.

Well I will consider this:

Science is not infaulable, neither is the catholic church, neither am I, you or any one on this board.

Just because something is being revised constantly doesn't make it true, favorable, etc etc.

Lots of evolution so called "proof" was falsified.

One needs to be careful not to see things from the point of view of just the supporters, but from all points of view.

Evolution has never been observed.

If we are perfecting, or whatever, how come we seem to be degenerating?

If the world is so old, and lasted millions of years, why are there modern day human foot prints mixed with thoses of dinosaurs, whats more, how come they find fossels of modern day dogs inside of dinosaurs.

They keep digging up more proof that modern day creatures existed in the time of dinosaurs.

How come the genetics of modern day humans match the time frame of the bible?

If spontanous life has not been observed, recreated, how did anything ever come to existance?

If life has existed Trillions of Trillions of years ago, how come there is no ancient wise species that shows signs of life across the universe, if it had all this time to develop, and were speaking of a big universe where this should atleast happen once with so many possibilities and stuff.

You say man wrote the bible... how ever, we have observed how some races of men have just acted on instict and never advanced in any way, shape or form, so with out a proper mentor, or something superior, how would we know the difference between right or wrong?

How come all the things occuring these days is mentioned in the bible?

How come you don't take a hint or accept that you could be wrong, and should see things on the other side of the fence for a change.

.

Well then, in this case, the theory of life forms/organisms/animals/plants or whatever changing over a course of time has never been observed, there are no recordings, no knowledge or origins that would lead to such a thought but what one man thought he saw when he looked at a monkey/ape/gorrilla and a man.

in your defense Gold, Its true, evolution isnt a proven theory.

In fact, I have written 2 stories in the past 6 years, one is fantasy, the other is epic end of world stuff with a scifi basis.

In both of these, it uses a creationalist theme.

Because deep down I kind of believe it, though not the version most will.

I sorta believe in a universe as seen from the eyes of athiests, ie, big bang, but my take on it is... What made the big bang, was it planned, and what is the purpose of the universe.

etc etc

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Answer.

Um, Charles Darwin formed his theory based on his OBSERVATIONS. He also RECORDED them. You could read up on them, but apparently you're too thick and blind to even consider it. You also keep bringing up "proof" which we have pointed out, many times, doesn't exist in science. It's not what science is about. Maybe you should understand what science IS before you argue about it. Likewise with evolution.

Right...

nm

Holy. Hell.

I'm not sure how that idea came to be.