Why not have the goal of evolution to evolve immortal life instead of survival of the fittest?
The reason these little creatures defy evolution is because they are out to out survive any and all life on this planet. This show that even the most simplest life forms can obtain an ability that does not require evolution. Which is why the question arises: If humans evolved from primates, as the human evolution chart says, why are primates still around?
Being able to survive = no reason to evolve. But evolutionists will avoid the question by saying: You don’t understand evolution, we both have a common ancestor. Yet the human evolution chart still hangs around.
Click on images to see text fully, and for the link to the articles that go with them that you can use. You can also get an idea of what kind of responses you will get from such an article and how to respond to them. If you use the articles make sure you put them in your own words. Unless you are sharing copy and pasting an exact copy is considered parroting from another source which is frowned upon on the internet. It’s one thing if you are quoting or sharing to copy directly. But another when you are not. Not that I have a problem with this but if you are debating and someone actually look up the original source. They will point out that you are using someone Else’s argument because you can’t think for yourself (an atheist tactic). So just change the wording a little (put it how you would say it). ~ Issac
In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.
- Living fossils: There are nearly 200 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
- The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
- Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate Fossils are found all over the world.
- Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
- The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.
In the past I have debated quite a bit. Being kinda burned out on it I don’t debate that often anymore. And there are several reasons for that.
- It’s 99% of the time a waste of time unless there is another creationist you can help out.
- There is really no winning a debate from either side.
- The object of the YouTube Christian haters is to run everyone off along with showing how much they hate you just for what you believe. This I will actually show in the examples I will use.
- The only thing that you can hope for while debating on YouTube against the Christian haters is that you plant seeds in those whose hearts are not full of hatred and are glad they are bound for hell.
Once the debate started, one Christian hater went and got his friends because he could not hold up to the one creationist (me) he was facing. Surfing their forum I have often seen them come in while a debate is going on asking their friends to help them. What I find ironic is that if they can prove creation so easily wrong using science it should only take one person. I have debated up to 10 at one time as they tag team me because one could not handle me. Now I’m not bragging here is just a fact that once a creationist learns how to handle the evolutionist-Christian hating atheists they have to send out the smoke signals for help.
Here is where the debate started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6GvolyF0vwThis is what I posted that started it all: Sorry to burst your evolution bubble here. But the Bible does admit that fish and birds came from the same place: Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven…So it would only be logical that some fish could fly as there are birds that can swim underwater. And some fish that can breathe air. Both were created from the water.
Now did I insult anyone in anyway here? Nope. But watch what happens while the Christian haters get wind of this. First there are a couple of polite posts but it soon gets nasty as I post things the evolutionist-atheist Christian haters get mad at one creationist. In fact I can count on one hand how many comments were not hateful. The cussing starts almost immediately. Along with lying about the Bible.
Atheist: that’s the best shoehorning I’ve ever come across.
Me: And you cannot deny that it fits can you?
Atheist: See, this is the funny thing about some christians claiming atheists (and basically only atheists for some reason) don’t see the beauty in the world because we.. Came from.. Nothing? I don’t fucking know. But then again I flipped my lid when I found out about Mimosa pudica. Nature is awesome! And evil. But mostly awesome! Sure, ostriches evolved from haddock according to the bible, makes perfect sense.
Now more atheists join in:Atheist: Living things aren’t “built”, they “grow”. That’s the fundamental difference that creationists can’t seem to grasp. That’s why all the car and plane examples fall on their faces. No-one built a tree, it grew from something simple without any interference. Evolution of species was similar, biology at its basic is the study of how complexity arises from simple beginnings, and if you mention thermodynamics here you’re more of a moron than I already thought…
Me: Ever heard of building blocks? If things just grow that way then we should be able to grow what we want. So do we? No because DNA and RNA have limitations. And more than a ,01% in change at any given time can be deadly. Don;t believe me? Go get an organ transplant where the organ has a greater difference then what can work and see what happens. Also I like that you called me a moron because it means that name calling is the only way you can win a debate. So keep it up you just prove my point.
Atheist:The standard sturgeon general-type warning to creos: if your position requires you to be ignorant or dishonest about alternative positions, your position is sh*t. *yes, of course the T was on purpose
Side note: How you can tell your argument is doing any good is when they resort to calling you names, insults, stereotyping, cussing etc… This is done when there is not counter. And to cover up for their inability to debate you they have to do this. It’s either that or accept defeat which by the way would never happen. So from this point forward it only gets worse as they show their hate for someone they have never met, yet only hate for what i believe.
Me: What’s funny and ironic is that some claim that believing in God is stupid yet when it’s all boiled down it only their opinion. Because if science makes you so smart why did you not use it in your post? Like when man builds a plane to fly does he just do it with no intelligence, or does it take several steps of intelligence to build one to actually fly? Now explain to all of us how evolution just does it without any intelligence.
Atheist:That would be a waste of time. You are unwilling if not able to learn. Much better idea: you tell me what *you* think the evolutionary explanation is. At least one of us will get some belly-laughs out of that.
Me: That’s what you will always get, is that all evolutionists will ignore not being able to explain the specifics yet call us stupid. I guess when they cannot do any better than that calling someone else stupid to cover for it is all they have left. Which is ironic because I see more of that in debates than science. says a lot.
Atheist: They were the primary food source of the now extinct crocoduck.
Atheist: If I don’t get to hear your comically moronic version of what the ToE says in about 5 more minutes, I’m gonna track down your sister, accost her, and tell her she smells like cheese. Don’t make me do it, man. Make with the funny!
Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?
Atheist: we’re not debating, trust me. And before spouting off bollocks statistics it would help if you knew something about genetics and how DNA/RNA actually works. Replication, translation, transcription, learn how proteins fold and function, learn how the cell cycle acts, learn the fundamentals of biology. If every mutation resulted in instant death then individuals of any species would be identical, there would be no variation whatsoever, and then kiss my hairy MC1R mutated arse
Me: And that’s the best you can do for a cop-out when you cannot address what was said? How lame. But please do it again and prove my point. Maybe some people did not get it the first time.
Atheist: I need not address what was said. Eve
ry single thing we know about biology looks exactly like it should if all extant life evolved from a common ancestor. If that’s not how it all got here, then why was your god so very, obsessively careful to cover up the real story and create the impenetrable illusion of evolution? And why should I buy the explanation of a creation followed by a magical cover-up when I can just accept that what it looks like happened, happened?
Me: Exactly what is that suppose to prove? Cheetahs are clones? Clones can do the same thing because they are exact replicas.
Atheist: Cheetahs are NOT clones, Cheetah’s are inbred, really inbred. You are a moron 😛
Me: Never said they were clones. And calling me a moron just shows you cannot really address this. So keep it up and prove my point. But you can think of much worse names to call me, right? So show how much an expert you are in name calling when you cannot address the subject at hand. Come on you know you want to.
Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?
Me: What’s ironic is that it was not Christians who thought up the flat earth idea. It was an atheist named Washington Irving. He later admitted to his book on the voyages of Columbus being partly fiction due to this fact. So the idea of flat earth is not even connected to Christians. Irving wanted to discredit Christians back then so he lied to do it. Google flat earth Washington Irving and see for yourself.
Me: Education is just another lame cop-out. Ben Stein has several degrees did anyone listen to him? Nope. And these degrees were obtained from schools like Harvard. So it has nothing to do with education you are just trying every which way to wiggle out of answering any questions that make you ponder evolution might be wrong. So keep up the good work of making my points that you are an expert at avoidance. Make sure to bring up some more off topic things to show you cannot address anything said.
Atheist: Ben Stein is an economist. Would you go to Ben Stein to get your colon checked? No?? Why not? He has “several degrees,” right? Oh, that’s right. He is an economist, not a super genius with answers on every subject known to man. Seriously, at least come at us with someone like Behe or the like. That has more credibility than Stein. Worlds more credibility, not that Behe has a lot, but that is another matter.
Me: The other problem is sorting of the layers. You guys have no mechanism that involves time that sorts layers. Water will sort layers again and again which means it’s observable and repeatable which makes it empirical, And what do you have to compete with this? nothing.
Me: The second problem is that if you take the aquatic section of the fossil record and set it next to the ocean living habitats of where fish live in the ocean. The fossil record matches each habitat area. 1) bottom dwellers first, 2) mid dwellers second. 3) Top dwellers last. You see this is consistent with a how it would happen if life where buried quickly were it lived because of a flood. there is not reason for evolution to work in this exact order.
Side note: Here is the picture illustration of what I was talking about that I cannot post on YouTube.
Me: I see no body tried to address the problem with the fossil record I pointed out yet avoided the issue by trying to change the subject. If you cannot address those points there is no point in me continuing debating here because I’m wasting my time with people who have no answers. If you want to convince me show me. Avoidance only reaffirms my position in believing creation.
Atheist: you link me to the sources about those living fossils where you got your info, and I’ll answer. In turn you can answer how you think there’s variation within species to begin with if mutations aren’t possible or hereditary.
Me: Credibility is a matter of opinion. We were speaking of education. The opinions of atheists concerning creationists will always be negative. Anything beyond that would be the same as it snowing in Hell. So your point is lame.
Atheist: Oh, so when some quack comes on the TV and tells you the Earth is flat, you think that person’s credibility is a matter of opinion?
Atheist: I never claimed to be an expert. I just asserted that you are a moron because you suggested Cheetahs are clones. Cheetahs reproduce sexually. Regardless you asserted organ transplants, and Cheetahs disprove that man is only 6000-10,000 years from a population of 2. Sorry Charley.
Me: Explain just how long it takes and provide empirical evidence to prove this. If you cannot them what you claim is only an assumption that is not based in any empirical fact. So you prove nothing. Sorry Charley. I’m not a push over and green behind the ears in debating. If you are going to present evidence to debunk creation mere words are not going to do it. But then again mere words make it easy for me.
Atheist:“The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching.” James Hannam. I’m sure most of us are aware that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (40,000 km) in ~250 BCE, so what’s your point?
Me: What ironic is that after I proves Washington Irving who is an atheist lied about this, you want me to believe another atheist is telling the truth about this? I’m not about to buy ocean front
property in Arizona so your sell is a no sell.
Atheist: You “proves” it to me? Ahh, that doesn’t sound like good philosophy to me. Who’s the other atheist you’re referring to? And am I expected to accept your “Google it” source when you’re so dismissive of my source? I don’t see why I should accept yours either; and I don’t really care if you accept mine. Also, if you think atheists are liars, & Irving was a lying atheist, at what point did you decide he was telling the truth? Maybe his admission was a lie too.
Me: If you are so truthful and everyone else are liars as you try to imply. Why was it that no atheist ever wrote a moral code that sets the standard for what atheists should follow? It’s because if a standard did it exist then you could be held accountable and therefore look bad. But omitting this allows you to look good regardless as to the reason you would rather defend and justify lying then using it as an example of what not to do.
Atheist: If there were a world-wide flood then the carcasses of all species would be totally mixed up together. The mud (which would not have had a chance to dry for a year) would have been churned up by the mega tides that would result from the lack of continents to bump into. BTW, when the flood was drying out the Ark would have been smashed repeatedly on the bottom leaving no survivors.
Atheist: Species’ groups that remain in an unchanging environment are under no evolutionary pressure to change. They replicate as things normally do. Just because you’ve seen fossils of them doesn’t mean it didn’t take evolution for them to get to the stage when they first hit the scene. Find something OUT OF PLACE like a Cambrian whale
Atheist: The first problem with the second problem is that you utterly made it up out of thin air.
Atheist: UNLESS… you just want to say, “God did it.” At which point, I then am forced to ask, “Why would the God who claims to not be the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33 KJV) create things in such a way as to look like they evolved over millions of years in direct contradiction to His holy text?” Seriously, at some point, when the evidence does not comport with your story, you are going to punt with “God did it” or something of the like, and run into this question. Might as well jump here now.
Atheist:The layers of the earth are not just stratification of a single liquified layer. That would produce one course to fine layer, but this is not what is there. It is course>fine>course>fine>course
Atheist: I prefer you stay a dumbass creatard. Its way more fun. Notice how you play the persecution card. No please stay a creatard, your not smart enough or brave enough to be an atheist. Your life is based on something for which there is no evidence of. I actually care that what I believe is true you don’t. Its that simple.
Atheist: No, he/she claims its an argument from ignorance, because it is. Know the term, the correct definition of the term, and understand why the term applies here.
Atheist: Common template doesn’t work, buddy. If it did, why are there so many different types of eyes? What about ERVs, which are viruses inserted in our DNA that we have in the same places, in the same way? Why is it that whenever one looks at inheritable traits or genes and traces them back, one gets the same nested hierarchy called the tree of life? Why do we not see a mammal with blue blood, like octopuses have? Why would the “designer” use a four legged mammal template for dolphins and whales?
Atheist: i dont imply a damned thing about it being absolute, its a method that has always been found accurate for the stuff we do know, and no one has come up with a reason it wouldnt be accurate for the stuff we dont. dont believe it all you want, it is the more trustworthy option and it does discredit YEC, no absolutes needed. I asked for a citation, and some EVIDENCE for your assertion. You seem to assert because Egypt had a religion, and Darwin studied religion, that Darin pulled his ideas from Egyption religion. You would need some evidence of that, like a history of his education in seminary. And I didn’t offer a rebuttal, I asked for a citation. You don’t have fine, then your assertions are dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Me: Darwin also plagiarized just about everything he claimed as his own. Most of his ideas came from his grandfather’s book named: Zoonomia, the laws of organic life. Natural selection was thought up by Edward Blythe. He made racist comments and hung around racist people (Huxley and Haeckel). His theory was used to put Indians and Africans on displays in zoos and not one evolutionist spoke out against this why it went on.
Atheist:”Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?” What EVIDENCE do you have Darwin even studied Egyptian Mythology, or the study of other religions was required at Cambridge in the 19th century. That seems just a little far fetched. Near as I’m aware he majored in ANGLICAN THEOLOGY and naturalism, but if you have evidence he deviated beyond the required Greek and Latin required for theology, PROVIDE A F**&!@$ CITATION. PS blocking you until morning.
Atheist: You’d have to ask a biologist on this, but if you want a phylogenetic tree of the trilobite you can hit the library, or google it. Like everyone else, I have NO fucking idea what the hell you’re talking about.Oh, if I block you, don’t mind it, I was a dumb ass and got a smart phone and your comments are waking me up damn it.
Me: The evolution idea actually came from Egyptian religions. They believed all humans came from animals. And what animal you came from determined you race and status in life. they also had a form of abiogenesis belief. Where they believed all life came from the slime ar
ound the Nile River. Being that Darwin had no scientific degrees but had a degree in theology. Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?
Atheist: That isn’t hate dude, that’s really was the alternative to evolution, alligators forming from logs. That IS what we believed well into the middle of the 19th century. And you’re just projecting on this fear business. You assert evolution precludes god(s), which is actually untrue, so evolution is false. In reality, you need to formulate a theory with empirical evidence, publish, and accept criticism. “And now everyone knows why evolution is not falsifiable” It is falsifiable 😛
Atheist:”Naturalism requires” Let’s review 1. Everything has a cause 2. Nothing can cause itself 3. Causes can’t be infinite 4. So there has to be a first cause. 5. God = first cause, god exists This is your assertion in a nutshell, and I personally don’t propose god’s exist or don’t exist. I dunno, and I don’t care. But 5 is a non sequitur. But this is so far outside the scope of this video which is evolution, not gods, creation, or naturalism.
Me: Now let me guess what you are going to say next. Let’s see…. something about actually proving something exists, right? I find this argument pops up when atheists have nothing left in the science to present so they go for the broad spectrum cop out response. Lame.
Atheist: Well, I mentioned “pre” Cambrian strata, which ought to clue you in to the fact that the Cambrian is not the oldest/lowest stratum. Trilobites are dated from the Cambrian to around 526 mya, but simpler, eyeless forms exist, like Spriggina floundersi from the Ediacaran period, which precedes the Cambrian, dated 550 mya. The earliest, single-celled organisms are dated to 3.5 bya. So, is three billion years long enough for you?
Special side note: What every evolutionist ignores or does not realize is that dating markers from the layers will cross contaminate the fossils in the layers. So if the flood sorted them and put them in that order, they will date the exact age of the layer not the exact age in which they lived. Why? Because there is more dating markers in the layer than the fossil. So the dating markers in the later overwhelm the ones on the fossil and change the date of the fossil so that the layer and the fossil match in every instance.
Example: If you bury a bone that came from a dead animal 20 years old in a layer that dates 3 million years old. Over time the bone, regardless of it’s age, will soon become cross contaminated by the layer and will now date the same age as the layer. This is why a fossil found will always date the same as the layer. All fossils have been in the ground long enough to become cross contaminated. This is also why they find blood and soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that date millions of year old. The date is wrong because the layers cross contaminated the fossil. And anyone with any sense knows that blood and soft tissue is not going to last that long regardless of how it’s protected. Because unknown to most evolutionists the same people who made the find which was deemed as a fluke, have reconfirmed the find on several other fossils as well.
So the find is not observable and repeatable which means evolutionists have a lot to explain here: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1135
As the debate progresses forward more join the debate and the insults and name calling and stereotyping and cussing increase. At some point in the middle of all this where it now seems every response has some type of insult or name calling I decided I have made my point. Because I keep pointing out that this (cussing etc…) is the only thing they seem to be good at so keep it up and prove my point. And they did page after page. This debate was about 15 pages long. And once I left of course they all had to take their last little back stabs with more insults and name calling. The only thing I can gather is this is how you prove evolution. Don’t use science use bullying tactics.
So to counter such tactics one has to just point them out and how lame they really are. then encourage them to continue and show everybody how unscientific evolution is that all evolutionist must resort to this. So why do they hate someone they have never met? Their bias and need for absolute control and power over everyone’s thoughts and beliefs makes to where they have to hate anyone who disagrees. After all do you call a friend all the names and insults they made to me? Nope.
And people wonder why I don’t get involved in many debates anymore and this is why. The debates are no longer about any science. It’s about who can insult or call names better. And what does that scientifically prove? nothing. Only that evolution is moving towards teaching all whom believe it to hate all who don’t. Because if you ask them why they hate they suddenly don;t have an answer but will respond: I don’t hate you. But their actions never match their words.
Also the reason everything looks related is because of this:
Excerpts for this page will come from this link: https://news.yahoo.com/scientist-evolution-debate-soon-history-155252505.html
Evolutionists will try to say that Darwin was not racist. Yet Darwin never made a comment in any of his writings or book in defense of any human of a different race. He made racist comments himself and had friends that were outspoken racists. The fact is, if you are not racist you don’t make racist comments and hang around racist people. Darwin was not naive, he was living in a time when racism and slavery was everywhere. So he knew what his idea would do in fueling of current feelings towards other races. And to this day you can see what Darwin’s idea has done and that racism is still very much a part of it. White man is always the end of every human evolution chart. It would be unthinkable for a black man to be the final human evolution result because evolution makes the white man superior.
Don’t believe that evolution is about racism? Point these facts out to any evolutionist and see how they respond. Instead of saying they made a mistake and that this should not be repeated. They will “defend” the past actions of these people and try to make it sound justified. This is also why you won’t ever see this racist history printed in any evolution text along with why this should not be done or repeated. Or an apology to any race that was hurt due to these actions. So if evolutionists are not racist then what is their problem of making sure their idea is never used for that purpose and to expose the ones who did in past history as an example of what not to do? It’s because they would have to admit that even Darwin was involved and have to face the fact that their theory may not recover in the people’s eyes if they knew all this. So this history is omitted from every textbook that teaches evolution. I find it ironic that evolutionist are quick to point out everyone Else’s bad past history yet hide their own. I believe that’s called being a hypocrite.
Also the way they try to debunk evidence that does not support evolution. Instead of acknowledging this, they go into attack mode. First attacking the creditability of the person who discovered it, then making false accusations along with numerous deceptions and lies. Where is the science in doing all that? No where. So anyone whom has any credibility they have built up over many years risks getting it destroyed if they dare challenge evolution. So through fear and intimidation evolution gets to stay top dog. Real truth and reality does not need all these tactics to protect it. that’s because real truth can stand on its own.
Does anyone know why evolutionists always look right? It’s because there philosophy of how science is supposed to work allows them to be right and wrong at the same time. Example: Let’s say today a evolutionist uses evidence on a major tv debate between me and him and more or less says I’m lying because this evidence is a true proven fact. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really lying? But yet what will be the excuse instead of “we wrong”? It will be: “That’s how science works”. And even though they called me a liar with that now proven wrong evidence, this accusation never has to be retracted and no public apologies made. But instead the creationist will always look like the one whom was wrong regardless. So even their lies and deceptions are true. Now if they can tweak this ability to look right all the time to the point to where everyone is too stupid to realize it, then yes the debate could be over in 15-30 years.
Evolutionists like to claim evolution is so observable. Yet when a film illustrating how evolution works how much of it has to be animated in order to show people how it works? Over 90% of it has to be animated. Is animation now empirical evidence because the animation can be repeated in a lab? Want an illustration on how much animation is needed to show evolution is any evolution video? Go to YouTube and just type in evolution into their search engine and see for yourself. Or here is an example:
Yep, evolution is now proven because we can see it through animation. And I can make a very long list of all this stuff that has nothing to do with science that is called science and proof of evolution. There is a reason that only evolutionists are allowed to interpret evolution evidence. It’s because evolutionists want to make sure that they always 100% get evidence to support evolution. And doing it this way while barring any whom would disagree ensures this 100% of the time. Their interpretation is the only one that counts or will ever be accepted. Being that atheist-evolutionist control science and control all interpretations and what is accepted as evidence and what is rejected means they have absolute control. Control to this level can only breed corruption. Besides what would be wrong with having outside sources look into things to make sure everything was being done right? It’s because they would be exposed so that would never happen. And to make sure that never happens they have an unwritten rule that states regardless of your education, if you don’t agree with evolution you will never be accepted in scientific circles. As one professor said:
So proven by scientific discovery, or bias through absolute control and corruption?
Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.
Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.
If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.
The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?
If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.
The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.
How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:
8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES
- Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
- Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?
YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.
- There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
- Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
- Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
- Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?
So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.
- When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
- Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
- Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
- Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
- Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands. The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
- Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
- Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
- Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.
7. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF BIOGEOGRAPHY
- According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally only in the areas in which they first appeared – even though there are no compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration (after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental animals are virtually absent from Australia.
- Response: The expansion and contraction of the earth’s crust because of the water from under the earth’s crust coming up and then going back means that the motion of the tectonic plates had not completely stopped yet. How does one stop a moving continent? And because there were only certain number of animals that came off the Ark, if they happen to migrate to an area of land that was still in motion because the tectonic plates were still settling. Then they could one day find themselves separated from the rest of the animals that were on the original land mass the Ark had landed on. So being so few in number at that time this separation made the continents often species specific. Because how does the animal swim back, or those left behind swim to them?
Example: Let’s say the polar bear does not swim. Let’s say there are 5 species divided up by male and female of those who are compatible to reproduce. They live separate because they can tell who’s different and are not interesting in mingling. While on the ice one day the ice decides to separate. One species ends up living in one area of the ice while another drifts to a whole totally new area. But they are now totally separate and the two areas are now species specific.Also remember the continents were together at one time (super continent). Which means all land mass were together as well. So when the Ark landed these animals migrate and end up in different areas that later separate after the flood. So does the Bible support Pangaea theory? Yep. In the creation it is stated that the earth was covered totally with water.Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The whole earth being covered with water during creation is confirmed when the water has to go underground before dry land can appear.Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.If water has to be removed somewhat so that land could “appear” means that the whole earth was covered during creation. Because you cannot make something appear if it’s already there. And because this was the first expansion of the earth’s crust, this is what left the evidence of the Pangaea super continent. The flood which was the “first contraction” of the tectonic plates pushed up the mountains that we now observe. This is because when the water came up from under the earth’s crust there was nothing there supporting the plates anymore so they come back together forming one solid earth while pushing up mountains. But the cracks from the first expansion were still there. And when the water seep back into what was now very hot, steamed formed making pressure which pushed the tectonics plates back apart allowing water to come back in to be underground again. Once the water pressure equalized between above ground and below ground the extreme pressure made the boiling point of the water go high enough that the boiling and steam stopped and so did the expansion of the tectonic plates. But while the water was flowing into the underground areas the pressures were not high enough so the steam continued to push the plates apart. What made the pressures less during this time was that the expansion acted like a syringe. The plunger being pulled back to suck the liquid inward has to create somewhat of a vacuum to do this. Just like the expanding plates opening faster than the water could flow into it would do the same thing. This is because water has a viscosity to it which means it also has a “flow rate”. This can be demonstrated by pouring water through a funnel. According to how big the smallest end is determines the flow rate because of the water viscosity (how thick it is as a liquid).
But because this brought up more molten rock to the surface to cover the area that has now expanded. There was not enough solid-cooled down molten rock in the earth’s crust yet to stop the tectonic plates from moving like they were floating. What this allowed for was continental drift. So when the animals from the flood got onto certain land masses while migrating that were still drifting, they became separated from the original group making that particular continent only have the species that happened to migrate to that land mass before it drifted away. Once that molten rock hardened enough, and in the amount needed. The continents drift slowed up to what we observe today and the continents basically drifted to their current positions. So the hardening molten rock acted as a type of braking system slowing up the continental drift over the years. What would also help in the slowing of the tectonic plates movements is the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits and the pull of the sun.This video, which has nothing to do with creation, pretty much sums up how the earth expands and contracts when water exists and then is removed.
Neal Adams, who made this video animation, did not realize his idea fits perfectly with the creation model. Because to make the earth smaller water has to be removed from under the crust and between the land masses. And as you watch the earth shrink in the animation notice how the water disappears. In the creation and flood model this is what the land masses would look like under the water. And this is something that most evolutionists forget is the earth will shrink when the water from underneath the crust is removed. But then you might say: There is not enough water under the crust to make the earth shrink that much. And if you assume that you would be wrong.Research done on the upper mantle of the earth has found that a mineral called “wadsleyite” holds about 3% of water by weight. This may not seem like much until you do the math on how much wadsleyite there is. The amount of water works out to be 30 oceans worth. More than enough to flood well beyond the highest mountain, and make the earth expand and contract as much as shown in the animation.
- The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the Indian Ocean. The slow-moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest, although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area. Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no amphibians on remote islands.
- Response: The last response answered this question. But I will take this a step further to prove my point. Because of the flood there should be a dispersion of all seeds all around the planet. This would not be like the last response where areas became species specific due to continent separation. The plant dispersion and survival would be based more on its ability to survive in the area its seeds ended up in. So we would expect to see plants growing according to its ability to survive in that climate so the mixture of species would not be as much continent specific as animal life. And that is what we see.
Also the flood would explain such huge movement in the tectonic plates that would allow plants to be found in areas today that they could have never survived in. Such as palm trees found buried in ice. Plants and animals found buried near the poles that only lived in warm climate and could have never survived the cold climate. Only movement of the plates due to a flood could displace things like that.
- The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls. Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast.
- Response: Birds are actually a bad example for the specific reason that these birds can migrate thousands of miles over water and land. Their migration places them where they are, unlike land animals who would be restricted from moving across thousands of mile of water. So it does not mean one species of bird bread off another because they happen to live next to each other. Their migration drive is also fed by the need to breed. For if their migration habits were different and they did not live together then this conclusion could not be made. Or the interpretation would be different just to make the conclusion conform to how evolution works. Conformism is not science.