An Evolution Debate: "Evolutionist" vs YE Creationist

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Coup d'état, Dec 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Evolution is not defensible scientifically

    To start we have to define some terms:

    Stupid: Lacking normal intelligence: foolish: silly: bad idea:

    Evolution lacks common sense and it lacks intelligence.

    Evolutionist Richard Dawking,
    Most lump evolution into one incoherent definition, but really it has six. To really understand why we have to define some more terms. And the first five are pure religious. Only the last, micro 'evolution' or variation is observable and factual. All evidence for evolution only uses variation to claim truth to the other five kinds.


    1. Cosmic evolution - The origin of time space and matter. Big Bang. Before you can have a coherent theory of Evolution you need to establish how time, space and matter came about. It's a continuum, you can't have one without the other. Can't have space without time etc... If you have time but no space, where are you going to put it ? If you have space, but no time when are you going to put it ?

    The Big Bang theory states that all the energy and matter in existence was inherent in a little dot about the size of a period. And before this was literally noting, literally. And this noting blew up, out and is still expanding.

    From time magazine,
    Time, space, matter cannot create itself. It needs an outside force to be created.

    It also assumes that from this explosion order was created. Who's ever seen a big bang create order ? Bing bangs create big messes. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics tells us everything is falling apart. Everything tends toward disorder. Nothing gets better by itself.

    The humanist manifesto regards the universe as self existing and not created. To say the universe is self existing is stupid. That violates the Second law of Thermal Dynamics. Evolutionist say that you can add energy and overcome this law. They assume that adding it (assuming an that the universe is an open system) will over come the 2nd law.

    1. The universe is a closed system by definition
    2. adding energy is only destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. Evolutionist also say evolution can over come this by adding energy from the sun.

    The Japanese add a lot of energy to Peal Harbor in 1941 and that did not organize anything. We returned the favor a few years later, added energy to a few of their cities...did not organize anything still. Adding energy is destructive. The sun's energy will destroy so it is not the solution to evolution.

    To assume to add energy to over come the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics is stupid. It is not that simple.

    Evolutionist assume that if you give enough time, things get better. Give things time and they actually get worse.

    Text books say the dot (big bang dot) was spinning, and then exploded. A spinning object that breaks apart will send all the fragments off spinning in the same direction, according and ruled by The Law of Conservation on Angular Momentum. The fragments cannot collide either, and the longer you wait the further it they spread and distance from fragment to fragment.

    Just as if a hand grenade explodes, the fragments never hit one another in the field someplace.

    1. Venus, Uranus and possibly Pluto rotate backward form the other six planets.

    2. 8 of the 91 known moons rotate backward. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

    3. Some galaxies spin backward.

    4. Bing Bang theory is stupid.

    Text books say as earth formed its surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava. Was the earth really ever a hot molten mass ?

    Dr. Robert Gentry has done lots of study on the Granite rock around the world. He found they all contain Radio Plutonium Halo's with an extremely short half life. He proved they were never a hot molten mass. If you melt Granite rock and let it cool down again it does not turn back into granite again. We still have Granite all over the world. This tell us positively that the earth was never had a hot molten, bubbling lava pool.


    2. Chemical Evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

    They say the Big Bang created Hydrogen and some Helium. Evolutionist think the Periodic Table of Elements came from this big bang. Assuming all the elements formed from Hydrogen, some Helium. Atoms of Hydrogen in the proto sun were fused to make Helium. This can happen. Though it is stupid to think that can form all the elements. Hydrogen fuses to Helium. But, you cannot fuse past Iron though. How did we get all the elements ? Evolutionist assume for example, that we got Uranium from Hydrogen.

    This lacks normal intelligence. It's chemically impossible. Chemical evolution is not observed, it is purely theoretical.


    3. Stellar Evolution - Origin of stars and planets.

    Text books say 18 - 20 (8 or 14 it changes all the time) billions years ago the big bang formed the galaxies. We got a serious problem here. This nothing exploded while it was spinning and formed all the galaxies. Problems are many for this theory:

    1. The big bang cannot make nice neat, orderly galaxies. The galaxies are incredibly designed, to the galaxies level all the way down to the molecular level.

    2. We see a Star blow up about every thirty years. When this happens we call it a Nova or Super Nova. If universe is billions of years old, why are there less than 300 Super Nova rings discovered ? (dead stars) There should be several hundred million of them. Are the Stars wrong or the evolution theory ? Stupid.

    3. They say new Stars are constantly being born in clouds of gas and dust. First of all, this not ever observed.

    - Martin Harwilt, Science, Vol 231 7 March 1986 p. 1201 - 1202

    4. Evolutionist assume you can get dust and squeeze it together to make a Star. But if you try to squeeze gas together and the pressure will drive it apart, as stated by laws like Boyle's Gas Law.

    5. Nobody has ever seen gasses turn into solids by there own gravitational force.

    6. If Stars Evolve, Star births should equal Star deaths. Novas and Super Novas are Star deaths. Some have been observed. Where is the evidence for Star births ? We are seeing one die every thirty years and not one has ever been seen being formed.

    7. Evolutionist think that losing Stars every thirty years and never replacing them will lead to having over 70 sextillion Stars. (like keep spending money and you'll be rich lol)

    8. Scientist think they see this formation. But what they are seeing is a spot getting brighter, and they assume it's a Star forming. It could be a dust cloud clearing in front of it or another Super Nova going on. All they are seeing is a spot getting brighter.
    • Hot Thread Hot Thread x 1
    test
  2. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Some planets are cooling off, constantly losing heat. Evolution teaches they are millions of years old. But the planets can't just keep cooling off and cooling off. Eventually it's cooled off.

    Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a strong magnetic field. Magnetic fields are generated by the liquid motion of molten metal inside a body. Yet Ganymede should have cooled solid billions of years ago. Why does it have sill a hot molten core and a strong magnetic field ?

    Saturn has rings around it, but are constantly moving away from the planet. To say there billions of years old is stupid. They would have been dissipated by now.

    Our moon is leaving away from earth at about an inch per year. It causes tides every day. So since we know it is leaving we also know that it was once closer. According to Inverse Square Law the moon and earth would be totally touching a million years ago.


    4th. Organic Evolution - Origin of life from non living material.

    Evolutionist believe in spontaneous life generated from non living material. How did this happen ?

    Evolution teaches
    Translation: It's OK to inquire about how life evolved. It is not OK to inquire about whether it evolved. This is stupid.

    Is this education or indoctrination ? It's like saying, We know life evolved but you have to try and figure out how it happened. You can't question it evolved ?

    Text book:
    -Holt Earth Science 1994 p. 282 (so slow it don't happen lol)

    Students are taught life evolved from non Living materials in the Archean Era.
    - Earth Science HB 1989

    Billions of years is the magic word. They hide it in antiquity, that if you imagine going far back enough it happens. This is stupid.

    There is no record of the event.


    Haeckel's Confession

    Haeckel claimed also that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory,

    Miller Experiment.

    Miller took a series of glass tubes, and beakers and hooked them together and made 4 gasses go through them: Methane, Ammonia, water vapor and Hydrogen. Notice no oxygen present in this experiment. Because they assumed the earth may had what was called a reducing atmosphere - no oxygen present.

    Because life could not evolve without oxygen present. He knew the presence of oxygen would break down an amino acid. Any amino acids that tried to combine therefore would be oxidized. So they purposely excluded oxygen.

    The problem with this is: If you don't have oxygen you do not have ozone, and Ozone blocks UV light...and UV light destroys ammonia and that was one of his gasses.

    Life can not evolve without oxygen to protect the ammonia.

    The other problem is the Earth has always had oxygen -even more than today. Also oxygen is found in the lowest fossil rocks. He filtered out the product in his experiment also. This not realistic to nature.

    What he made was 85% tar, 13% carboxlic acid (both toxic to life) and 2% amino acids. He made a mixture 98% deadly to what he was trying to produce (life) and you call this a success ?

    Another problem: 2 amino acids were produced and 20 different ones are needed for life, these bonded quickly to the tar and carboxlic acid that were toxic anyhow.

    Amino Acids are letters which are building blocks to make words, to make paragraphs to make huge books. He made the equivalent of a few letters when he needed to make a book.

    Half the amino acids he produced were left handed and half right handed

    The smallest proteins have 70-100 amino acids precise order all left handed. DNA and RNA nucleotides are all right handed. Hundreds of amino acids must combine to make proteins yet they UN BOND in WATER faster than they bond. The oceans are complete full of water. Brownian motion drives them away from each other to equilibrium not together.

    What he made is a problem for Evolutionist because he proved it can not be done. All this experiment has shown us that there must of have been a designer


    5th Macro Evolution Changing from one kind of animal into another.

    Text books say bacteria slowly evolved into humans. Nobody has ever seen that happen. No one will. Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non dog.

    - Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University

    It is pure religious speculation.

    Taking observations that wolves, dogs are the same kind of animal or that there are 8 different kinds of bears and saying that is conclusion that we all have a common ancestor is stupid. Lacks common intelligence.

    Evolutionist pick animals and arrange them in order.

    - George Gaylord Simpson "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record"

    None of this holds up to examination, but the evolutionist still cite it because they do not have replacement evidence. It is still presented in museums today, with the knowledge of it all being falsified.


    Charles Darwin

    - The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection

    One text book says you
    Evolutionist have long pointed to mutations with beneficial effects. The most common example given: mutations sometimes make bacteria resistant to antibiotics (germ killing drugs). And so, the argument goes "if mutations can make bacteria stronger they must be able to do the same for other creatures." Dr. Spetner points out that this is biased on a misunderstanding, for the mutations that cause resistance to antibiotics still involve information loss.

    To destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to the part of the bacterial called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacteria is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still constitutes as a loss in genetic information, not a gain. NO evolution has taken place; the bacteria are not "STRONGER". In fact, under normal conditions with no antibiotic present they are weaker than their non mutated cousins.

    -From Case Against Darwin
    test
  3. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Colossal waste of time ^^

    I already told you that's not what I was doing lol.
    test
  4. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    God wins
    and
    My fingers are bleeding from typing.





    you would have lost anyhow...by not showing up you look less of a fool than had you tried to debate a Christian sniper in the army of His Glory.

    lol @ the mods changing the tags
    test
  5. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    That's what you sound like. How are you not embarrassed?

    Yea, just go with the "you would have lost" nonsense lol. I made it real clear that I didn't go along with this. If your reading comprehension was good enough to understand the parameters I was accepting, you would be getting your pretentious, delusional ass intellectually busted.

    I figured you would pull some shit like this. Clearly it is you who are not only the coward, but a liar as well. I've not seen a more dishonest poster on these boards. You do NOT represent your deity well. If he were real, he'd be ashamed (or possibly proud, since he is a jealous, lying maniac as well).
    test
  6. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    lol at you preparing a speech for an empty room. Thread fail
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    So why dont you go ahead and drop whatever it was u did wanna debate rather than being typical nightmare
    test
  8. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    You should also define theory

    cuz when scientists use that word they usually have a different definition that the regular joe

    a regular joe thinks theory means "just an idea"
    test
  9. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    LOL nightmarex. Calm down dude.

    What were the temrs then?


    I don't really think you are fool dude, as in a dumb person man chill.
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    First hit on google: define theory

    the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/Noun: 1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
    2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Hes just looking for an out anyway possible.
    test
  12. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    The tags shm
    who's changing the tags ? Lpree or the other mod ?
    test
  13. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    all of your information is 15-20 years old Coup, which explains it...you are reading only the things given to you through the creationist movement and agenda...the outdated, misinformed information is pretty sad really... I'll briefly summarize your idiocy...

    new theory of evolution actually states there's no reason for the bang to have happened from nothing, and there has to be something before it. Read about M theory.
    Charles Darwin is not the "jesus" of evolution...well, actually, sorta is I suppose, in the outdatedness
    If the Universe was the size of a dot, that dot was something, I propose it is actually the entire "dead" universe, everything burns out with entropy, and then gravity remains, as a constant, smashes all the black holes back together

    if something is spinning and blows up on earth, in an atmosphere, a closed system, yea, it scatters and doesn't recollect...
    Do that shit in space...and as SHOWN to you with the salt in a bottle video...gravity pulls shit together...

    depending on how a galaxy is formed, or planet or moon, will define how it's spinning...it's not like water going down a drain here on earth, shit can spin however the fuck it wants to

    the granite was made by the cooling process...it was not melted because it didn't exist pre-melt...doesn't take a rock scientist to know that

    I've shown you the site, from the university you attended, where they are making these same star collision element factories you deny


    stars blowing up are a sudden release of energy, a moment that is visible...
    stars being born don't have a *pop* where they suddenly become a star, once that gas cloud is burning, it's born, just gestating
    there is the moment when the gas cloud lights up, similar to when a cloud of say, propane on earth ignites...but now, imagine that cloud of propane is in front of an atomic blast, that's the equivalent of trying to see it through the "star fog"

    comparing squeezing gas and having it auto expand, and how gravity is holding the outward force of the star's combustion...
    that's an example of extrapolating wrong conclusions by relating an unrelated micro/macro situation


    The moons and planets and the not cooling shit...
    what the fuck, if you know anything about thermal dynamics, you would realize that the gravitational fluxes make friction inside of planet, squeezing and releasing as it's closer and farther away, you ever bend a coat hanger back and forth...ya mutha shoulda done the same...oh, bazinga...

    Saturn's rings are held in check by gravity... they are essentially micro moons/asteroids, little pebbles, it's not really dust at all

    You really need to learn something from a textbook wrote after 2000

    The moon is not leaving the earth an inch a year on a constant basis, sure, it may have been in every year that it's been physically recorded
    but, it don't mean it always has... once again...you can't extrapolate conclusions from illogical logic


    I'll be briefer on organic evolution...
    look at your fucking sources,,,1989, 94...27 AD....
    the miller experiment has been redone in recent years with all of your "flaws" corrected


    I am closer in dna to a Chimp, than a Chihuahua is to a Hyena
    test
  14. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    i just meant when a scientist uses the word theory, generally he uses a different definition than what the regular joe does.

    just like how everyone is using a different definition of the word proof in our debates
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Well these scientist believe in evolution...so of course the definition will lean more as a truth in the sense of the word. But it's still just a theory. And you still have to believe in evolution. It's not a fact, but a thoery.
    test
  16. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    i wouldnt change the tag's but it must be dex or demi-god b/c memento hasn't been online. and he wouldn't do something immature like that..
    test
  17. Sir Bustalot

    Sir Bustalot I am Jesus

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    55,612
    i still have yet to hear anything other than your version of christianity that says the earth is 6000yrs old

    I also dont think that everything about the theory of evolution is 100% fact. I do believe there are facts within it.

    I think god and science work together not against each other


    and again. I do not believe god is a man in the sky or some magical kingdom
    test
  18. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    new theory of evolution actually states there's no reason for the bang to have happened from nothing

    Breathless, explain the new theory then. LoL it changes a lot.

    you are reading only the things given to you through the creationist movement and agenda...the outdated, misinformed information is pretty sad really

    Is that a fact ? All my information is not old. You information is billions of years old man, haha.

    Do that shit in space...and as SHOWN to you with the salt in a bottle video...gravity pulls shit together...

    LOL shown with salt in a video...so it must be true. Explain this. Don't link me anything. You explain it to me.

    the granite was made by the cooling process...it was not melted because it didn't exist pre-melt

    There is no way to know that. You are assuming to make good on your religion.


    stars being born don't have a *pop* where they suddenly become a star, once that gas cloud is burning, it's born, just gestating

    You are assuming. We have never observed a Star birth.


    Link me to the new miller experiment where they created life.
    test
  19. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    christian's have done god injustice by putting labels on him.. right there for example i called it a him.. but for sake of imagery let's look past that..

    god is not a man in the sky.

    and his kingdom isn't magical.

    christian's don't teach that..

    that's a misconception
    test
  20. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    right on LP!

    never judge a philosophy by its abuse.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)