Significant evidence evolution is false

[chris8852]

I have a friend who talked to a good friend of his at Harvard, whose parents are both biochemists at Vanderbilt. He said that most scientists who are evolutionists don't believe we evolved from a single celled organisms, that is a common misconception, probably because of how unlikely that is and illogical, which I will back up with evidence, but they do believe we evolved from apes, which I believe is much more reasonable of a statement, but still just a theory that I don't personally believe is true.


If anyone wants to make comments to me personally, as I may not find time to respond to the forum, you can e-mail me at clh8516@hotmail.com

If anyone is interested, I have found pages of evidence explaining how inaccurate Carbon dating (Carbon 14 dating) is. You'd be surprised!

Evolution is still just a theory, I hear people telling me all the time that gravity is still a theory so why don't I believe evolution, simple, there is little evidence fighting gravity, and much evidence fighting evolution! And it's not that important of an issue anyway (gravity, that is)

 

Here is something I wrote a while back and posted in a forum.

"
The Theory of Evolution
Real or just fiction?

For evolution to be true, it would have to show a general sign of evolutionary intelligence.
For example, our eyes would have evolved from earlier stages. And for an eye to develop, somehow evolution itself would have to know that light was even there to begin with. Is there any example in modern life today or fossils from any time in the past of an eye in an earlier stage of development?
Think about it, for an eye to evolve, the animal would have to evolve an opening for the eye before the eye even could be created, and there would be fossils from animals that would show how the eye eventually evolved by creating an ever larger hole in that section of the head. For an eye to evolve, the animal would have to evolve an opening for the eye before the eye even could be created, and how would it know that light existed and that it would need to create an eye!?
An eye is more complex than any camera in existence. No motion blur, able to see extremely well in the dark, unlike most cameras, and no motion blur for the increased exposure time it would take for us to see better in the dark like a camera. Think about it! It took us thousands of years of growing intelligence to invent a camera!!! So that would mean that evolution (or a force behind it) would have to be smarter than a society of humans at our current stage.

Look at the ear, an ear is just as complex as an eye, and with ANY significant earlier stage of development in our ears, we wouldn't be able to hear because the bone structure that carries the sound wouldn't be as perfect as it is now, perfect enough to carry the sound waves into our inner ear. This would mean that our ears would had to of evolved with a future understanding evolution would have to know, that eventually we WOULD be able to hear if we evolved in exactly the way we did. This is impossible through evolution unless god himself made evolution.
Look at all of our senses, for them to develop, somehow life itself would need to know that these things were there to sense in the first place.
We all have a consciousness. This is what makes us see our life in a live point of view. Making decisions and feeling our emotions as they happen. Without a consciousness there would be no way of this being able to happen. Our decisions would be made for us by electronic signals in our brains without us ever feeling it as it happens because our consciousness wouldn't even exist! Science cannot explain in any way how a consciousness could exist. Only God can, because God created it.

Think about it guys. Millions of people witnessed miracles in the name of Jesus, miracles that happened all around him at the exact time he wanted them to, and there was no technology back then that could of caused all these miracles to happen falsely from around the same person at the exact time he wanted them to, so how could it all be fake.
Did you know that most of the matter in the universe is missing? That this "Dark Matter" cannot be found by any scientist anywhere and there is no proof that it is anywhere, except for the fact that since the universe is still expanding instead of contracting that gravity cannot be the main force involved, unless there is an extremely significant amount of matter surrounding the outer portions of the galaxy that have no properties whatsoever other than having an infinite amount of ever expanding mass, because if it wasn't expanding then the universe would be contracting now. Now how can science explain that?
I wasn't a Christian forever. I wrote a lot of this that I'm sending you before I even became a real Christian, because I knew from a logical standpoint that evolution couldn't be true. And if evolution isn't true the only thing that would make sense would be God or another strong form of supernatural existence. For example, if another race "made" us, who made them, and so fourth?
There is an extreme amount of evidence that supports supernatural existence.
No form of logic or science can ever disprove supernatural existence or prove in any logical manner that evolution is real.

When you look at fossils all you see is thousands of fossils that look exactly alike the others in their species. You do NOT see the changes in the bone structure that would HAVE to be there for evolution to be true. There is more evidence that we all were created from God than there will ever be that God doesn't exist or that evolution is true.
"

Now, since most scientists also believe evolution from single cells is false, I also believe that.
If the scientists don't believe that we came from single celled organisms, but apes, then WHERE do they think the apes came from, and so fourth? The truth is, they really don't know!

Now here is information I have copied and elaborated on from a website:

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition.) If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?

Now, there are all these arguments about critical mass and simple mutations. They never mention the source of the mutations, which are hard to occur in nature, as well as how an animal so mutated could still procreate. As far as critical mass is concerned, that's like saying if you through a lot of raw dough together and keep on adding more that eventually it'll mutate into a cake complete with icing on top!

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed worldwide. Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all today's plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates (animals with backbones). Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors.  The fossil record does not support evolution.

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. both must come into existence at about the same time.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.
Backward Orbits. All 91 moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but at least eight have backward orbits. d Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions

Now this is a less important issue, and if the solar system evolved this is crucial, but many people don't know this so they say it is stupid to assume that the solar system had to evolve in that way, when it's not an assumption, but a logical conclusion made by evidence.
So if you want to prove points like this wrong, provide reasonable alternatives as well.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there, any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?

12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?

13. How could stars evolve?

14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contrary evidence used by those who argue that the earth is billions of years old?

15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.

16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?

17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? Where did all Earth's water come from?

18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000-7,000 years ago.

 

[chris8852]

19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, and terrestrial-like brines. Doesn't this implicate Earth as their source-and a powerful launcher, "the fountains of the great deep?  (See "Meteorites Return Home"

20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
(running out of room, see source on site:


My source: is http : //

www dot

creationscience dot com

I can't post a link until I have 15 posts or more it says, so that'll have to do, and I'm sure you can figure that out.


Click the link and scroll down to see the questions. There are links for the evidence supporting each point made, so if you want to question one, please look at the evidence behind them first.

Basically, there are hundreds of thousands of questions of how evolution from single celled organisms can possibly occur and how those organisms could of gotten there in the first place.

Now I also have to mention that usually when I argue these points, people will reply back to me who aren't very "knowledged" (if you will) about the subjects and argue that some of the less important questions aren't relative and are false and what not, and that since they believe those are false that the entire batch of evidence is just all wrong and they are all right…. Which is very, very funny.
The biggest thing that I find funny about all the debate is when they personally attack me. Instead of backing up their opinions with evidence, they choose to attack me in an effort to make themselves feel better as if that somehow justifies their cause and beliefs that have been fed to them through the older scientific beliefs that have not been updated, that evolution is true. So please if you are going to argue with me then get your facts together and try to prove at least a significant portion (40% or more) of my points false, if you can even muster up that much, and if you can do it in a reasonable, logical fashion, I will be extremely surprised and applaud your efforts, before I try my best to shoot them down. And remember, you can try to prove everything wrong, but if you provide no reasonable logical science backed alternatives, much of it is in vain.
Before anyone goes off trying to prove these points wrong, please look at the sources and pages of evidence and sources backing it, so you don't make a fool out of yourself.
I don't necessarily believe every one of these statements I've copied, some are less important and less backed than others, but, it definitely provides a whopping good case against why evolution would be false.

I believe everyone should be taught both sides of the story, against and for evolution, not just the one side.

 

[chickenman]

thats the biggest load of misconceptions and flat out incorrectness i've seen in one post

someone else can deal with it, i'm sick of teaching creationists what evolution actually is

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by chris8852 If anyone wants to make comments to me personally, as I may not find time to respond to the forum, you can e-mail me at clh8516@hotmail.com

Since Chris won't be back, I'll write this reply to those who are interested.

If anyone is interested, I have found pages of evidence explaining how inaccurate Carbon dating (Carbon 14 dating) is.

C14 dating has limits.  I can also point to several papers detailing specific problems of the method.  If you avoid those, then the method is accurate.

For evolution to be true, it would have to show a general sign of evolutionary intelligence.
For example, our eyes would have evolved from earlier stages. And for an eye to develop, somehow evolution itself would have to know that light was even there to begin with. Is there any example in modern life today or fossils from any time in the past of an eye in an earlier stage of development?

Oh YES!  Start with the paramecium and its light sensitive spot on the cell membrane.  Climbing Mt. Improbable lists dozens of species with intermediate forms of eyes.  Of course, Darwin did the same in Origin, but creationists somehow never bother to read that book.  How can you critique evolution if you haven't at least read Origin of the Species?  Oh well.

So that would mean that evolution (or a force behind it) would have to be smarter than a society of humans at our current stage.

The "force behind evolution" is natural (Darwinian) selection. And it is smarter than we are.  Humans today use Darwinian selection to get designs that are too tough for us to get on our own.  Search the web under "genetic algorithms" to see some example.  Or go to the thread (page 5 or 6 by now) called "Design by Darwinian Selection:

Look at the ear, an ear is just as complex as an eye, and with ANY significant earlier stage of development in our ears, we wouldn't be able to hear because the bone structure that carries the sound wouldn't be as perfect as it is now, perfect enough to carry the sound waves into our inner ear.

Reptiles, amphibians, and birds don't have our bone structure, and they hear quite well. Insects don't have bones at all and they do all right.  You think those crickets chirp for the heck of it knowing the females can't hear them?

We all have a consciousness. This is what makes us see our life in a live point of view. Making decisions and feeling our emotions as they happen. Without a consciousness there would be no way of this being able to happen. Our decisions would be made for us by electronic signals in our brains without us ever feeling it as it happens because our consciousness wouldn't even exist! Science cannot explain in any way how a consciousness could exist.

See Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea both by Daniel Dennett to see evolutionary explanations of consciousness.  BTW, lots of animals display intermediate stages of consciousness, too.

Millions of people witnessed miracles in the name of Jesus, miracles that happened all around him at the exact time he wanted them to, and there was no technology back then that could of caused all these miracles to happen falsely from around the same person at the exact time he wanted them to, so how could it all be fake.

Irrelevant to evolution. There is nothing in evolution or science that would forbid Jesus from performing miracles.

Did you know that most of the matter in the universe is missing?

Not missing, just not seen.  That's why it is called Dark Matter.  Since it was found that neutrinos have a little bit of mass, then that solved a lot of the problem.

no properties whatsoever other than having an infinite amount of ever expanding mass, because if it wasn't expanding then the universe would be contracting now. Now how can science explain that?

Simply that you've stated the wrong problem.  There is a repulsive force at work in the universe, but it is separate from dark matter.  The repulsive force seems to be connected to the same quantum events that cause virtual particles to pop into and out of existence in vacuum all the time.

There is an extreme amount of evidence that supports supernatural existence.

Evolution never said the supernatural couldn't exist.

No form of logic or science can ever disprove supernatural existence or prove in any logical manner that evolution is real.

That's rather extreme.  No data right now disproves the supernatural.  I am not willing to speak for all the future.  Evolution has more supporting evidence than gravity.  It is simply perverse to withold (provisional) acceptance.

When you look at fossils all you see is thousands of fossils that look exactly alike the others in their species. You do NOT see the changes in the bone structure that would HAVE to be there for evolution to be true.

I'm afraid you do.  Transitional sequences of individual fossils are well documented.  I've posted those references in several threads.  Does anyone need to have them posted here also?

 Now, since most scientists also believe evolution from single cells is false, I also believe that.

That's a false statement. Monad (single-celled organism) to man is accepted by all but about 100 scientists (the list the Discovery Institute published in an ad in the NY Times).

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?

Arguments from Personal Incredulity and ignorance.  Last weeks Science showed how a forelimb could become a wing -- assisting in running uphill.  The mechanism for new complexity is a two step process called natural selection: variation and selection. As to observed macroevolution, that is in those sequences of transitional individual fossils I have posted.

Evolution of complex organs:
David N. Reznick, Mariana Mateos, and Mark S. Springer Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis  Science 298: 1018-1020, Nov. 1, 2002.  Intermediate steps in same genus.  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/1018  News article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/945a

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?

Short answer: natural selection.  All these have been worked out in detail.  Just read any textbook on evolutionary biology.  Please don't argue from ignorance.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?

Darwin answered the question on living forms (although a lot of those are seen, such as the skinks connecting lizards and snakes).  Basically, the transitionals are outcompeted by the later forms and go extinct.  There are several reasons why the fossil record doesn't show a smooth set of transitionals. The major one is that the formation of new species doesn't happen by transformation of large populations.  Instead, small populations are isolated geographically from the large ones and the transformation happens in the small populations.  You have to have fossils in that particular place at that particular time.  That is going to be rare.  But it has been seen.  There are transitional series.

They never mention the source of the mutations, which are hard to occur in nature, as well as how an animal so mutated could still procreate.

Mechanisms of mutation are well known: radiation, copying errors (even down to exactly how the enzymes screw up), and duplication of genes, chromosomes, and translocations.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree,

It's actually a bush.

In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed worldwide.

This is an example of creationist propaganda. If you tell a lie long enough, maybe it will become true.  In fact, pre-Cambrian fossils are well known. For instance, the stromalites in Australian.  3.8 billion years old, while the Cambrian is just 500 million years ago.  The Eidacaran fossils are 550 million years old -- pre-Cambrian.

Few people realize that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today.

But not as much diversity.  Most of those phyla are 2-3 species.

These layers contain representatives of all today's plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates (animals with backbones).

Another lie.  Flowering plants don't appear until the Cretaceous.  And the Cambrian contains the ancestor of vertebrates, but Pikaia did not have a backbone.  Just a notochord.

Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. 

That is not precise.  What you meant to say is that no evolutionary ancestors have been found.  However, insects evolved from arthropods:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/evolution%20segues/insect_evolution.htm
http://www.geocities.com/pchew_brisbane/Evolution.htm#First%20Insect%20in%20Devonian

5. How could the first living cell begin?

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.

Darwinian selection.  Can't do anything else but create information. The equation for information is -log2(M/N) where N it the total possible choices, and M is the number of choices selected.  Since the number of offspring born (N) is always greater than the number that lives to reproduce (M), information can't do anything else but increase.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?

There are several papers detailing routes of chemical synthesis of RNA.  Also, proteins that assemble themselves can synthesize DNA.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

Proteins. Because they can be formed by processes other than DNA.  Sorry, but your source misled you. 

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

 Evolution of Sex.  Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of 8 review articles discussing the topic.
2.  G Beck and GS Habicht, Immunity and the invertbrates.  Scientific American, 275: 60-66, Nov. 1996.
3.  GW Littman, Sharks and the origin of vertebrate immunity. Scientific American, 275: 67-71, Nov. 1996.

 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by chris8852  9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? See discussion on Darwinian selection in previous post.

17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? Where did all Earth's water come from?

Lots of local floods. Even so, the number of cultures with flood legends is less than 50%.  Water comes from the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.

18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000-7,000 years ago.

That's 100,000 years ago. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by chris8852 19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, and terrestrial-like brines. Doesn't this implicate Earth as their source-and a powerful launcher, "the fountains of the great deep?  (See "Meteorites Return Home"

20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth:
(running out of room, see source on site:


My source: is http : //

www dot

creationscience dot com

OH, this is Walter Brown's site!! That explains it. 

Chris, before we take this site apart piece by piece, are you willing to read some of our sources?  Start with http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/ and do the 6th edition of Origin. Also do What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr.  As you read those, be sure to come to us with any questions you may have.

I believe everyone should be taught both sides of the story, against and for evolution, not just the one side.

Why don't you take us through it one point at a time, with the sources.  What you are going to find is that there isn't "both sides". Creationism was a falsified theory by 1831 (especially the flood Brown wants). Creationism simply isn't a valid side.

 

[sulphur]

Careful lucaspa, evidence of organic materials and possibly traces of dead bacteria have been found in chondrites and other carbonaceous meteorites

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by chris8852 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
All planets should spin in the same direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards.

First, why should all planets spin in the same direction? What reason did Brown give you for this statement? But to answer your question:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/981026a.html

Now, this brings up a point. It took me less than 3 minutes to find this answer by a Google search. The question is: why aren't you doing these searches? Why are you simply accepting Brown without any critical thought? The information is out there.  If you are really interestd in truth, as opposed to a debate on a position you have already decided on, then you would be looking for the answers to your own questions.  You aren't. So this isn't about real answers, this is about winning a "debate" and hoping your "opponent" doesn't know the answers or look for them.

If you really want to discuss the evidence, then I am here. If you simply want to proselytize, then I'm not going to waste my time.

Backward Orbits. All 91 moons in the solar system should orbit their planets in the same sense, but at least eight have backward orbits.

Again, why?  What reason did Brown give you? It's time you started questioning the premises of Brown's arguments.



11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there, any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?

http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html  You did say one.  Again, about 1 minute on Google.  You could easily have done this if you were really interestd in truth.  Why aren't you doing the searches yourself?

What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?

A lot of them are captured asteroids/planetoids, which explain the retrograde orbits.

12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?

There are at least 5 hypotheses to answer that one. Are you interested in them?

13. How could stars evolve?

  Stellar formation and "evolution" are well-studied phenomenon.  It's not biological evolution. No one ever said it was (except perhaps Brown).  Didn't you try to find the answer?

14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contrary evidence used by those who argue that the earth is billions of years old?

I'm aware of the mistaken creationist claims that this is so.  I haven't found any evidence that those claims are valid.

15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old?

They're not.  It wasn't bacteria found in the Murchison meteorite, but what was thought to be the organic remnants of bacteria.

16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?

I know that creationists trot out invalid dating techniques and try to tell us they are 1) scientific and 2) show a young earth.  Those techniques are not valid. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by sulphur
Careful lucaspa, evidence of organic materials and possibly traces of dead bacteria have been found in chondrites and other carbonaceous meteorites

You said it: traces of dead bacteria.  Brown is claiming live bacteria and even bones inside meteorites.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by chris8852
but they do believe we evolved from apes

Then they're not evolutionists. No one ever said we evolved from apes. Evolutionists contend that humans and apes had a common ancestor. Please try to keep up with the theories you claim to be invalid.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The common ancestor would likely be classed as an ape, were it living today. We did not evolve from modern apes, but it isn't incorrect to say (loosely) that we evolved from apes. We might be more precise and say ape-like creatures.

 

[chris8852]

I had typed up all this response to you but I just had a revelation.
I can't make you accept what you're mind is dedicated not to accept.
I can't make you change your mind no matter how much evidence and logic I try and bestow unto you. It is almost pointless. I've realized the basis of what I am trying to argue. It's not even fair. I'm trying to argue in a place and in a sense using man's logic and science which was designed for the contrary of my beliefs, designed for the focus on the world and the powers therein and not of the spiritual world.
We could fight this thing down to the very last resource, but you know what? Every resource has its resource and so on. In the end you are left with nothing more than uncertainty.

The entire system of man's science was designed in a way that makes the main basis for believing in creationism nearly impossible to pass on to others in this way. Why? Because God's science doesn't use the basis of man's science and it exceeds normal understandings of man's logic. It is so hard to try and explain this to others over the internet. Anything I tell you from my personal experience can so easily be seen as lies and deceit. I think God designed the world in this way because if it was that easy then everyone would follow and believe, but for selfish reasons and purposes! God wants us to believe for reasons exceeding self.
Believe me, it is pretty easy for so many people to see the truth in Christ, some of you may believe it's hard, but I know it's easy in many cases, and God can't make it any easier and still keep the purpose alive. I know it seems wrong to say it's the truth, but I know for a fact that it is, but of course, you don't.
I can find faults in every single one of your arguments, and you can in mine, the end is nearly pointless! There is so much in the world designed to take our eyes away from God and put them onto something to lead us down the wrong path. In fact, the entire basis of man's science does this!

If I kept up this debate, I would be wasting both our time, because I would be taking my time away from God. You see, this is exactly what they want! They want Christians to take their eyes off of God and put them on evolution. They want us to debate it instead of fighting battles that you can actually win! Battle's of God's science.
The debate is endless and it can go on forever. And it is impossible to tell how much lies there are out there. Since so much of it is based on man's science in a mindset of which is evolution believing, the entire set of the findings are compiled in a matter supporting this. The entire foundation is corrupt.
There is more truth out there then what is just visible to us. If we kept on gaining more knowledge about the universe at this rate, then there would be no end, meaning there would be no ultimate point of intelligence. This constant learning should open your minds to the fact that there is more out there than you know about! Not only in the form of man's science, but in a form of the supernatural realm.
When researching all of these points I found that you could explain all of them in a creationist manner from the point of view of a very educated creationist, but creationists in general do not take up the profession of such earthly subjects that are designed and taught in such design that is contrary to what they believe! Many of them don't want to be taught man's science, but some go in an effort to be able to appeal to man through much of their relative science.

If I tried to explain to you from the point of logic and spiritual science, you wouldn't be able to understand it, even if it wasn't impossible to display that sort of information in its rightful context over the internet!
I've realized something tonight, that it is completely illogical to debate a subject that is geared vastly in the favor of someone else, in the ways of man's science, and since this is true, they have such a solid foundation in the beliefs they have been taught that you can't show them the truth and logic behind your own science. They are taught NOT to believe it! By man's science! That is one of the many distinguishing differences between man's science and God's science. The human mind can be trained and taught to believe virtually anything.
The entire manner I am going at this is wrong as well. I, being a creationist, and you, being an evolutionist. I am trying to prove evolution wrong, instead of you trying to prove creationism wrong. And even if you tried to prove creationism wrong, you wouldn't be using the right type of science and logic to do it, because you are limited therein. The entire structure of the debate is geared in your favor. The benefit of God's science is the stability in the knowledge you have been given, and the inability to shake that knowledge because the evidence behind it is so great. Which means you may be less likely to shake me than I to shake you. Even if you WERE trying to prove creationism wrong in this manner, you would still be using a NULL understanding of the logic I speak of, and using YOUR science and knowledge of it. The arguments can be made until the end of time, but if everyone did debate like this instead of getting out there and working their points like they should, no progress would ever be made.
When something important is discovered, who inspects it? SCIENTISTS. Their ears and eyes are geared to look for the logic and science that they were TAUGHT to look for, on a basis of being taught evolution and looking for the things of man's science and of the world, and not the things of God.
Most scientists aren't looking for the evidence to prove creationism right, they are using man's science, and this makes them look in the wrong places for this as well, which means the evidence supporting creationism is much more unlikely to be found!
Think about it, there could be TONS and TONS of it out there that WOULD be relative to the understanding in man's science, although not completely, but since they aren't even looking for it, it may never be found!
I want people to know that there ARE scientific reasons to doubt evolution, because man's science in its own contradictory fashion can even contradict itself.
The biggest reasons to doubt aren't scientific and they aren't in the logic of minds of evolutionists and many scientists, the basis of man's science.
You may be right in that most 'scientists' aren't creationists, because they know where they are of value. In a world filled with such doubt, taught by man's science, it is nearly impossible for creationists to prove the truth shown to them, because the scientific community and the people themselves are judging the material using the mindset and the ways of judgment of MAN'S science and logic of man's science and not the fashion and ways of the creationists who are doing the research. It's being unfairly judged.

For these reasons I have mentioned I can't in a sound mind with the knowledge of this continue this debate in the fashion of man's science. So I apologize for starting it, but I am glad I did, for I have received such a revelation that most creationists don't even know of! Creationists need to know that the beliefs of evolutionists are only relative!
The entire basis of man's science is a level of focus and logic that is closed minded. Yes, they are extremely open minded to the ways of man's science! But ONLY the ways of man's science! They have been taught and their minds trained for this. They have not been taught in the fashion our ancestors had that showed many of the people on a daily basis and in everything they do the life and power of God that is in existence and how to call upon it. This way bestows logic and knowledge and methods that are beyond man's science and the popular ways of the world. It is easy to live in the ways of the world, and to stray from the ways of God. A person is smarter if they live in and know of the ways of God, and live in the world and understand it, than to just live in the world and only understand the ways of the world and man's science and the logic of the science therein. Therefore the entire foundation of evidence I stand on of creationism isn't accessible to evolutionists.

What I am saying is one of the most truly amazing things God has shown me.
I stand in awe over the truth he has brought to my attention.
Now, all of this said, all your evidence still exists and is active. But so is mine, especially all of it that you can't understand, can't see, and can't experience, at least right now.

Since I'm not placing my response I wrote mostly on Friday and left partially unfinished (missing links and unelaborated evidentiary logic) it may even be fair to say that you have scored more points in the sense of your science on this subject. But you have not even begun to scratch the most outer surface of the evidence behind creationism! There is so much evidence for creationism that hasn't even been noted or addressed in this debate! And neither could it of been if it continued.
Mans science in itself is taught to contradict God's science because of the focus on man and the things seen and of this world. Because of this you may say God's science is illogical to believe in because God isn't a "proven" factor. It is not a proven factor to YOU! See how it is all relative? Evolution is not nearly a proven factor to us. On the hand of God's science and creationism, God IS a proven factor and so is creationism! We know god is out there and that creationism as true as well as we know we are alive! See, all of this logic can be seen as relative and closed minded, but the logic and science of God also gives an understanding of the logic and science of man, so God's science isn't as close minded to man's science as man's science is to God's science in the form of *understanding*. Which is why this revelation is coming from a creationist.
God's method of science isn't to teach the disbelief that Man's science teaches. The same is not true the other way around, because God's science teaches greater belief, not a lacking of belief.
I am telling you this to show you that man's science is not capable of co-existing and understanding God's science. And you could argue the opposite point, that we are closed minded, but that is the relativity I am talking about! Your beliefs and thoughts are only to the relative mind structure of your own. Therefore, most anything if not nothing of what you can say against God's science can have any affect in God's science, only in Man's science, and that effect reproduces among your kind because it IS OF your kind! Therefore, you can make many other people of your mindset believe against what I have said, but that does NOT make it right! That frame of logic and science is only right and relative to the other believers of man's science.
Just because it makes sense to your mind and other minds of your kind, does not mean it is right. I hate to use this example, but every person on the world could believe the world is flat, that wouldn't make it true. I hate to use that because we all know the world is round, and I am talking about stuff we don't know, but on the other hand, we only know what we have been taught and seen from others in the realm of man, so, however unlikely it is, the world could really be some other shape. lol. Just a small joke.

 

[chris8852]

I have tried to explain a key difference, an incompatibility.
With this incompatibility nearly any argument can be made vice versa and the other and others of their kind believe it is true based on their science. There is no universal standard that you can explain it in because logic in itself IS relative.
So if you think of making an argument against it, TRY to look at it from the point of view that it is only relative. Even if you don't believe logic is relative, just try.

P.S. It would have been much easier for me to post what I had already written up, tearing apart so many of your points piece by piece by piece, and then you trying to tear them down, and back and fourth, and I have links to hundreds of sites that if you just looked at it in another way, you would see that there is evidence supporting creationism in it. But now I realize posting that would have been relative to me in that you couldn't look at it this way because so many of you are so extremely close minded to this, and therefore posting it would be utterly pointless.
Man's science is more likely to prove man's science than it is God's science, so that limits me extremely. You state creationism is false for a fact when the core meaning of logic behind statistics would state that there IS a chance, and it's very big in my opinion, that you are wrong because of the nature of your understanding is relative.

And even if I tried to use God's science to show you things, it wouldn't help much because it would be more relative to me because of my knowledge and understanding than it would be to you.

So many of the things you posted are just theories that guess at the real picture.

And you've even taken things out of context and twisted my words around even when you know what they mean.
I said "but they do believe we evolved from apes".
This was a quote from my friend, not talking about those evolutionists! I guess that definition of evolution he was talking about is that evolution in itself exists, and the word doesn't imply from single cells.
You state creationism isn't valid, and is proven wrong, but that is EXTRMELEY relative! Relative to YOU and YOUR kind.
It is impossible for me to prove a point to you because you all jump to conclusions about everything so quickly. No matter how many sources I provide you would jump to a conclusion. Most of these conclusions anger me because I see the large faults behind them and it's not logical to me why you would say it and it's not logical to me how many of them are even relative.
God's science teaches logic behind observation and inclusion of understanding of others. I can understand your point of view, and why you believe like you do, just because you can't understand mine or choose not to doesn't mean you are right at all!
I didn't even realize how closed minded so many of you are to this until you responded.
Just because there are holes in some of the things I have mentioned doesn't mean they can't be easily patched and explained.
It makes no sense to me to continue a debate like this. And now it makes more sense to me why people would personally attack someone because of their beliefs. Because they simply don't or can't understand it.
I hope you also realize that it is pointless, because I doubt I can phase you, and I know you can't phase me even a single bit. I have found much of debates like this is in pleasure to prove yourself to others in your group and defend your social standing, in pleasure of offending the other person, defending your social status because the others also are in that way limited and in no way have seen how relative their point actually is. And more than that, defending what you believe in to others, and purposely trying to make the person on the other side of the debate feel small and stupid because of your relative point. I don't feel any smaller or less intelligent because of this debate, only more intelligent and sophisticated, because I can understand it.
It didn't make sense to be why a debate would be handled so unobjectively before, but now it does.

 

[Arikay]

although I havent read through all of the posts because im tired, I do want to point one thing out and what not.

Although I think many here already realize this, disproving a theory doesnt make your theory correct.

Both views are just theories. Currently one has many more facts than the other. Since no matter how many people say they can disprove, evolution has many more checkable facts than creationism. Since creationism is based on stories in a book, that cant be competly varified and belief. Which is fine, however when you are talking about facts and evidence, these cant be used as evidence. They can be used as ideas however.

 

[chickenman]

oh dear I haven't got any evidence, what am I going to do

I know, I'll write a huge confused essay on "god's science" and "mans science" and then claim that you aren't equipped to understand god's science

for you see, under gods science, creationism is true, under man's science evolution is true

and clearly god's science is superior because it has the word "god" in it. Thats why I don't have to provide any evidence as to why "gods science" is a better way of investigating reality than "mans science"

 

[Taffsadar]

Originally posted by chris8852
If I kept up this debate, I would be wasting both our time, because I would be taking my time away from God. You see, this is exactly what they want! They want Christians to take their eyes off of God and put them on evolution. They want us to debate it instead of fighting battles that you can actually win! Battle's of God's science. 

I think your abit paranoid here. Exactly who are "them"?

Most evolution scientists just doesn't give a **** about the uneducated masses of creationists. They got better things to do like develpoing new medicines instead of arguing with people like you who have just misunderstood the purpose of evolution. It isn't about disproving christianity it's about how life one arth came around (and how do you know that god didn't set off the start with a big bang and then started to watch it with great intrest?).

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by chickenman
thats the biggest load of misconceptions and flat out incorrectness i've seen in one post

someone else can deal with it, i'm sick of teaching creationists what evolution actually is

And we're sick of teaching evolutionists and atheists whatt creationism and Christianity are (respectively).

 

[seebs]

You know, the sad thing is that all of this is well addressed in literature - or at least, anyone who read the literature would not see any of these as significant issues.

Maybe you should read the existing work in a field before trying to revolutionize it.

 

[Arikay]

Cool, can you tell the streetside preachers to leave us (all non christians, not just atheists) alone?

So, is this kinda a way of saying you give up, or you dont have the answer liked you believed you did?

Originally posted by Rize
And we're sick of teaching evolutionists and atheists whatt creationism and Christianity are (respectively).

 

[Rize]

Originally posted by Arikay
Cool, can you tell the streetside preachers to leave us (all non christians, not just atheists) alone?

So, is this kinda a way of saying you give up, or you dont have the answer liked you believed you did?

No.  I'm tired of correcting misconceptions that people have regarding creationism and Christianity in general.  Especially when the misconceptions are used to attack it.  Just as evolutionists get tired of refuting certain creationist material that is completely uninformed.