In my opinion the only thing that Genesis 1 proves is that Jewish people were using a 7 day calendar prior to writing the bible.

Whoa! is this the definition of an explosion or something?

Traduweise : I posted an earlier version of evolution, I think it was being taught in 1998 in public schools.
I knew that I was posting an outdated version of evolution. Actually, That's one of the problems with
evolution, since it deals with a bunch of theory, it keeps changing, sometimes grossly. So, you want to debate evolution still?
If you dislike my out dated version of evolution, then you're welcome to make an up top date summary of the theory. I'll edit my first post ,
although I did want to make a point of the constant changing of the evolution theory.


play4fun : I decided to leave the beginning of the debate open without me attacking first, consider it a knight's honor.
So, I just stated my views and the evolutionists.

thenumberone : Read below

speakno3vil : that's exactly what I'm going to do, and I'll disprove evolution well.

alexanyways : wisdom teeth are probably reminants from a time when humans were bigger, It would take me a long time to explain
 but I'll get to it. . . eventually

Wow, there is so much going on! Where to start?

First of all, when Adam and eve ate friute it did not die. First see the biblical definition of dying. Plants wither and they fade but they don't die. We use the term die to describe a laptop that runs out of power, but it's not really dead, it wasn't even alive in the first place.
The bible constantly says that they wither and that they fade, they never die.


Look, there are six different types of evolution:

Cosmic evolution - the origin of time space and matter (Big Bang theory)

Chemical evolution - the origin of the higher elements from hydrogen

Stellar and planetary evolution - the origin of stars and planets

Organic evolution - origin of life coming from inanimate matter

Macroevolution - changing from one kind into another

Microevolution - variations within kinds (only one to be observed)


All the "evolution" that is shown today is just minor changes that stay inside a single species. it is natural selection, not
the changing of genes. When genes change, we get mutations, these are never helpful. No one has observed a helpful mutation.

All of the other types of evolution are only theories, they have never been observed.

Your example of breeding giraffes is just producing more giraffes, not dogs or some other kind of animal.
There is no debate on microevolution it exists and God made it that way.

     MICROEVOLUTION IS PROVEN. IT IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE SIX DIFFERENT TYPES THAT IS OBSERVED.

That being said how about you aswer some of my questions?


Where did the laws of the universe come from? Where they different a long time ago? If so, why arn't they still evolving?

Where did matter come from? The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Was this law different back then? Why doesn't change today? Do the universal laws keep evolving? Is there any proof of that?

The second law of themodynamics states that every thing tends to head to disorder. How does evolution overcome this?
"Why that's easy, the sun supplies the earth with energy, which is used to overcome the law". No, adding energy is destructive
unless you have a special device to harness the energy. Like a solar panel, a man-made object. Japan added a ton of energy
to pearl harbor on our city. It didn't organize a thing. We added a LOT of energy to their city, boy that sure didn't organize anything.

Sword legion :   No. The "version" of evolution you initially posted did not correspond to any theory on evolution anyone has suggested in the past 200+ years, much less something taught in 1998. Heck, the page I linked you was first written around 1995 and gives a fairly accurate summary of evolutionary theory that is still valid today, although it has been updated a few times since then. The details of evolution may be under constant revision, but no major part of evolutionary theory has changed since Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in the 1950's.

The updated version you've posted is an improvement, but the mere fact that you're still starting with the Big Bang Theory and formation of the earth, which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, is perplexing. The Theory of Evolution explains how and why life diversifies, not how it began, and certainly not how the universe began. I highly recommend you at least skim over the page I linked you, as you cannot honestly expect to discuss evolution when you don't understand what it is. Heck, just the Wikipedia page on evolution will teach you a great deal and is a fine place to start.

Lastly, there is only one Theory of Evolution, not six. The formation of the universe, even if some people do label it as an evolution, works in a very different way and is subject to the laws of physics, and if you want to discuss that, you had best learn some rudimentary physics first.

EDIT: And the only difference between micro and macroevolution is time. If you accept microevolution, you also accept its logical follow-up, macroevolution. Here's a decent summary. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Traduweise : If Macroevolution exists then show me some kind of proof. Bones? Animals giving birth to different kinds of animals?

The evolution spoken of in the original post was being taught in public schools at some point in time. I not sure when though.
Maybe they should have stuck with the dirt theory, then there is actually something that can blow up. Not that dirt blowing up
is scientific but it's closer to science than nothing blowing up and creating everything.
The six different types of evolution that I showed was to avoid confusion to as what is fact and what is not.

Whenever evolution comes up, so does the big bang and planetary evolution theory. These are cornerstones to the evolution theory,
the big bang and star formation, without them the evolution theory is lacking many answers to the questions about the foundation of the universe.
Generally the theory of evolution is considered the same as the big bang theory. If you think that I am not educated enough on the subject then 
maybe you should take advantage of that and debate a unknoledgeable person like myself. 

I would like if you debated me instead of posting links please. Sorry if this is coming off as smart, that's not my objective.

Anyway, I did check out the links, I understand that in the theory of evolution that creatures branch off instead of one race that
keeps on getting better and better.

The theory of evolution is connected enough with the big bang theory so that I would like to debate them both.

Sword legion : There is no need to list everything that evolves. Evolution simply means changing so something like cosmic evolution is irrelevant to this debate. Damn near everything evolves in some form. The only kind of evolution that needs to be discussed is biological evolution and abiogenesis.

"All of the other types of evolution are only theories, they have never been observed."

Creationism is just a hypothesis that hasn't been observed. Creationism gets it's "evidence" from a book while biological evolution gets its evidence from life forms and the remnants of them. You are correct in saying that macro evolution hasn't been observed, or the actual change anyways, but there are plenty of sources that support the theory like DNA, fossils and geology.

As our collective knowledge base grows we are continuing to finding new evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Here's an example, Years ago there was a hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This was mainly brought about from the similarities in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs. Years later paleontologists discover dinosaur fossils with clear signs of feathers.

You all ready agree that organisms change over time with micro evolution , which is understandable because it is fairly hard to deny, but is it really that big of a stretch of the imagination to believe that a larger change (or a large amount of small changes) can happen over a much larger time scale? Many creationists give me the impression that they expect evolution to be a rapid change, as if they expect to see an alligator turn into a duck over night. I think they would be hard pressed to find a biologist that has a similar view of evolution.

darthyoda : Any change in genetic coding is, by definition, a mutation. No matter how minor they are, they are still mutation. Natural selection is not simply defined as minor changes within a species. It is specific traits surviving over other traits. Mutations are rarely beneficial, but not never. For example, there are a few select studies showing a mutation on CCR5 in human white blood cells that happens to make them HIV resistant. Sickle Cell is another mutation that has a beneficial effect. Having sickle red blood cells offers resistance to malaria. However, having this condition in an area where malaria is not present or common is not beneficial due to inferior oxygen carrying capabilities. But it is very beneficial in areas like Sub-Saharan Africa.

Sword Legion
Your issue with how the giraffe example only shows making different giraffes, not making a dog is not a fair argument. An animal can't just naturally give birth to a different species. It doesn't work like that. This is something that takes millions of years to happen, and it is all very gradual. You have no problem believing that micro-evolution exists, but fail to see that macro-evolution is a process that only happens through micro-evolution first. You don't get large scale changes with generations. You get tiny changes on a micro level that likely aren't even noticed at first. Those changes on the micro level is something that eventually starts to be observable on a macro level, but over a very long time span. 

With that said, I am an evolutionist but a religious person as well. Biblical text is about as clear as the constitution. There are many interpretations, hence the reason there are so many religious branches from a single document. How you view the words of genesis pretty much shapes how you would view evolution. When I read it, I see that the evolutionist timeline fits perfectly with the biblical timeline. The only detail is the difference between 7 days and billions of years. If you take 7 days as literal Earth rotations, they don't match. But I fail to read the part that specifies that detail. How can there be days before there is a world to spin or a sun for it to orbit? I think the 7 days does not mean literal. Maybe 7 days in the eyes of God, perhaps. But back to my point. The book of Genesis states that the world began covered in ice and water. The evolutionist timeline believes that aquatic life was the first form of life. Genesis moves on to separation of land and water. Evolutionist timeline states that land did eventually form as a result of tectonic movement. Genesis states that the land was then covered with grass and fruit baring trees. Evolutionist timeline states the same. As stated before, Evolutionist timeline states that sea animals came first. The main difference is the thought on when birds came into the picture. But land animals came alongside man in the book of Genesis. Now, again, this is a matter of interpretation. You can believe that it is stating that everything was literally put on at the exact moment in time. I interpret the days of genesis as phases, not exact moments. So I see this as saying that land creatures and man were put on earth within the same phase (day). I don't interpret the days of Genesis as literal 24 hour days, but merely phases of creation. 

As for your questions:
First, you are mixing up your laws. You applied the law of thermodynamics to matter, which is incorrect. Law of thermodynamics applies to energy. You should refer to the Law of Conservation of Matter. It states the same thing, but just applies it to matter.

"Why aren't they still evolving?"- who says they aren't? Things are constantly changing all the time. Plants responding to climate changes (though not fast enough to keep up with human interference), humans building disease resistance, etc. The problem with humans is that we have completely changed the survival of the fittest rules. We have literally created a society where it is no longer those who are the strongest or smartest survive. We live in a world where death is no longer a natural part of life, but something we fear and try to overcome. Creatures of lower intelligence might not be cursed with the cognitive ability to ponder death. Because of this, we now have a society where we use technological means to overcome death instead of natural means. This makes it very difficult to see physical evolution. Not that we could anyway because it is something that takes a very long time to happen naturally. But we are still evolving with the new laws of 'nature' we have created. Now, it is mental development that is the best survival tool. Ever notice how it seems that each new generation is constantly ahead of the previous generation at their young age? For example, kids are learning things in elementary school that many of our grandparents didn't learn until high school and even in higher education. We are living in a time where our brain development is extremely rapid and very easy to observe. Just because you don't see much of any physical change doesn't mean the world isn't evolving. You have to look at more than one aspect of change. Animals are still stuck with natural change unless we make changes for them, such as applying our medicine to them. Otherwise, they can't rely on technological prowess. unfortuantely for them, we are developing at such a rate and in direction that is causing too much change in a short period of time. So short that it isn't enough for natural physical evolution to keep up. They are still subject to survival of the fittest, and they are not the most adept to fit in this new rapid changing world we are creating. That, in itself, is change.

"Were the laws different back then (in regards to the Law of Conservation of Matter)-- absolutely not. I am a man of science. But it is that very law of science that keeps me a religious person. If you were to rewind time to the point where all matter in the Universe was a super-mass, that super-mass had to get there somehow. Science already states that matter can't just appear. So if you keep rewinding time, you will eventually get to the point where you have the very first piece of matter ever to exist, and then nothing. Divine creation is the only explanation that I can see that can explain how matter got here in the first place to even make up the super-mass that burst in the Big Bang.
 
I am a full believer in Evolution. But I am also a religious person. I just happen to believe that the bible has many interpretations. The way I interpret it happens to fit very well with the Evolutionist timeline. I think what science has shown holds true, but it does nothing more than aid in filling in the gaps that the Bible left out. The Bible was not meant to be a document holding all the details of the universe. The point of the Bible is to direct you to the word of God. If the Bible didn't shorten Genesis to a simple explanation of 7 days and took the route of talking about the uncountable details on how every thing got here and developed, it would just serve as a distraction to the point the Bible gives. So science is just a way to fill in the other details that Bible wasn't meant to explain. 

Sword legion : If you had bothered reading the link I gave you (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ), you would have seen an extremely long list of observed instances of speciation (ie macroevolution). Heck, you could have just Googled 'observed instances of speciation.' There are hundreds of examples.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you try and pass off first evolution and now the Big Bang Theory as 'dirt blowing up'. My goodness. That is so far divorced from what either of these theories are, I really have no idea where you are getting this. If you can show me an actual government-approved school curriculum, from any time, that summarises either of these things as 'dirt blowing up', I will eat my hat.

Anyway, evolution is has nothing to do with the big bang or the formation of the universe. The former is a biological theory based on observed evidence and various hypotheses explaining and combining behaviour, genes, et cetera. The latter are physical theories that can be modeled and are based on the four fundamental laws of the universe (mostly gravity). Any similarities are superficial at best.

But it's time you actually backed some of your claims up. Frankly, you haven't demonstrated even a basic understanding of either of these theories. Read up on these theories, even if it is just the Wikipedia pages, educate yourself, and maybe then we can have an actual debate.

rcarter2 : What you and a lot of Christians believe is the gap theory, the compromised the clear teaching of the bible to 
accommodate the new teaching of the age of the earth and the theory of evolution.

Exodus 10:11 And the Lord created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them is six days.

Matter is energy, the law applies to both, keep reading below, and thanks for being respectful.

Traduweise : Microevolution exists but not macroevolution for two reasons:

1 Adding a bunch of time to microevolution does not create macroevolution. You still only have giraffes

2 No bones have ever been found proving macroevolution.

The big bang is still relevant to this. It's a cornerstone to the grand scheme of things in the atheistic world view. 

Now, in south America there is a type of vanilla plant that needs a certain type of bee in order to reproduce.
It's called the vanilla bee (appropriately). This special bee is the only bee that is able to open this plant in order for the plant
to exchange DNA and reproduce. Which means that they would have to evolve at the same time or else the plant dies.
Or did the bee evolve much later according to evolution?

Today we see that the earth's rotation is slowing down, so if we calculate the speed that the earth is slowing down at, then we 
can find out how much faster it was going in the past. As we go back in time we see that the earth was going so fast that life 
could not exist. The winds would have been so powerful!

Today, the moon is getting farther and farther away from us. That means that millions of years ago, the moon surface was touching the earth's! Looks like Link spent to much time gathering rupees and didn't play the song of time.

Today the sun is getting smaller, so in the past it was bigger. Millions of years ago it would have been so big that 
it would have consumed the earth!

smotpoker86: There actually was a theory at one point of time where people wondered if certain reptiles suddenly gave birth to
birds. 

Creation was observed, God observed creation, then he told Adam about it who told his descendants, etc. . .

Science is what we can observe and test. We have never tested or observed the theory of macro evolution.
You guys have only shown me microevolution. There would be a lot more bones in the ground every where 
if macroevolution were true, but there are zero.



 

Sword legion : If you don't know these things, Google is your friend. Some obvious transitional fossils include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

More transitional fossils can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.

"Macroevolution" can be explained quite simply. Imagine I have a very large Lego building, and I remove a single block and replace it with a different block. It's still the same building; in fact virtually nothing has changed about it. But if I repeat this process every day for a few weeks, you'll notice that the building, while still being the same building, has clearly undergone some alterations. If I repeat this process over a few years, the building will eventually come to resemble an entirely new building with the few remaining features gradually disappearing over time.

As you can see, the only thing separating these changes is time; at no point is any one change more significant than another, but added up, they create an entirely new model of blocks. That is a simplified explanation of macro and microevolution, but the gist is there. Macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutions. If you hold that microevolution is true you simply must accept macroevolution. To deny that is nonsensical; it's like accepting that I can make small changes to my Lego building by changing the individual blocks, but that the accumulation of changes will not eventually result in a new building. And there is plenty of evidence for this occuring in nature too, as I have demonstrated above.

Here's another example of speciation occuring right in front of us (scroll down to the "Other Comments" section, and feel free to check the links it offers):

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Hyla_versicolor/


Now for the "atheistic worldview", with is nonsensical right away because there is no "atheistic worldview". An atheist is someone who does not believe in any sort of a deity, and nothing more. Atheists are not some collective hivemind; they are individuals who's only similarity is a lack of belief in divinity. No doubt many atheists do accept the Big Bang Theory, but plenty of theists do as well. Labelling the big bang as some sort of atheist belief is completely false and misleading.

As for the rest of your wild, and mostly untrue or misinterpreted claims, I'm going to have to ask for sources, since I don't have the patience to go digging through the internet whenever you don't understand something. While you're searching, you can go over this video which dispels most of your flawed claims on astronomy disproving evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inES_eAexN8&list=PLAC3481305829426D&index=20

This entire series is actually quite an excellent resource for those who compare evolution to creationism. Come to think of it, I might just have to give you a video in this series every time you make a claim, since I'm fairly sure all your claims are covered in it.

Sword legion :   "There would be a lot more bones in the ground every where
if macroevolution were true, but there are zero."

There are zero bones in the ground now? I'm not even going to get into a serious discussion because I think you are just trolling. Even with the off chance you aren't trolling I feel that it would be pointless to have a discussion because all your counter arguments seem to be illogical. Now if you will excuse me I'm going to go talk to some people that don't believe the sun revolves around the earth.

First off, I find what you said about my belief to be offensive. The part I am talking about is when you said that I 'compromised' the teaching of the Bible. That is the biggest problem I see with so many fellow Christians that I think gives us all a bad image. Someone's interpretation of the Bible is different from yours, so you immediately say that mine is the one that is 'compromised'. I never said yours was wrong. I don't know which branch of Christianity you stem from, but are you going to say that every other branch that has different interpretations than you are all wrong and yours is the only right one? I thought you seemed to be a person who could at least respect that there are other religious views that your own, but by calling my interpretation 'compromised', I see you as no different than any other person won't even show other religious beliefs the respect they deserve. I don't care if you are talking to a fellow Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sheikh, Muslim, etc. You have no right to tell any of them that their holy religious beliefs are 'compromised'. You have lost any respect I could have had for you. 

You think you are disproving something. But the only thing you are disproving is the misconceptions you have about every scientific process of which you are trying to sound like an expert. I won't debate that you have disproved your misinterpretations, but that is because they are misinterpretations. Much of what you discussed are not even remotely what scientists truly believe. To explain that to you would take more than the 6 years it took me to earn my Biology degree.

But I do have one question when you mentioned how the teachings of the Bible were so clear. Why is it in the first Chapter of Genesis, it states that Adam and Eve were created after beasts and birds, but then stated that man was created before beast in the second chapter?

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Second contradiction I see in genesis is this. In chapter 1, it states that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously, and chapter said that God created Adam-then beasts-then Eve

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Lastly, if the Bible truly is so clear, why are there so many branches of Religions based off the same book? Oh wait. I forgot. You answered my question in your last post. All the other ones but yours are 'compromised'.

maw989s : Your question "where does nothing come from?" is actually really easy to answer

Simply put, there is not such thing as nothing. Nothing is actually quantum fluctuations, which is, in fact, something

play4fun : Evolution is a theory..a scientific theory..yes. Then again, so is gravity. Evolution is a scientific theory that is basically on the same level as fact, but cannot be claimed so because you can not use a lab or experiments to prove it, but that doesn't hinder all of the proof already given for evolution. Also, not exaggerating here, literally about 99% of the scientific community has accepted evolution as fact

Sword legion : I suggest you  go http://armorgames.com/user/MageGrayWolf this page and read all that he has on his pge. He is someone I know over in Armor Games, and has an extremely awesome grasp on evolution

Also..you can no state the Bible as evidence for why creationism is correct and evolution is wrong. The Bible holds no validity other than a self given claim that it is correct. Any book can do that, Harry Potter can do that.

Its interesting you ask where the laws of the universe come from. In proximity to different masses, black holes, scientific anomaly's etc the usual rules pretty much go out the window. as things stand, we cant say that the next along solar system dosent have a different structure entirely. We can hypothesize by comparing certain observations to the requirements for it to form, but just as gravity vary s, so do many other factors, like time.
And rcarter pretty much covered the other points like giraffes not changing into dogs so I wont repeat it.

Sword legion :
The moon wasnt touching the earth, and the current theory is the moon was knocked out of the earth.
And creationism hasn't been observed.
Only one being, not human, and not proven to exist, is claimed to have seen it, and this was documented by humans that, in the grand scheme of things, lived thousands of years after the supposed creation.
if I switched that around, making god a scientist, the fact we didnt know if he was real, couldnt prove it(the event/discovery) our-self, no one had observed it, and it was documented long enough after it to speculate it was just a legend, no one would state that was evidence. you wouldn't call it evidence either.

Incidentally, you could only determine what speed it was going(the earth) in the past if you knew how old the earth was, a calculation using the wrong numbers would be false. And who's to say that the meteor strike that hit the earth, forming the moon, didnt effect the earths rotation? or the strike that killed the dinousaurs? Both the moon and Dino's were late into the earths creation.

You can state that no bones have been found to prove macroevolution, but what evidence, other than the bible, do you have to prove creationism?
Your argument against it is there is not 100% proof of it, yet your argument has even less evidence.

The bee thing, yes I know of it, andf there is a type of tree that cant survive without a mold that grows in it.
That dosent mean one day they had a meeting to decide to collaberate. There will be a reason the tree sees it as advantages to exclusively allow that bee. I actually watched something on tv about them, and by exclusively pollinating that plant, the bee gets easier food, and the tree gets better fertilization results because the pollen makes it to the correct plants.
Presumably the plants got harder to open and the bee got larger to cope with that. But as is often the case with evolution, perhaps a large percentage of the trees died except for a few, which developed heaver buds to restrict the species able to acccess it. The bee may have evolved in line because it favoured that plant, like pandas. They favour bamboo, which isnt actually a predictable choice, its low in energy, inedible and fairly sparse. But they evolved to eat it. same with giraffes, except the plant and giraffe evolved to try and outwit each other. And they are still evolving.

Its not exactly the same line, but still releavnt I think:
Leviticus 19:19-37
"Obey my commands. Do not crossbreed domestic animals. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field"

That gives the impression god dosent actually want animals being altered.

pangtongshu : I don't know why you are replying to what I said. All I said was that if you do science, you know that the purpose of science was not to prove things, but it is to use evidence to support theories and proof invalid theories to be false. Science is not used to prove things right, which is why I gave examples of theories in the past that were all supported by science, and then were disproved by science to be improved upon or dismantled. That's because science is through deductive reasoning when you test something to support a theory. The scientific method's purpose was never to prove something right, only to support it.

Traduweise : the first link could be something like a snake fish, a fish that has the ability to move on land today.
The second link shows a feathered dinosaur. I understand that it is believed that it is an evolved dinosaur, but it looks to me like 
a different kind of animal, not an evolving type of animal that already exists. So to speak, it is not similar enough to be another animal
to have evolved. 

The third link doesn't work unfortunately, if you can get it to work I'll read it though.

Am I correct that the moon is said to have from the earth? That  seems a little extreme but pretty neat at the same time.
Although there are similarities in the core of the earth and the moon, that does not mean that they are connected.

jellyfish are 98% water

so are Popsicle sticks but they don't come from the same place.



I can prove evolution just like this:

I have a spoon, and I have a knife, I believe that a long time ago the knife was rained on for millions of years.
eventually it became a spoon. Then it rained on the spoon and dirt began to erode the spoon into the shape of a fork.

But wait, shouldn't there be an in-between state?

After searching for a very long time I was getting discouraged. I was on an airplane to Colorado when all of a sudden, someone handed
it to me. The airplane waiter, she just handed me a spork.

Thus the evolution of the fork has been proven, although in reality it was designed and manufactured.

It is possible to make a good observation, but then make a bad conclusion.

rcarter2 : I'm sorry that I offended you, I had no idea.
I'm not trying say I'm perfect and you're not or something like that.

I used to believe the Bible, but wasn't sure how to disprove evolution. 

Later I found out how, now I want all Christians to know that they don't have to suck up to this theory.

I want everyone to know the truth. I don't believe that truth is relative. There is one truth.

There may be different ways to deal with things such as whether to turn someone in for doing wrong or grant them mercy.
Jesus said that he is THE way, THE truth, THE light. all the other religions might go to heaven--that's God's decision.
But we should show them the gospel nevertheless-just in case. Many Christians question the accuracy of the Bible, some of 
them do this because they don't want to have to do everything that the Bible says. 

Why would God make a Book that was meant to say different things to each person? 
When you get a Lego set or a shelf to build, do the instructions say different things to different people?
If it does, whose fault is it? The persons for misreading it? Or are the instructions supposed to say different things to 
different people?

In the book of genesis, the creation story is listed a few times, (twice?). It is kind of like a news article.

Headline: four people injured in bus crash.

You pick up the newspaper and read the article:

Four people were driving down the road. . .  wait, I thought that they all were injured.

Well, the article recapped what had happened at the beginning before the crash.

It can also be looked at like a blueprint. In a blueprint we are given multiple views of an object
so that we know what it looks like from all sides. Both creation stories are different, but not contradicting.

smotpoker86: Sorry about the offense, I wish I could talk to you guys with my voice then you could hear the tone
and inflections. Then things might not come across in the wrong way. Sorry again.

I'll supply proof for creation hear shortly, but for now I'm out of time.







 

Sword legion : Thanks for your detailed critique of the fossils I've linked you to, but if you had read the articles instead of just glancing over the pictures, it would be clearer. You asked for transitional fossils and I've given them to you. If you don't think they are transitional fossils, I'm sure the paleontologists who have spent the betters parts of their lives honing their craft would be delighted to hear your opinion on a subject you clearly have no training in. The first step to learning is accepting your own limitations.

 The reason the third link doesn't work is because I stuck a period at the end of the link. Just remove that and you will find an extensive list of transitional fossils that have been discovered. Or you could have simply followed two easy links that Wikipedia offered you and found the page on your own.

One hypothesis regarding the moon's origins is that it broke away from the earth. It's gradual recession from the earth is further evidence to support that theory, not a proof in itself. Your rather confusing attempt to compare jellyfish and popsicles to complex astronomical phenomenon simply makes no sense in this context. It's not much better than your attempt to explain evolution with knives and spoons in the rain. Ignoring the rather simple fact that a knife left outside for millions of years will not even remotely resemble a spoon, I don't see the relevence. If you honestly think your silly example is anything like the logic behind evolution, I can easily link you to actual scientific studies so you can decide for yourself.

Anyway, you can't claim you can disprove evolution when you still don't understand it. That's really been the theme of this entire thread.

Sorry, but you will never prove creationism. Scientists will never prove evolution. Scientists will never disprove creationism. And most importantly for this thread, YOU will NEVER disprove evolution. There is one thing you have to support creationism, which is the Bible. That is not proving anything. The book of Genesis holds no more proof than the theory of evolution. I think you are not remembering the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something even if you have no proof. You can't use the Bible to prove in creationism or disprove Evolution. So unless you have a time machine that allows you to watch the creation of the Earth, there is not a single thing you can say to prove creationism. The Bible is a book of faith. It doesn't need proving. That is not the point of the Bible. You are supposed to have faith it's lessons. So just have faith.
 
You fail to understand that you cannot prove or disprove any of these ideas (unless you have some sort of time machine to travel back to the creation of the earth). Your attempt to do either is in vain. So far, your only legitimate argument is that macroevolution has never been observed. That disproves nothing. All you are saying is that there is not enough evidence to prove macroevolution. But no credible scientist will tell you that macroevolution is proven. You have to find real tangible evidence to disprove something. The Bible (even though I hold it as holy), is still a book that has no tangible evidence to support what it says. Again, that is where Faith is supposed to come in. 

You need to come to terms with this. The creation of the Earth happened a long time ago. We can't the first people to walk this Earth, and they left nothing to show us what really happened. The only thing that an evolutionist scientist or a religious scholar can do is theorize and try to support it. But that is not proving it. Neither can be proven. Neither can be disproved. I may not know what evidence you are going to bring up, but I do know it will not prove creationism. The most it can do is support the idea.

Traduweise : I'm tired of you saying that I don't understand evolution, I doubt that you know much about noah's ark,
the canopy, the nephelim, the firmaments, or anything regarding the creation theory. We are not going to know a ton about the other
theory, just the basics, thenumberone didn't understand the biblical definition of death, but I didn't say he was uneducated in
creation, I just explained it to him. Nor did I say that rcarter made a silly mistake regarding "errors" in the bible, these are misunderstandings,and both sides will have them.

If you think that you know about creation, then tell me about the canopy.

The Lego example has an intelligent being guiding the process.


Please try to be respectful, I know the opposition can seem terribly silly sometimes.

no offense.

rcarter2 : Does God tell lies? Exodus 20:11 say that God made everything in six days. (Sorry, I misquoted you earlier)

In the book of Job God asks Job if he was there when he made the earth. 

All over the earth , there are stories of the creation and the flood. there are nearly THREE HUNDRED of these legends, although they differ in accuracy they still tell the same basic story:

     God created the heavens and the earth.

The world became an evil place to live.

Everyone died in a flood except a single family that survived in a boat.

The Chinese have this legend, the original Chinese characters even have symbols telling the flood story!
The Hawians have one, they called Noah nu'u. The aztecs have one (or was it another South American tribe?).
In their story the family was called cox-cox. This particular legend even states the age of the Earth and is within 17 years 
of how old the Bible says the Earth is.

The story has been passed down all over the Earth. Why would all these cultures have flood stories? Because it really happened.
Wouldn't people talk about a world wide flood for ages afterward?

That is my proof for creation and the flood--people all over the Earth have documented it.
Are all of these legends false? All across the Earth? 

Then why is it every where?

The world wide flood is what caused the great canyon, the great flood is what created all of the coal and oil.
That is why they found human artifacts in coal seams--disproving that coal takes millions of years to form.
That is why there are clam shells on Mt. Everest. They had to have died quickly because their mouths were still closed.
The flood created many fossils in a short period of time.

That's why there are tree trunks sticking up through multiple layers--meaning that the layers couldn't be millions of years old.

   

     IF the Earth is millions of years old then why. . .

Is the oldest known tree 4,000 years old? (4,000 would be the max number of years as trees can produce multiple rings a year).

Aren't there more bones in the ground? 

Are the mountains so tall? (most mountains slowly get smaller)

Are there still comets? (The longest they could last is aprox. 10,000 years).

Are Saturn's rings still intact?



     Did you know that Dinosaurs still exist Today?

Here's a list of several sighting of "nessie" like Dinosaurs

Lake Champlain
Lake Erei
California
Florida
    ( jupiter)
 
Massechusett-pensicola harbor (This is a terrifying story)

Papau New Gineau.

The Bible talks about Dinosaurs to in Job.

  


     smotpoker86 : I failed summoned you earlier