Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164860 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#36926 Aug 8, 2012
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

"The evolutionist also runs into another problem when he considers WHERE and HOW many fossils are found. The devout evolutionist subscribes to the belief that things are pretty much the same as always. He believes that there have been no major world catastrophes to wipe out animal life, but that various species have become extinct as a result of failing to adapt to their environment. The problem with this is the stubborn fact that there are many burial sites around the world which are literally paved with fossils! Often times such fossils are found in a totally different climate from that in which they once lived. Mammoths have been found frozen, preserved perfectly in ice in Northern Siberia and Alaska. Many of these are very large and strong animals, which evolutionists claim should have survived and overcame any obstacles. BUT THEY DIDN'T! What happened? Why did they die out? How can evolution explain this? Evolution CAN'T explain it. Evolution IGNORES it. It is explained in Genesis chapters 6, 7 and 8--the Flood.

Before moving on to our next section, a few words should be said about the various "ape men" that have been found and placed neatly on the fictional cartoon chart in standard text books. A few simple cases will be more than enough to show the reader that Anthropology is not without it's humor.

In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?"

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#36927 Aug 8, 2012
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

"Pittman was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.

The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.

Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape.

Now this is the kind of "evidence" which supports evolution. This is what a child is taught in the public school system and in the state universities as "scientific fact." This is what the Bible labels as "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20)."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#36928 Aug 8, 2012
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

"HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.

This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.

The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:

The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.

Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#36929 Aug 8, 2012
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.

The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?

You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36931 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers, your "source"

http://www.av1611.org/

is lying to you. Faith in God is one thing, but

to distort fats, to outright LIE is another.

You should feel soiled to even link with that site.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36932 Aug 8, 2012
(edit)

Langoliers, your "source"

http://www.av1611.org/

is lying to you. Faith in God is one thing, but

to distort faCts, to outright LIE is another.

You should feel soiled to even link with that
site.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36933 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists."
Refuted by REAL science:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_m...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#36934 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"HOW OLD IS THE UNIVERSE?
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years."
WOW.

Amongst the MYRIAD of misinformation above, the "moon dust" screed caught my eye. Even "Answers In Genesis" -- a VIRULENT anti-evolution/science trough of ignorance that many fundimental Creationists feed -- have noted that this is a vapid argument that should NOT be used.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v...

MORE reason for you to be ashamed. But for your persistant ignorance.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#36935 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God."
I told you already..


Wrong thread... you are looking for convoluted vs evolution.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#36936 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers, instead of copying and pasting an entire web page of nonsense why don't you ask about one claim at a time? People here have patience and they will gladly show you why that nonsense is false. You should know that it can take quite a while to correct misconceptions. That is why pages like the one you quoted exist. The writers of it know they are lying but figure if the lie fast enough and often enough it will take too much work for the other side to debunk all of their nonsense.

So do the right thing. Pick out your best evidence. Bring it up one point at a time. If your evidence is good it can bust evolution. I use the same tactic to bust the Flood story. There is evidence that people who believe the flood deposited the sedimentary rocks that we see today that creationists have no answer to. If you can find similar evidence against the Theory of Evolution you win.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36937 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok yes if you believe in a different God then that of the bible.
Yes Satan wants us to dilute the bible.
Go with the flow.... Except the flow is going down the drain, I want to go up not down.
How is accepting the message of the Bible but not every literal interpretation considered diluting?

Do you really think God wants us to ignore evidence? Why give us the power to observe, learn and reason if he wants us to ignore it?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36938 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
But these theory's have been proven failures and yet they still teach that they are scientific theory's. School should be accurate.
Mind you I am not saying they are worthless just no longer a scientific theory.
Except Evolution and the Big Bang are not proven failures.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36940 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>

All scientists know this, including L. Harrison Matthews. In his forward to Darwin's 1971 edition of "Origin of the Species", Matthews says, ""...Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." In other words, the theory of evolution is a theory based on FAITH, rather than scientific fact."
Ever since the first appearance of life on earth a process of evolution from comparatively simple to more complex organisms has been going on.[Matthews 1975]

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#36941 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
Evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory.
If Evolution was utterly disproved tomorrow scientists would accept it and move on. In fact, that would probably be a more exciting time for Biology then the development of quantum physics was for Physicists in the early 20th century.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#36942 Aug 8, 2012
Would a girl kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince be considered evolution?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#36943 Aug 8, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Would a girl kissing a frog and the frog turning into a prince be considered evolution?
Why is that what happened to you?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36944 Aug 8, 2012
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevo lu1.html
"Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as
the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God."
After posting all that crap above how does it feel to know that REAL science doesn't care a bit. They are right and all the crap you find on religious sites is just that...crap.

They are wrong and you are wrong, I suggest you get over it.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36945 Aug 8, 2012
Boring
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36946 Aug 9, 2012
Real Science Has An Agenda, And is Driven By Grants And Corruption.

Another Reason They Dont Explore Many Evidences, Is Because They Cannot Control The Outcome.

Trying To Explain Away God by An Entity That Does Not Have A Interest In Metaphysical, Or Super Natural....Is An Oxymoron.

This Whole Discussion About Science Being Some Sort OF Authority On The Existence Of A Creator, Is Ludicrous.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#36947 Aug 9, 2012
Oh...And Science Is Way More Left, Then Right

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton Takes Big Hit In The Polls 3 min Denny CranesPlace 18
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Dagne Nabbit 1,236,689
News Fiorina defends spot in 2016 race, says it's ti... 3 min Le Jimbo 34
News No longer operational: Josh and Anna Duggar tak... 3 min Tazo 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Le Duped 183,340
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min red and right 329,203
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 5 min Spaulding Smails 2,643
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 59 min woodtick57 189,921
More from around the web