jump to last post 1-50 of 60 discussions (228 posts)

Biblical theory vs Evolution Theory

  1. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.

    We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:

    Three rounds of:

    The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)

    Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmative

    Then the Negative presents their case

    Then the Affirmative get to  cross examine and ask the negative questions

    The Affirmative does their rebuttal (no new arguments) just refutation

    Then the Negative gives rebuttal (no new arguments)  and closing

    Then the Affirmative closes

    Then the judges vote

    Osagie proposes:

    http://hubpages.com/profile/GardnerOsagie

    "Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory."

    Knowles is prepared to refute this and argue the evolutionary viewpoint as is appropriate.

    http://hubpages.com/profile/Mark+Knowles

    Let the games begin, and may the most reasonable proposition win. wink

  2. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Hello, This is Gardner. About me I’m been debating publicly and competitively since 1999. My main profile here
    http://hubpages.com/profile/thetruthhurts2009


    Picture this: A child gets really dirty playing in mud and dirt so his dad makes take a bath. After getting all clean the child get out from the tub a pulls the plug to lets the water drain. As the water drains you begin to see layers of dirt forming. Then a Creationist and atheistic evolutionist come in to look at the tub. The Creationist says "Wow you've must a been very dirty to make all those layers of dirt." But the evolutionist says " Wow, billions of years caused that dirt to form there was no cause, no dirty child just natural processes." Sounds a bit absurd I know but that's what it is like the world today: One interpretation vs another. It’s too often propagated that it's Christian vs science, but in reality it’s The Biblical worldview vs the Secular worldview. I contend to show evolutionism as my opponent would like you to believe(macro one kind changes into another with credited to a timegod) is wrong, and Genesis best explains the origins of life and proves we and everything we see were created for a purpose.

    Evolutionist has never observed life coming from non-life, and without this Evolutionism has no foundation to be true.

    I will start with the Word of God and  back it up observable science.

    Genesis 1:23
    “ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

    First let’s define a term


    KIND- if two species can interbreed they are in the same kind, for example. A dog and a wolf are two different species, but that can interbreed and make viable offspring. Which places them in the same kind. According the most recent estimate there are 8,000 kinds of animals.

    The thing about evolutionism is it’s ALL bait and switch. We all can believe in 1 form of evolution with no conflict and that’s micro evolution ie variation within a kind. For example, There are over 400 species of dog from wolf to coyote to pit-bull to poodle and the all have common ancestor… A DOG. There are hundred different species of cat, lions, tigers and Balinese(oh my) and they too have a common ancestor a CAT. And lastly horses they range from zebras to donkeys, but they are in the same KIND. The evolutionists will show a variation within a kind add the timegod and basically sum up “give enough time you can change anything to anything.”  Do we ever see any living thing  get better with time? No. Although it would make a good premise for a Sci-Fi movie it’s not Science. The very fact that we see such dramatic changes in a kind show that variations have limits thus molecule to man evolution is  impossible.  “The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross" Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D.

    It has never been proven that we come from apes, actually we can all be traced back to 1 woman according to mDNA. Why is this important? Because is supports what the bible says Eve is the mother of ALL life. Blacks are no less evolved then whites We are ALL one race with different cultures. It has been long suggested that Adam and Eve were Medium skin tone with brown hair and built by God(Answers in Genesis) with the genes to range from Blond to Red hair Black to White and Adam must’ve had blue eyes. They were born with all the dominant and regressive genes and as Eve’s offspring migrated and had their children different skin tones arose if you know little about genes and genetics supports whayou can easily figured out why we have so many different skin and hair and eye colors all over the world. Just recently the news broke of a women who gave birth to twin 1 black and 1 white twice. Proving what we can see supports what the bible says.

    What else does the bible say.

    God made us male and female, and took from Adam to make Eve, which can be seen in the chromosomes Male XY Female XX, God took the X from Adam and gave to eve, Also according to the bible God took out Adam lower rib, and guess what is the only bone in the human body take can grow back. The lower rib.

    According to the bible, death didn’t occurred until Eve ate of the apple, now I know this is where the talking snake fallacy arises and I have an answer for that, Let’s say you see a wallet on the ground full of money the voice in your head that says take it and gives you all kinds of justifications to steal that’s Satan and the exact same voice Eve heard.

    After Eve ate the of the apple that’s when God started man’s downward spiral we had a death date placed on Adam and all creatures. God let Adam live to be very 900+ years because he had to populate the earth with Eve. The bible says there was no death before Adam and Eve sin, so naturally the animals lived to be very old as well.


    Did you know lizards never stop growing, they grow all of their life. Dinosaurs are simply lizards who continued to grow. I stated earlier that God allowed animals to leave as long as Adam and Eve before the fall. Let’s observe a few pictures. What would the following lizards look like if they were  allowed to live for 500+ years in pre-flood conditions(oxygen rich, less sun exposure, etc)?

    http://www.reptileknowledge.com/images/jacksons-cham.jpg


    http://www.users.on.net/~rastus/lizards.jpg


    <snipped lizard images from rfadventures.com, a malware site>

    Can you say terrible lizard?

    But my opponent would have you believe that

    A T-Rex(cold-blooded, scaly) turned into Tweedy(warm-blooded, feathers) over millions of years. We has yet to be observed and has not been proven.(btw archaeopteryx is 100% BIRD
    http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp

    All of the skeleton in the museum are simply different races of people or different types of apes they put them in order to fool you, but there is no evolution occurring. And a lot of the fossils are things we can still see today with absolutely no change. But to keep you believing there has been a long parade of fraud.

    Neanderthal Man
    Piltdown Man
    Lucy
    Peking man
    Pithecanthropus Erectus
    Nebraska man
    Peppered Moths
    Archaeoraptor
    The Pig-tooth Man
    Remember Ida, a mass publicity stunt, and a quite retraction
    Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds; after reputable scientist further examined the fossil that concluded it was just a bird.

    What happened to fool me once?

    In conclusion I stand affirmed that evolutionism(as my opponent believes) is not only a bad theory, but a horrible philosophy. The bible was states that “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” God made is so that everyone so know and understand His word, so we are without excuse. I’d like to end with a quote from an ex- atheist Anthony Flew “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor did I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason not of faith.”

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Questions

      As I recall - I am allowed a maximum of 15 questions of 100 words each, and Gardner allowed a 250 word (max) answer to each question. As agreed here:

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/29531

      As I appear to have been shown some new and unsubstantiated "science," that I was not previously aware of, I suspect I may have to use all 15 questions. big_smile

      And we do not seem to have been presented with an argument in favor of the biblical theory to describe the origins of human life. More an attack on all known science that leaves the bible as the default alternative theory. Still - these are my questions:



      I feel this is misleading, not to say absurd, for a number of reasons, but it appears that this is attempting to refute the idea that deposits of rock and other materials laid down over millions of years are actually not layers or deposits, but are in fact - as this analogy suggests - a surface layer only and would wash off in much the same way as grime deposited on the side of a bath tub would do.

      This is my question:

      Are you seriously suggesting that the layers of grime on a bath tub that will wash off are the same as the layers of materials deposited on say - the walls of the Grand Canyon?

      http://www.iviconstruction.com/images/bathtub.jpg

      http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/339388335_573fa0dffc_o.jpg

      I guess this is really two questions in one, but - Do you think you could wash those off, or do you think you might find that they run all the way through? 



      Sorry to call you to a point of order, but I feel it important that we use the same vocabulary.

      Are you not aware that Dogs and Wolves are indeed of the same "species," and in fact dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are domesticated wolves(Canis lupus), which are, along with foxes, Jackals and coyotes all members of the family Canidae. Further up the family tree (not tyrying to lecture here - just asking a question.)

      Are you also aware that "Carnivorans" split into 2 distinct family trees: the "dog-like" and "cat-like" forms that spawned the creatures we see today and name "dogs" and "cats."

      Taxonomy is a rather complicated (and admittedly not written in stone) discipline. So - I think the tem "KIND" should be discarded in favor of commonly-used taxonomy, a description and explaination of which can be found here:

      http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … onomy.html

      Are you also aware that there are actually 1.4 million named species on earth and estimates that there are between 2-100 million?
      http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8202



      I am confused and need some clarification here.

      Are you saying that the bible is not "literally" true and that there was no actual rib taken?

      And I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that no bones could grow back after being removed. Could you provide some evidence that bones can grow back please?



      Can you provide some evidence of this please? Biblical or otherwise. Or are you assuming that this must be the case to allow the (admittedly confusing and impossible) biblical genealogy?

      How old did the animals live to be? Biblical or otherwise. I do not recall any references to long lived animals, but am open to being educated on this.



      No - I didn't know that all lizards just kept on growing. Interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?

      Pre-flood conditions? Adam was 900 years old? Well - this is a new one on me, and I may have to use all my questions on this one.

      What flood is this?
      What were the conditions before this flood? Biblical references welcome.
      How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
      How old was Adam when he died?Biblical references welcome.
      When did the big lizards die out?

      http://php.scripts.psu.edu/users/d/t/dtt5018/T-Rex.jpg

      Just big lizards?

      Oops - I have used up all my questions and will have to save the rest for later.

  3. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    I'll be back in a few hours.

  4. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Answers

    Since to requested proof, and sources for my facts, at the risk of too much going over my allotted time I have provided a few links. You must present your case by Monday.

    For a summary of mark case look here big_smile wink

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheistic-Evolu … ion-Expose

    You asked some of you questions more than once.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the layers of grime on a bath tub that will wash off are the same as the layers of materials deposited on say - the walls of the Grand Canyon?

    Answer: That’s was my intro of how to people can look at the same thing and have two different interpretations. The Grand Canyon in the result of Noah flood. Evidence is pretty obvious. There are no erosion marks, If the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years as evolutionist believe erosion would have taken placed. There is No way the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon, because there is no delta and 140millions years between strata. 
    A more scientific explanation here

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … s-part-one

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/ … trophe.asp

    I guess this is really two questions in one, but - Do you think you could wash those off, or do you think you might find that they run all the way through?

    Hmmmm? This question makes no sense but I’ll attempting to answer what I think you’re trying to ask.

    Layers are formed all over the world literally “stacked” one on top of the other. As if it was once flooded then the water drained forming the layers.


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n4/canyon.jpg


    http://static.flickr.com/87/207099052_3ceaffe4eb.jpg

    Polystrate tress growing through multiple layers
    http://www.ldsmag.com/sci_rel/images/050316/polystrate.jpg

    http://www.ianjuby.org/images/DSC00255.JPG

    http://yecheadquarters.org/images/creation/Slide219.jpg


    http://www.gugila.com/gw_manual/gw_layer_data/canyon_strata.jpg

    Are you also aware that there are actually 1.4 million named species on earth and estimates that there are between 2-100 million?
    KIND- if two species can interbreed they are in the same kind, for example. A dog and a wolf are species, but that can interbreed and make viable offspring. Which places them in the same kind. According the most recent estimate there are 8,000 KINDS of animals.

    In simpler words, A dog and a wolf can interbreed that places them is the same KIND

    A zebra and a horse can interbreed that places them in the same KIND.

    There are millions of  variations but it all speciation of the KIND.


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … pecies.asp


    Are you saying that the bible is not "literally" true and that there was no actual rib taken? Not at all

    And I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that no bones could grow back after being removed. Could you provide some evidence that bones can grow back please?

    This answers both rib questions. God took from Adam to form Eve.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/AdamsRib.pdf



    Can you provide some evidence of this please? Biblical or otherwise. Or are you assuming that this must be the case to allow the biblical genealogy? Read Genesis 5 is pretty straight forward if you find it confusing that’s your own bias .
    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/life-span-of-bible-patriarchs-before-after-the-flood.jpg

    How old did the animals live to be? Biblical or otherwise. I do not recall any references to long lived animals, but am open to being educated on this. The bible states sin brought death into the world and before sin there was NO death. None. Genesis 3:17,18

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/deathsin.html


    I didn't know that all lizards just kept on growing. Interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?

    http://livingdinos.com/mokele_mbembe.html

    Pre-flood conditions? Yes thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere.
    Adam was 900 years old?Actually Adam lived to be 930 years old
    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why- … er-it.html

    Well - this is a new one on me, and I may have to use all my questions on this one.

    What flood is this? The Flood of Noah
    For those who still need proof of Noah's Flood
    http://hubpages.com/hub/Noahs-Ark-Missi … complished

    What were the conditions before this flood? This is a repeat question
    How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
    The oxygen level can be determined by what animals we find in the fossils record. For example the Brachiosaurs lived to be 85 feet long and weigh between 30 and 80 TONS, but the his nostrils were the size of a modern day horse, with small nostril like these he managed to live and grow to be an amazing size, because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere so big nostrils weren't a necessity, because of the pre flood condition of the earth.
    “Changes in the climate, composition of the atmosphere, hydrologic cycle, geologic features, cosmic radiation reaching the earth, ozone concentration, ultra violet light, background radiation, genetics, diet, and a host of other subtle and/or profound chemical and physiological changes. These changes caused a rapid decline of the longevity of post flood humanity.”
    Yes thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere.



    Before the flood nothing ate meat because the world was perfect. Genesis 1:29-30 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
    After the Flood, we could eat meat Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” ie no red meat(which is also a medical fact) and no cannibalism.


    We as a people are just now figuring out vegetarians live longer.


    How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome. How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
    The oxygen level can be determined by what animals we find in the fossils record. For example the Brachiosaurs lived to be 85 feet long and weigh between 30 and 80 TONS, but the his nostrils were the size of a modern day horse, with small nostril like these he managed to live and grow to be an amazing size, because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere so big nostrils weren't a necessity, because of the pre flood condition of the earth.


    How old was Adam when he died?
    Biblical references welcome. This is a repeat question http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic … aG0abzlGEh

    When did the big lizards die out?
    Died out? Most died during the flood, but some still lived after the flood they were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented. After the flood they were no longer able the grow to the pre-flood size. They usually grew to be about the size of sheep and were hunted and killed. There are Chinese records that support the hunting and killing of dragons. I provided a link for living dinosaurs.




    Just big lizards? Yes! But if you’re talking about the teeth.



    http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/thezone/animals/life/images/teeth14.jpg


    You may now present your case

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Of course. I almost don't know what to say to your "answers," but I am sure I will come up with something. 

      Just to recap, so I know where we are.

      The Grand canyon is NOT like the rings of a bath tub after a dirty child has been bathing any more, but the layers were laid down during Noah's flood and the evidence is pretty obvious.

      The geologists, geographers, and other so-called "scientists" all got it wrong and made a mistaken assumption about how the earth formed. Probably do without those sciences I guess?

      There are not actually several million species on earth, there are 8,000 different KINDS and these millions of species can all interbreed with other species. Waste of time pissing about with taxonomy and we can do away with that particular science also.

      The Bible IS literally true but you do not need to answer that question about the chromosome or provide evidence that bones can grow back. Presumably this is also obvious, and no doubt all the doctors have got it wrong about bones growing back any way. Friggin' scientists! What do they know? Not much apparently. 

      There was no death before sin was bought into the world so animals lived to be.... Don't need to answer that one either. Presumably the answer is also obvious, and the chart taken from Genesis 3:17,18 clearly proves that people used to live to be 900 years old - once again proving there was more oxygen then. Not that there was no death then - which was obvious but now is not. No doubt all this crap about interbreeding causing issue is wrong as well. One breeding pair? More than enough to populate the gene pool. Frigging geneticists! What do they know? Rubbish all of it. Plus all this crap about carnivores. Rubbish - all animals were plant eaters to start with. Obvious really - when you think about it.

      Pre flood conditions included a thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere, but no need to back that up with anything. Probably obvious too huh?

      Dinosaurs lived to be 85 feet long which proves that there was more oxygen then, not that there was no death. No need to show any proof that lizards just keep growing. Presumably - obvious also?

      The Dinosaurs mostly died out during the flood, but because there was less oxygen after the flood, they could only grow to the size of sheep and were hunted to extinction by the Chinese who called them dragons before we found out about dinosaurs. Carbon dating? Religious clap trap.

      Palaeontologists? What do they know? Nothing. Liars - probably trying to push this evolution nonsense. Obviously.

      Didn't get the thing with the teeth. Not sure why they would need those big teeth to chew leaves, but I am sure that is obvious also.

      I will get back to you as soon as I can. wink

  5. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    Was that last post a mockery freebie determined by mark?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Just clarifying things so I know where I stand.

      That was an awful lot of new science to digest in one go.

      1. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No, it was a mockery of what he just wrote. I could pull out some specific examples if you want to continue.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Not really. I was just clearing things up for myself.

          Or is the grand canyon still like a bath tub that had a dirty child washing in it?

          Mock? Why would I mock the idea that all those scientists have it all wrong and a religious website has the answers instead?

          I agree with the taxonomy thing. Why piss about with millions of species when we can switch to KINDS instead? Much, much easier.

          And I am sure there is proof that bones grow back. he just forgot to add it. I am certain medical science is wrong.

          1. sooner than later profile image57
            sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I suppose this is you cracking first. I am sorry you are unable to debate as to your own terms. But I knew you could not debate when I first met you.

            Ladies and Gentlemen- I give you mark the mocker.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              No really. I am certain medical science is wrong and bones do grow back. Please give Gardner the benefit of the doubt. I am certain he just forgot to add the proof. The same with the Chinese dragon-sheep-dinosaurs stuff.

              1. sooner than later profile image57
                sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I am not saying that I agree with everything Truth may believe- but there are points that I do believe. My point is that you could have debated the issue to make your point known. Instead you show your true colors time and time agian. I identified that you do not have the ability to debate or reason in the first week I met you. I think the vegetarian bat with canine teath was graspable.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Deary me.

                  Let Gardner have a chance to show the proof he forgot to add. I am certain he just forgot to add it and will do so.

                  And that was an awful lot of new science for me to digest in one go. I have to consider throwing away all scientific knowledge we have in favor of that religious website.

                  So - I needed to clarify that all in my mind as it was a little confusing in the answer section.

                  I don't care what you think or believe. You are so scared you need to hide behind lots of pretend user names and cannot even admit to who you really are.

                  I am not a fan of cowards who attack from behind fake IDs. I am sure that is what Jesus would have wanted but still.......

  6. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    reverting to more falsified assumptions. The debate has died. I don't give my actual information because I fear lunatics like you would mail me a box that was ticking.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So you are scared? I would have thought a belief in god would have given you some cojones. Apparently not. Thanks for validating yet another one of my conceptions of followers of your cult. Paranoid, tick. Scared of atheists and gays, tick.

      The debate has not died. You have interrupted it.

      1. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        keep digging.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Digging? For what? You are scared and interfering in our debate. Why?

  7. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I am not going to revert to your childish behavior mark. I hope your rebuttal is notable for your sake.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LOLOLOL

      For my sake? lol lol

      What will happen if it is not?

      It will certainly be notable. I have some great ideas now I know the rules..........

  8. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    What's going on? Was that your case? Can I ask questions now?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oh no. I have a week to formulate my response and will do so when I get the chance.

      I was simply summing up your answers (or lack thereof) - more for my own benefit than anything else. Just to get things straight in my head. I guess I really needed to vocalize which sciences were completely wrong. Most of them, it seems - so I will be careful not to quote things like "geology" or "taxonomy" in my statement.

      The religionist who is scared of atheists and gays sending him bombs in the mail interjected and derailed the thread some what but I am confident we can get it back on track.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image52
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Your case is YOUR case not an attack of my case(that's what the Q & A was for). You must put together a case in support of your worldview. Than I'll ask questions about your case. Why is this so difficult for you? All of your side notes should be keep to yourself.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Really? Now I know I can attack your case I will do so in the next round. Although - let's be honest here Gardner - you did not exactly present a case in favor of the bible - you merely invented new science to attack all our understanding of current sciences from taxonomy to carbon dating. Nor did you answer any of my questions or provide the proof of your new sciences I requested.

          Which means I need to give careful consideration to how I present my case.

          I do not want to end up arguing over dinosaur hunting in China. wink

          1. GardnerOsagie profile image52
            GardnerOsagieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            This is not difficult. The rules were simple, but you trying to playing games AGAIN. Present YOUR case, so I can ask questions, etc. What more proof could you possibly need? You're an atheist! Nothing I present will change your worldview this debate is not for you, but for those reading, but you've played the same old nonsense you do every time and people are starting to see you’re no scientist, you're not even a man of with great knowledge of science. You're a hate filled man who hates God and suffer for ABG syndrome. You must present your case supporting your worldview(evolutionism). You've already broken the rules(with your side summary), but I not crying fowl like yourself because it simply proves my original post. Let’s go!

            The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)

            Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmative

            Then the Negative presents their case You must support your position.

            Then the Affirmative get to  cross examine and ask the negative questions

            The Affirmative does their rebuttal (no new arguments) just refutation

            Then the Negative gives rebuttal (no new arguments)  and closing

            Then the Affirmative closes

            Then the judges vote

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Hate god? Of course I hate god - he wiped out the dinosaurs for no good reason.

              ABG Syndrome? What is that?

              Deary me. I will present my case when I am good and ready. wink

              Patience sweetheart - there are lots of other threads to attack me.

              1. GardnerOsagie profile image52
                GardnerOsagieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                ABG is Anything but God! Wiped out the dinosaurs? Let's go mark stop stalling!

                1. Mark Knowles profile image59
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Anything But God? LOL -

                  Yes - He wiped out the dinosaurs. You said so yourself. Reducing the oxygen like that so they only grew to be the size of sheep. I imagine the journey from wherever the Ark landed all the way to China was pretty arduous as well - seeing as they were only as small as sheep now.

                  And of course I also hate the Chinese now you have proved that they were the ones that hunted them to extinction. I will never eat Dim Sum again. Bastards !!

                  I will reply when I am good and ready. I have a week and am hoping to tie it in with baby jesus' birthday in some way as a mark of respect and to show that I don't really hate your invisible friend - just his bastard sun, who was actually Chinese I have discovered in my research.

                  But seriously - I am having difficulty concentrating as I get my head around all the new science you have presented. big_smile

                  1. GardnerOsagie profile image52
                    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    You must present your case by Monday.

                    http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -dinosaurs

  9. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    Took  whiule but I found a site about ribs regenerating.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7332200

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Dent - I realize that you are speaking for god - but this is not an open debate. Please keep your ridiculous hate filled beliefs to yourself and delete that post. thank you.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I actually thought I was helping.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          This is not an open debate. I understand that - because you speak for god - you do not need to respect other people - but this is for me and Gardner only.

          Thank you.

  10. Bovine Currency profile image61
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    judge present, still keeping an eye if anyone is wondering.  I will wait for the formal timing to announce my verdict.

  11. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    You only get 3 days after I answered your questions, You must present by tomorrow!

  12. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    I'll check back later.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You do that. wink

  13. profile image0
    thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/353126584_2f8e127961.jpg

    lol

  14. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/1223180_f496.jpg

    "Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory."

    http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/ascentofman.jpg
    An interesting opening gambit from Gardner has forced me to rethink my approach to this question and I am arguing against this premis.

    Clearly, accepted science has gone out of the window, so I will be making references to this only as appropriate to the questions of human origins; although I was extremely disappointed to discover only one reference to the bible which basically poked a stick at accepted taxonomy and provided no facts to back it up and in no way attempted to address the proposition regarding the origins of human life.

    "God made us," I find to not be an accurate or acceptable statement - for a number of reasons, not necessarily related to my atheism. In fact - it was the lack of substance to this statement that first prompted myself and numerous others to start looking for more detailed and less vague information.

    There are many that find this perfectly acceptable as an answer - and I understand why. It is an easy answer, requires no investigation and validates a pre-existing belief in an invisible super being. But - taken literally, it is 100% false, and once evolution is understood, it is hard to justify a "guiding hand," and impossible to identify which of the infinite possible "guiding hands" was responsible if there was one. wink

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/images/bigtree2.GIF

    It has been well established that modern humans (Homo Sapiens) were not "made," in the accepted sense of the word, but did, in fact, evolve from other primates and appeared on the scene some 200,000 years ago. Previous to this, there were a number of human ancestors, which can be traced back to around 65 million years ago.

    Other Homo species have also existed, but Homo sapiens is the only remaining species. There are a number of theories relating to the various relationships, and this should not be taken to mean that there is not a relationship - the facts are clear. We evolved from other, earlier apes - of this there is no doubt. Exactly how, when and specific taxonomy are still under discussion. Unlike the "ideas" presented in the bible, scientific theories are constantly evolving and adapting to include new knowledge and ideas. Our closest relative, Homo neaderthalensis, died out around 30,000 years ago. Coincidentally - this is also the time frame in which modern humans appear to show self awareness (around 40-50,000 years ago. There are suggestions that we in fact, competed successfully against neaderthalensis and were instrumental in wiping them out. Nothing in my observation of humans as a species leads me to suspect that we are not capable of this.

    The "great leap forward," was marked by a sudden change in behavior, which included creating art, burial of the dead and a sudden leap forward in tool making that was not based solely on the success or failure of previous tools. In other words - the use of imagination, and by extension - self awareness. Ironically - this also seems to have spawned "religion," at around the same time, so one must conclude that self awareness also includes and awareness of death. 

    This point is - to me and many others the point at which modern human beings, very similar to ourselves originated. So - physically we have been around for 200,000 years or so - but something happened to change us irrevocably between 50-30,000 years ago and we began the process of becoming what we are today. There is discussions still going on as to whether this was some cataclysmic event, but the most logical argument appears to be that the change came about as a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Either way - there is more than enough evidence to support the fact that this is when we originated.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Cro-Magnon-male-Skulll.png

    The oldest modern human remains (Cro Magnon) were discovered in the Dordogne in France, and have been dated at around 28,000 years ago. The conditions they were found under suggest strongly that they were part of a community which took care of other members and buried their dead with rituals. Other remains have since been discovered. Human pre history holds a fascination for almost every one (except those who have all the answers) and the desire to know where we come from is strong.

    Evolution

    There can be no doubt that modern humans evolved, along with all other life on our planet, and it takes a special kind of "faith," to even attempt to deny this fact. The fact that "evolutionists," cannot fully explain the origins of life as we understand it and did not "witness" the event in no way detracts from this. The proof that life evolved is overwhelming and there are no "missing links." Certainly we do not have every single step of the process videotaped - but it is a far more plausible answer than "God did it," which is no answer at all.

    Macroevolution vs micro evolution

    Many so called "creationists" attempt to deny evolution based on the fact that there is no "evidence" for "macro evolution," only micro-evolution.

    This is nonsense. There is no such thing as macro evolution, where one species turns into another species in one step, and is just a case of using semantics to deny the truth. There is only micro-evolution - millions of tiny changes occurring over thousands (or millions) of years, until such times as two parts of the same original population are unable to interbreed and a new species is born. The bible does not offer an explanation of the origins of human life. Science does.

    http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/2823727503_985527bc31_o-480x328.jpg

    Evolution is not a philosophy

    Many religious people choose to attack evolution as an unacceptable philosophy. This is also nonsense. The theory of Evolution attempts to explain the facts we have observed in the natural world regarding the diverse range of life we see on earth. It is not a philosophy and anyone attacking it as such is being willfully obtuse to protect an belief they perceive to be under threat. The facts are not in dispute. The theory changes as we learn more.

    References:

    Evolutionary biology is an enormous field and it is not possible to fully explain in 1500 words. Also - it does not stand alone and matches perfectly with what we understand from other disciplines regarding the age of the earth and the way it has developed. We are learning all the time, but here are some respected references and quotes regarding human origins, evolution and the age of the earth.

    Smithsonian Museum of Natural History - Human Origins

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/whatshot/wh_start.html

    University of Washington on The age of Cro Magnon man

    http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=2180

    National Geographic - humans are still evolving
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html

    Becoming Human brings together interactive multimedia, research and scholarship to promote greater understanding of the course of human evolution

    http://www.becominghuman.org/

    Washington State University on Human Origins

    http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/ … index.html

    The theory of Evolution in more detail

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572

    US Geological Survey

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

    Thanks you for your time and enjoy the links.

  15. wesleyacarter profile image52
    wesleyacarterposted 7 years ago

    look at how smart we've become.

    evolution:

    did you learn things throughout your life? is the process of writing it down not evolution itself? the words you choose to debate, the did not cimply create themselves.

    were you not a fetus, a microscopic organism, developed into a fully functional human being?

    is there a yesterday?
    do you think that their might be a tomorrow?


    creation:

    i think, we did not create ourselves, therefore, it is impossible to determine how and in what fashion we were created. Creationism, or Biblical Theory, is a form of denial of the obvious. If we were the Creator(s), we would be able to realize the instant nature of creation. But we are simply human.

    i think, Biblical Theory is contradictory, simply because God being infinite, that means creation is irrelevant because there is no beginning.

    Biblical Theory vs. Evolution Theory in a nutshell:


    i think, Evolution is the result of countless Creation(s), happening one after another. Today Created through yesterday.



    did i break any rules? i hope so.
    wink

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No - you did not break any rules.

      You did demonstrate the fact that you are too friggin' lazy to read anything though. wink

      1. wesleyacarter profile image52
        wesleyacarterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        well i skimmed. most of it was jargon that i have in books on my shelf.

        i saw more answers than questions. that is boring for me. so it was boredom, not laziness wink

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Really?

          What does the first line of the first post say? wink

          1. wesleyacarter profile image52
            wesleyacarterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            it says something like, "Mark knowles must be very bored."

  16. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    There are a lot of question marks here. Looks like those missing links are still missing. lol
    http://humanorigins.si.edu/ha/images/bigtree2.GIF

    Evolutionists find this

    http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/lucyskeleton.gif

    But they(evolutionist) published this


    http://www.omniology.com/Lucyrecons.jpg
    Keep in mind they didn't find feet or hands

    For a summary of mark's "case"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk


    Here are my questions with explanations so you are without excuse to evade


    1) What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information? In simpler words
    How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?(you can't get CAT from the letters FLJ)

    2) What evidence shows a transitional form with partially developed, nonfunctional features (such as 10% of a wing) Until complete, any of these improvements (and many others) would have been a tremendous handicap, not an advantage. A land animal which began to lose a pair of legs and evolve wings would have been eaten by an animal with four good legs.


    3) Why can we classify animals?
    Assuming that all animals evolved from a single cell, there should be no distinction between kinds. This would result in one branch rather than the tree of animals which zoologists have been able to classify.


    4)Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

    5) Why are the missing links still missing?
    From vertebrates to invertebrates, reptiles to birds there should be billions of animals. The transition from legs to wings alone should have included a countless number of animals, yet none can be found.


    6) Why couldn’t all of those animals in a fossil column be put there at once - they all live together now?


    7)Where are all of the people who have died?
    Assuming a population growth of only 1/2% (1/4 the present rate) the current population can be reached in only 4,000 years. If one assumes a growth rate slow enough to account for the current population in 1 million years, there would have been 3,000 billion human bodies.


    8) What held the first cell’s stuff (DNA, RNA, etc) together - a cell wall?
    Without a cell wall of some kind, the delicately formed cell parts would have simply drifted apart, never to form life. A cell well speaks of fundamental building blocks far more complex than simply the parts alone.


    9) How does natural selection produce increasingly complex creatures in light of genetic depletion?
    For natural selection to occur, some detrimental trait must be lost. The gene which carried that trait is therefore no longer, and the resultant offspring has fewer genes than its parent.


    10) Why in the past did mutations seem to be beneficial, while in the present most mutations are harmful?
    Mutations must obey the second law of thermodynamics. Most ancestors were larger than their descendants (saber tooth tiger, mammoth, . . .) Furthermore, how long would it take a beneficial mutation to change an entire population?


    11) What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits?

    12 ) In the failed fraud of Ida “scientists” stated they knew what her last mealwas (which indicates a rapid burial) and dino blood was found in a dino the was “70 millions old”. Given what we know about food and blood decay. How is it even possible that the bones were so old?
    http://www.progenesis.org/SoftTissue.htm

    13) Humans and apes breathe the same air, eat the same food(typically) and live on the same earth which explains why there are so many similarities. Isn't more than possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Designer instead of a common ancestor?

    14) Why have new body plans not developed since the Cambrian explosion?

    15)Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, Ida was recalled after real scientist examined her and stated she was just a lemur, peppered moth etc.)?

  17. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Well Gardner - I am going to answer some of the questions they posed - despite the fact that they are almost all taken from other sources and break the agreement we had that you would actually do some work rather than copy them all from some where else.

    You certainly give credence to the fact that accepting the biblical explanation is the easy one. Sadly - your questions are all-but meaningless and merely demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the people who originally wrote them.

    1. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm

    I don't understand the relevance of this question. I am not attempting to show that the theory of evolution is fact. The facts that show evolution happen are not in dispute. Perhaps you could ask them to be more specific?

    2. Taken from here word for word

    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    All fossils are transitional forms and the idea that you would expect to see "10% of a wing" is laughable. I am sorry the person who wrote this question is so ignorant. sad

    3. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    This is a mistaken assumption making the question meaningless. Another ignorant uneducated person asked this question. Perhaps if you formulated your own?

    4. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=theory of evolution

    And once again meaningless because it is based on a mistaken assumption. I never once mentioned natural selection. I kept to the facts.

    5. There are no missing links.

    6. Copied from here word for word:

    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    I do not understand this question. I never mentioned a fossil column.

    7. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-po … n-problem/

    LOL to that one.

    8. Taken from here word for word:
    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    I never mentioned this. I merely dealt with the facts.

    9. Taken from here word for word:
    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    Once again - I never mentioned this - I stuck to the proven facts that we evolved from other ape like creatures.

    10. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html

    Once again based on a mistaken assumption and lack of education. This person you are taking the questions from is amazingly ignorant.

    11. Taken from here word for word:

    http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm

    I do not understand the question's relevance.

    12. I know nothing about this "failed fraud," and do not see the relevance. Although it looks as though this is your own misunderstanding rather than some one else's. wink

    13. No. If they were "designed," we would not have seen this level of evolution and my testicles would be able to cope with being on the inside. wink

    Plus of course - even if the answer was "yes," there are an infinite number of more plausible "creators" than the biblical god - who - lets face it - shows some pretty psychopathic, tribal, homophobic tendencies. Although - I do like His recommendations on food combination. wink

    14. Good to see you acknowledge the Cambrian explosion, which negates everything you said in your statement. But I do not see the relevance to my statement or the facts I presented.

    15. Yes. Until such times as a more reasonable theory is presented with facts to back it up - Yes. And I am sorry but "all scientists are lying, all science is crap, pleeze believe in the bible," does not cut it.

    If you wish to promote the idea that the biblical account of the origins of humans is reasonable - simply attacking a tiny amount of the evidence for evolution as not being 100% proven is not really an acceptable gambit. You must present some evidence of your own and propose the theory in a testable form.

    I have no doubt there are people out there (as you seem to be) prepared to say - OK -  that one fact is not 100% proven therefore the bible is true.

    There is no question we evolved and I am rather shocked at the approach you have taken. This is not a debate and you have presented no evidence or argument in favor of the biblical account other than "evolution is a lie, therefore the bible must be right."

    There are indeed, other, more plausible explanations:

    http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1600_1200.jpg

    Personally - I don't understanding why you would want to limit your understanding of the world and where we came from in that fashion.

    I am not interested in answering any more ready made meaningless questions. If you want the answers, other people have already taken the trouble to answer many of them here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

    I suggest we rest this "debate" here rather than run any more rounds. I honestly expected you to actually debate rather than do what you are doing. I am genuinely sorry that evolution proves your beliefs wrong, but don't take it out on me. I am just bringing you the truth.

    And if you want youtube proof - it doesn't come much better than this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1C0erp60fo

    I am now done with this "debate," and if you wish to take that as a "win," as I suspect you will - be my guest. wink

    RAmen

  18. GardnerOsagie profile image52
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Well Mark, you failed. To quote a hubber "He will just end up trying to find where you got the questions from to avoid answering them"  or "I bet you won't get through the debate without him quoting Dawkins or throwing out FSM" or my favorite prediction "He just used a focus of on point and make it seem weak, but he won't be able to refute anything, Watch"


    It seems people here know you and your tactics very well and are not impressed. lol

    If you want to know the truth

    http://www.trueorigin.org/

    Evolution is a horrible philosophy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

    All those questions were legit and needed answering to sway anyone else to your side. There was NO agreement about questions we could get it from anywhere. They were right we they said you would evade and find any reason not to answer.

    You didn't answer one question, because you couldn't. ALL you have is faith. I knew instead of answering the question you would cry fowl. Thank you for posting the links so other evolutionists can see how much faith evolution goes on and how little science it uses. Those who read this exchange will see according to your own "evidence" that evolution is a religion not based on facts but faith.

    If those reading want more proof molecule to man evolution is a lie. Please view the following hubs.


    http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-cant-they-win-a-debate

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Science-vs-Evolution

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-You-Handle- … uth-of-God

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheists-you-are-without-excuse

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Seeing-is-NOT-a … an-atheist

    RIP FSM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU

    http://www.biblelife.org/CHEETAH2.GIF http://www.biblelife.org/exerciserunner.gif

    1. spiderpam profile image73
      spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      http://thm-a04.yimg.com/image/c95e74281ddd3eb2


      I told you so, truth. You won. The unbiased person would give you the win even if they disagreed with you. Those who claim mark won will never doubt the evolutionary  religion. How are your Christmas plans coming along?

      1. DogSiDaed profile image58
        DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Everyone seems biased on here. No resolution has been reached. However, this debate has given me a wider scope of knowledge (mostly from Mark) and a wider variety of stupidity (mainly from Osagie). Always happy to gain extra knowledge smile

        1. profile image0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Elaborate please keep in mind your bias.

          1. DogSiDaed profile image58
            DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            If you paid ANY real attention then you'd know that I have already accounted for my bias. Maybe you should go back and READ Mark's points as well? Of course, that's not what you want to do is it? This is a forum where you wish to be snobbish and dismiss any ideas that aren't already in your head.

            1. profile image0
              thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The only snobs here are the "all knowing" atheist. I know you’re bias because you stated it, so anything you say is corrupted. Please elaborate. You called me stupid and you stated you hate me, is that your only point or can you back it up? Did I lie? Do you have questions? Have you doubted your religious belief in atheistic evolution? Will anything convince ever you? Why are you so sure you're right? Have you seen molecule the man evolution? Do bones talk? Is our past the key the future or is our present the key to the past? You didn't read my case or the facts. You didn't view my links. mark didn't answer one question, but he cried fowl and lied when he said there was a rule about questions, but never presented any proof, he wanted to cop out. Try answering those questions mark couldn’t until then.

              Btw you can’t another hate-filled rant now.

              1. DogSiDaed profile image58
                DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Did god give you the thumbs up when you said that eh? So much bullc**p isn't even worth analyzing. I'm gonna do something fun, like worship Satan.

                'Btw you can’t another hate-filled rant now.'
                That doesn't make sense. Next time try English.

                Aside from that rudeness, have a nice day and a Merry Christmas smile

                1. profile image0
                  thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  oops I made a grammatical  error. I'm sure you never do that. That’s what I thought just empty hate. Good day to you.

                  1. DogSiDaed profile image58
                    DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Well done, I'm aware it's a grammatical error. It would be fine if I still understood the sentence but I don't, so I had to point it out. Please calm down. Anxiety causes rapid/rapider brain cell death smile

      2. getitrite profile image81
        getitriteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It seems that this debate was held in a Sanitorium or Asylum with these kinds of comments.  How can an unbiased person really believe Gardner won this debate.  His "facts" were ridiculous fiction(Modern day Monitors and Gila Monsters are dinosaurs?)  Give me a break!  It would take an extremely biased person to even take this kind of position seriously.

        Or maybe you mean he won by default because Mark broke the rules.  Maybe? See I am not biased.  But I really want to see what the creationists have as proof that their theory is superior to evolution.  I thought he would have at least brought up the Flagellum or something more sensible, so that people sitting on the fence would be swayed, but sheep-sized dinosaurs in China?  You LOST.

        1. profile image0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          My point on dinos was a small point in my entire case, but you chose to ignore everything else to support your bias, there is no evidence dinos turned into birds NONE, just drawings. mark avoided all my other point and facts to make a mockery of any real debate. Why? Because he cannot prove molecule to man evolution. “If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough people will believe it.” That’s evolution. Feel free to answer the questions mark couldn't, until then.

  19. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Like I said. Take it as a win if you like.

    Of course I am going to say - "but we agreed to use our own words rather than cut and paste meaningless garbage."

    Because we did agree to that.

    Of course I am not going to answer those questions. They do not pertain to my statement and they have already been answered.

    Of course I am going to throw out FSM - it is a more reasonable alternative to your ridiculous beliefs.

    There is nothing to refute.

    Debate? lol lol lol

    Merry Christmas

  20. profile image0
    thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years ago

    We agreed that of case would be on our own words, not the questions, but whatever justifies your cop-out evasion tactics.




    http://thm-a03.yimg.com/image/eba9ab8807b74fd0

    http://seriouslyguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/truth-jesus-fish.jpeg

    Enjoy whatever it is you do for Christmas.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oooooh - semantics. LOLOLOL

      I answered all your questions edequately bu linking to this website.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

      They are all answered there.

      1. profile image0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Your "answers" are refuted here:


        http://www.trueorigin.org/

    2. Make  Money profile image80
      Make Moneyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.biotech.au.edu/wwinner.jpg

      Congratulations on your win Gardner.

      I love the images you posted, especially the one with the Truth fish eating the Darwin "evolved" fish.

      Did you convert Mark into 'JesusYourSavior' above?  Nice avatar Mark. smile

      I wouldn't have guessed that Mark would chicken out with a stacked deck of judges biased towards evolution (except Sandra).

      Without your religion of evolution what do you have Mark?  Just Dawkins' empty militancy I guess.

      I hope you are not too angry.

      I won't rub it in too much Mark.

      Just with five laughing smileys.
      lollollollollol

  21. kess profile image60
    kessposted 7 years ago

    I was disappointed with the way the debate went.
    The planned format just did not work.

    I think that maybe the both opponents should make their statement, then ask their guestions, answer their opponent questions and conclude more or less simultaneously.

    There should be on need to send readers all over the internet to prove your points.

    I always believe that if something is too technical to be understood by a common sense statement, then is likely to be untrue and will not make anything clearer to readers. 
    It is like sending them to read and digest a terms work.

    This is why I conclude that Gardnar did not do a good job in clearly stating and proving his point.
    He was too much concerned with rebutting the opponent position.

    Mark on the other, whined a bit too much.
    I think he was concerned too much in refuting Gardnar statements and therefore did not think to make his position clear either.

    I would declare Gardnar as winner because Mark just simply chicken out.

    1. DogSiDaed profile image58
      DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Kess you are biased and your view does not count. I am also biased so neither does mine

  22. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    Guess I wasted my time writing that statement - It seems you and the other religionists did not read it. sad

    Oh well..

    1. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      roll

      1. Mark Knowles profile image59
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        None of your "questions" pertained to it.

        And I am the one chickening out? lol

  23. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    LOLOLO

    ciao. lol lol

  24. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 7 years ago

    So maybe there was enough info to raise doubts about evolution, but where is the proof of God creating anything?

  25. Bovine Currency profile image61
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    this is a shambles.  There was no debate.  I give my vote to Mark Knowles on a technical forfeit by GarderOsagie.

    1. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I can't say I'm surprised.

  26. profile image0
    B52 Bomberposted 7 years ago

    Mark Knowles most powerful statements were directed towards WesleyaCarter.What a blowfish.Garder Osagie win by landslide.

    1. Susana S profile image97
      Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No effing way! Gardners statement was a pile of crap to begin with. No evidence! No proof! Not even a reasonable argument! His answers to Mark's questions were non existent. I understand why Mark gave up on this, Gardner clearly doesn't have a clue how to debate.

  27. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    I will simnply say that this thread did not surprise me at all.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Really? I was surprised by the sheep-sized dinosaurs in China. That was not a surprise to you?

      I would bet you never even read what I wrote or followed the links.

      1. getitrite profile image81
        getitriteposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think Gardner should have given you more information on how those sheep-sized dinosaurs ended up in China.  That would have added some credibility to this baffling revelation.

  28. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    I read enough from you and Osage both Mark to know that this was not a real debate. It is mudslinging at it's finest turned back to ordinary mudslinging at it's worst.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You are a liar.

      I slung no mud and presented a reasonable case.

      Still - not to worry - lying for jesus is OK - right?

  29. tantrum profile image62
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    @ Mark

    RIGHT ! big_smile

  30. Bovine Currency profile image61
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    Never let the truth get in the way of a good story

  31. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    The important issues that come from these type of debates is the items in the evolution theory that should be questioned. There is so much evidence contradicting "factual" teachings that at minimum, one should be able to CHALLENGE the theory. I am happy to let stand any scientific evidence that cannot be refuted as "factual". However, some evidence is obviously false and still gets taught as factual because many scientists life work and reputation are at stake??? 

    Those looking in- I would suggest its not about winning or losing, its about looking at all evidence. I worked in the science field for many years with hundreds of trips to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and other canyons that exposed stratum layers. For reasons discovered, I left that field(not to mention getting defunded) because myself and many others abandoned the idea that each layer was millions of years old.

    If you want to see news that is pertinent to anything important in the world- you wouldn't go to CNN would you? No, you would look at something with world news. Do a short test. Go to CNN to see what is 'important', then go to the world tribune and see what is news around the world. The same holds true for evolution science; only what they deem as important is what you see.

    1. Susana S profile image97
      Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This wasn't a debate! Your proposition was based on nothing but fraudulent conjecture. Your answers to Mark's questions weren't even answers. Psuedoscience is not science! You will believe what you like and have a right to do so, but don't think that science backs up your claims - it does not.

      Evolution theory is challenged daily by scientists who are happy to be wrong in the search for truth. Can your belief system hold up with that kind of challenge?

      1. profile image0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Evolutionists find this

        http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/lucyskeleton.gif

        But they(evolutionist) published this


        http://www.omniology.com/Lucyrecons.jpg
        Keep in mind they didn't find feet or hands

        That's what I call voodoo science.

        1. Susana S profile image97
          Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The "science" you have dug out is voodoo! How many creationists are studying these bones directly? Do they have degrees and doctorates in paleontology? Or do they just come with "stuff" to validate their own hypotheses?

          That ain't science. Science is all about disproving your hypothesis. So how does evolution theory disprove your hyspothesis in terms of real facts? A true scientist will be able to identify the areas of weakeness in a hypothesis as well as the strengths. What are the weaknesses in creationist theory?

          1. profile image0
            thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes they do! Why are Intelligent Design advocates and Creation Scientist(some attended secular universities) kept out of the peer-review process. I thought science was unbiased and open to all sides? Do bones prove evolution? How? Do they have tags and dates on them? No, but evolution is wrought with fraud and deception. Remember Piltdown Man, , recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, homology, Stanley Miller. Haeckel’s Drawings vestigial organs, Ida was recalled after real scientist examined her and stated she was just a lemur, and peppered moths, fruit fly the list goes on and on. Some of these frauds are still in "science" books all over the USA. Why? Both sides are looking at the same evidence but we two different interpretations.

            1. Susana S profile image97
              Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              So tell me the weaknesses in creationist theory. I can easily convey the weaknesses in evolution theory as evolution scientists will happily tell us what's good and not so good with the evidence.

              What are the flaws in your evidence? A real scientist will be able to reel these off quickly. Can you?

              1. Susana S profile image97
                Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Hmmm......nothing so far! Interesting smile

              2. profile image0
                thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Really evolutionists admit their weakness? Where? Certainly not the textbooks. Evolution is pushed as FACT which is a lie. Every other opinion is shut out, very fascist.

                Evolutionary assumptions pose a problem to the creation account “millions of years” is a recent trend, but it caught on and became the god of evolution, timegod! Christians are afraid to accept a YEC position not because it’s wrong, but because it’s ridiculed, but when you look at certain facts like our current population, the galaxies and our magnetic field, a young earth is not only possible ,but probable.

                1. Susana S profile image97
                  Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You obviously aren't answering the question. Scientists in any field will tell you the flaws in the particular theory they are studying. I can rattle them off tomorrow if you wish (it's late for me now and about to go to bed).

                  What are the flaws in your theory?

                  If you can't show any then I'm afraid it shows you are not a real scientist. Only someone who is out to prove a hypothesis and not disprove it - which would make you a pseudoscientist as I first postulated. 

                  I will look forward to hearing about the flaws and areas of incompleteness in your theory in the morning. Nighty night smile

      2. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I think you are confusing me with someone else. No 'answers' were given to Mark's questions by me.

        The theory is not questioned from within as much as one might think. The years that I was involved, the theory looked for certain types of answers and nothing more.

        1. Susana S profile image97
          Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this



          I'm sorry if you are not thetruthhurts2009 and gardnerosagie - there is such a similarity that I thought you were!

          1. profile image0
            thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I think that makes the 3rd assumption.

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            hmmmmmmm, what could be the root cause of the astonishing similarities?

            1. Susana S profile image97
              Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              It is a puzzle! I don't know if my scientific mind is up to the job!

    2. sooner than later profile image57
      sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't like to see assumptions and personal attacks get the best of the truth.

  32. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    What are the weaknesses in creationist theory?

    fair question,
    We have not seen God yet.

  33. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    Truth, I think you should let this sleep. It seems mark has conjured some alternative identities in order to continue the mud slinging. He always assumes that I have alter ego's as he brings his out.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Your argument is weak and defeated so we have a new "Mark" Soon there will be no person left on hubpages who is not Mark! I am Mark, Tantrum is Ma rk, Q is Mark, Look out! Is that Mark behind you?
      You sure know a lot of Marks! lol lol lol

      1. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Mark has many alternate identities. I know who some are, and I know that others are not. Interestingly enough- the ones I have identified have admitted to many identities. Some want us to assume that they have exposed all of these identities- but thats silly. I accused you of being mark to get your goat. I guess I wanted to return the favor you so graciously give. But yes, I do know that you and mark are two separate people living in a land of biased information where insults are expected and given for breakfast lunch and dinner.

        1. sooner than later profile image57
          sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          short comeback coming- followed by lol and smiley faces.

  34. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago
  35. Jerami profile image74
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    There is a third theory which should be allowed to enter the debate...   Synapses (BIG BANG)  We and everything that is ; is but an illusion.  We are a figment of Gods imagination.

    He is sleeping now ....shush ... he will be waking up soon enough.

  36. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Not possible to insult religionists. They do that themselves so much better, like your Mark madness, your mind is a neurotic mess, get a grip!

    1. sooner than later profile image57
      sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      as predicted.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Prophesied?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Proof! big_smile

          I now have a new business venture planned.

          Dinosaur hunting in China

          I see a big fundamental christian audience so I am going to need a lot of strippers, rent boys and liquor. But I have high hopes. smile

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well, you have the marketing right! smile

      2. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Your act remands me of a fifth-rate hypnotist's audience spiel hunting the gullible people to "hypnotise" on stage. smile

        You could not predict anything, your predictions are already laid out for you in your book of nonsense. smile

  37. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    all the "TOOLS" in the world can't fix the theory.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And all the religious zealots are a blight on the planet. smile

  38. Susana S profile image97
    Susana Sposted 7 years ago

    I can guarantee you I am not Mark, lol! lol

    So tell me the flaws in your theory as any real scientist would.

  39. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Proof! big_smile

    I now have a new business venture planned.

    Dinosaur hunting in China

    I see a big fundamental christian audience so I am going to need a lot of strippers, rent boys and liquor. But I have high hopes. smile


    I'm Spartacus!!

  40. Allan Bogle profile image77
    Allan Bogleposted 7 years ago

    If I may wade in (and I was reluctant to as Mark had specifically requested that this be a closed debate). Now that this debate has collapsed... if I may put forth the following.

    I have no problem with evolution or intelligent design or spontaneous creation. My main belief is that God was behind it. However Gardener I have to agree with Mark that Chinese people hunting dinosaurs in the past does not hold water. No evidence for this.

    On the flip side Mark was not exactly polite but was in typical anger mode.

    Gardener, there are a number of scientitsts who are theistic evolutionists including Francis Collins who ran the most elaborate DNA squencing program in history (the Genome Project). He has written a book you might want to read: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scie … amp;sr=8-1

    Also Cees Dekker, one of the top molecular biophysicists in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cees_Dekker), had a recent debate with the Atheist Herman Philipse. An interesting (and very enjoyable) video of the encounter is here (it has three parts):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xwe4n-Tb4c

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Wow ! How very angry of you. Sorry I do not believe in your ridiculous beliefs and you did not bother to read what I wrote.

      Guess you do not need to huh?

      And thanks for poopooing my dinosaur hunting safari business. sad

      1. Allan Bogle profile image77
        Allan Bogleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Mark, You can believe in them or not. Why you get so emotional when people disagree with you is beyond me.

        Relax. Just simply debate instead of blowing your top every time.

        1. profile image0
          Star Witnessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You might enjoy this:

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/13479

          lol  We know how he is, but still tolerate him, wink.  He's not so bad in other ways, actually.

          1. Allan Bogle profile image77
            Allan Bogleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Does he always throw temper tantrums when people disagree with him?

            1. profile image0
              Star Witnessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Always.  lol

              When I first came to this site I stumbled onto the religion forums blabbing about Joseph Campbell and the psychology of myth and was immediately attacked.  What's funny is that he just assumes everyone is a fundamentalist.

              To Mark's credit, he explained that he used to do more than ridicule--he would debate, but we do get a lot of strange religionist nuts on here, too, who just want to spew and attmept conversions--so that ridicule seemed to cut to the chase for him. smile

              So, I'm curious, Allan.  How do you deal with/tolerate/feel about fundamentalists or christianists?  I'm assuming...just by the tenor of your posts...that you >might< come from a somewhat evangelical background (though obviously you aren't fundamentalist and are very well versed).  Am I right?  My partner's dad is a minister...and somehow I hear echoes.

              1. Allan Bogle profile image77
                Allan Bogleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I am a Christian. Yes I do come from an evangelical background. As far as how I feel about fundamentalists, which issues are you talking about? The word seems to have developed political overtones as well.

                1. profile image0
                  Star Witnessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Interesting how I knew that.  I can always tell 'cultural' Catholics, too (my background).  I imagine it is also partially due to your liking Kierkegaard as you explained it--the 'struggle' with faith--crossed with what the sum total of what your postings say about you (just as you perceive what his postings are saying about Mark).

                  Something I always liked about the Catholic church is that there is more a sense of mysticism and a long cultural tradition, honestly that is greatly beautiful.  Perhaps not in the hierarchy and political sense, um, ever.  But I think John O'Donahue gets what I mean, if you've ever heard of him.

                  And yes, of course the word 'fundamentalist'--or perhaps better spoken as 'religionist'--has political overtones, especially as some of these seem to believe that the mixing of religion (overtly) into politics and issues of state, education, our bedrooms, and some of our most private decisions is acceptable.  In the word 'Christianist,' or 'religionist,' too, is the assumption that these are not real followers/respecters of God or real Christians.  Perhaps their beliefs could even be seen as complete bastardizations of what real adherence to faith or God is supposed to be about.

                  Even within my partner's father's church (which is fairly conservative/Southern...lol, they are from Hope, AR), fundamentalists (such as Sarah Palin--if you want to enter into the realm of politics here), especially charismatics and other sensationalists, are looked at somewhat as false Christians...

                  I believe, though they do not make the distinction between these and other theists at all often, this is what many of the 'atheists' here are upset with.  This sham or bastardization of valid belief. 

                  Now, I personally take a Noam Chomsky kinda based view of Religion with a capital "R"--even fundamentalist religion--that irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and that irrational belief (such as that, I'd say, found in Creationist 'scientific' theories of the beginnings of life) should be avoided...and certainly never legitimized by the state.  Although I recognize that faith of any kind (even fundamentalist faith) adds a great deal to people's lives and adds personal sustenance to their lives, and so is not THE evil many others make it out to be.  I also see a distinction between a fundamentalist faith and that of skeptical Christianity (or any theism, really), something which the Dawkins-style athiests don't make, which lives very well along science (obviously, as many scientists are also theists).

                  And so, you--how do you sort out the mess?  You know these are the real issues when it comes down to it as far as policy in all our lives--not the existential ones (or at least not, I believe, what many people here are trying to voice behind their posts...lol, though I could be wrong).

                  As far as the personal, when it comes to these postings (as in life)...hard to know how to express one's self correctly in regards to some.  I do believe in empathy--and that goes for atheists as well as Christianists and Christians or other theists.  IE, wink, for some the death of those one loves is a huge issue and may even have caused a very large anger not easily overcome.  ...um, just an example.

                  1. Allan Bogle profile image77
                    Allan Bogleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I understand what you mean. Presently I go to a Lutheran church.

                    Where I differ from "political" fundamentalists are in the following: I believe in the separation of church and state. Like you I dont like those candidates who mix religion with politics because what they may construe as right may not be what I construe as right, however they have the right to let their religious influences determine their actions in office as long as it clear.

                    But one must be careful, for example the Bush admin evoking the Just War Doctrine to invade Iraq really pissed me off. I despise people like Palin, all rhetoric, very little knowledge, all the while trying to cloak some of it under an aggressive form of Christianity. They try to de-pacify Chistianity and militarize it. I hate both political parties for different reasons. I also advocate socialized/universal healthcare and a socialist/capitalist system of government. I am for the complete banning of handguns and for legalizing certain drugs to drive the street market down (hopefully leading to the diminishing of the underground drug trade). I do not believe in the template being currently used for foreign policy decision and am more in line with the Carter admin's placement of human rights issues at the forefront of decision making (the only presidential admin to do this or did attempt to).

                    I do not believe the earth is 6000 yrs old (neither did the early Church fathers like Augustine for that matter). I think it to be billions of yrs old and I have no problem with evolution, ID or sudden spontaneous creation (Adam and Eve). I simply think whatever the process that God was behind it. I dont tell people to go to hell (not my decision anyway). I do believe in Crist's redemptive work on the Cross for forgiveness of sins. I have know many atheists (in my line of study one runs into them). I classify them in two categories, the first being atheists who suffer emotional trauma at some point by believers in their lives and they then develop anger toward God and anyone claims to be a follower. Mark is clearly in this set. The second, and much rarer of the two classes are those who base their atheism on what they consider a reasoned response. These ateists are very rare and I only come across them rarely (though i have a close friend who is one). For example a "pure" atheist would not even take the time to post on these forums, nor are they slightly interested in what theists say. Almost all atheists encountered on these forums are "emotional" atheists. They spend an enormous amount of time writing literally thousands of posts about something they do not believe in. A bit odd they spend the amount of time to try to justify to others why they are posting so many posts on a subject they dont even think is real. I attribute most of this to anger, the need to attack those who differ from them (and I am sure many theists here have done the same).

                    As kierkegaard once wrote, if Chrst came back the church would not recognize him...

                    You are correct that the death of loved ones can make one very angry, resulting in yrs of aggressive behaviour on the forums.

                  2. Make  Money profile image80
                    Make Moneyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I wouldn't doubt that.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          LOL

          Blowing my top?

          What do you expect - I was planning my entire financial future on the Chinese dinosaur hunting safaris - and now you just diss it like that?

          Sheesh - You should see the size rifles I have before accusing me of getting angry dude.

          Odd how many people see arguing against a god and religion as anger. I get it all the time. "You must be very angry at god to dismiss Him." LOLO - Not that that invalidates me in any way. wink Just like telling me I have not made a logical deduction is not offensive. wink

          I do not see you berating the ones who are angry that Christian "scientists" who have determined the earth is only 6000 years old do not get a fair hearing in acedemia.

          Are you angry at me for not believing the crap you believe?

          1. Allan Bogle profile image77
            Allan Bogleposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I do not doubt for a second that you have had a large number of people pointing out how angry you are (you should take that as a subtle hint, if that many people are pointing this out it probably means they are all seeing the same thing).



            You mean because I dont get angry like you? You are correct then. I do not believe the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 yrs old, etc. I believe it to be billions of years old. I just dont get offended about it so your manner is much more emotional than mine. When I asked Gardener to read a alternative explanation he wanted to know if I believe the Word of God (implying that I dont if I didnt agree with his creation stance). It is his belief that the earth is 6000 yrs old. I disagree with it. I just dont get mad about it.




            You always ask people that and again I say no. Why on earth would I get angry about that? Remember, not everyone views disagreements in the same manner as you. You naturally think others would be angry over disagreements because that is how you personally respond to a contrary position.

    2. profile image0
      thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm a YEC, you can believe whatever you want, but ask yourself "Where am I placing my faith man's opinion or God's Word?"

      http://hubpages.com/hub/Christians-Do-Y … ns-Opinion

      More about dinos(dragons) in the bible.
      http://freehovind.com/watch-2528412371399195162

    3. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You may want to comment on this Allan.
      http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm

    4. sooner than later profile image57
      sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      good points. Marks attempts to make moot by adding a typical snide remark- but to giggle at a time of learning is expected.

  41. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    I still want to talk about your "facts"
    Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years. Thats about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers. However, evolutionary science still teaches and relies that those layers be maintained as annual. Then "our" public schools teaches this as "factual". Why?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Facts? big_smile

      Tell me about the dinosaurs again. You think that is a viable business or did the dirty Chinese really wipe them out? lol

      Susanna is waiting on her answers.......

      1. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        While I may not agree with everything Truth claims, why would ancient(4,000-) Chinese stone work depict perfectly the image of a triceratops. I think you need to ask yourself more questions and pose less smiley's.

    2. Susana S profile image97
      Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What are the areas of your creationist theory that lack evidence or proof? Please explain as any other bonafide scientist does. Please also explain where you are conducting experiements in search of truth, what your current results are and what your theory is having trouble explaining.

      1. Susana S profile image97
        Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        What are the areas of your creationist theory that lack evidence or proof? Please explain as any other bonafide scientist does. Please also explain where you are conducting experiments in search of truth, what your current results are and what your theory is having trouble explaining.

        1. profile image0
          thetruthhurts2009posted 7 years agoin reply to this
        2. sooner than later profile image57
          sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          we have not seen God yet.

          1. Susana S profile image97
            Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Please explain fully your scientific experimental evidence. You quoted a load of science in the debate so it shouldn't be hard for you to prove your claim scientifically and tell me what the current creationsit scientists are studying, including the results of thier experiments as well as the limitations of their theories.

            1. sooner than later profile image57
              sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I would love to explain my account in the early eighties if you will give me a moment?

              1. Susana S profile image97
                Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I will happily give you a moment smile

                1. Susana S profile image97
                  Susana Sposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  This moment is lasting too long for me. It's nearly 1am GMT and I have children to get up for in the morning. I'm looking forward to waking up to data on your experimental results and  to learning about the areas of creationist theory that are non-conclusive.

  42. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Allan it is noted that Collins is an evangelistic christian. smile

  43. Susana S profile image97
    Susana Sposted 7 years ago

    Surely you've got something rather than nada? All that science and no experimental evidence? No analysis of results? No ability to state the weaknesses of your creationist theory?

    Hmmmm....maybe it's not science at all!

  44. Randy Godwin profile image95
    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    When this debate was announced there was another thread discussing the possible outcome.  Myself and others were admonished because we didn't think much would come of it.  Well, it turned out pretty much as expected.

    It is not possible to convince believers that scientists all over the world aren't faking evidence to debunk the Bible.  What possible reason could there be for learned men to go to such extremes? 

    Has any scientist escaped the conspiracy and let the word out?  Mark, I think you knew exactly what to expect from this debate and you've proven your point.

  45. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Agreed. The other party does not know how to stay with the debate, introducing "proof" from some very dodgy sources, and then just insisting that god exists as proof that he does. Very funny stuff in my view. smile

  46. sooner than later profile image57
    sooner than laterposted 7 years ago

    Much of the "Creation Science" one might encounter derives from evolutionary science field work. Note I was a an atheist scientist for most of my life. 
    In the early 80's I was employed along with a small team of archeologists to extract samples from the deepest stratum layers of the Grand Canyon. The work was enjoyable and exciting. At that time, the lowest layer that we could reach was a sandstone/shell layer much like the Redwall stratum. The color of this layer is dark brown and it contains fossils of trilobites. brachiopods, and trilobite trails.
    But guess what? So did many other layers. This layer was thought at the time to be over 1 billion years old.
    I chizled some fist sized clam shells from the layer. They had assumed the dark brown color.
    Two weeks later our team was surface colecting in Seligman, AZ. We found the same shells in the top stratum layer and they had assumed the white coloration. All of the shells were closed and intact.
    If you are at a beach, clam shells are halfed. We all concluded that each of these shells were buried and rapidly and endured great pressure. Catastophism. There is so much about these discoveries that link each layer to one event. When we reported our findings, many of us were never called back. Less than forty miles from the canyon, there were fossilized forests. Catastrophism. Look up Holbrook, AZ   

    more things we studied;
    1. Ancient Cypress trees neer Johnsonvill dated 40,000+ years and not petrified.
    2. Ancient Kauri Wood, extinct but not petrified in New Zealand
    3. Trees of Mt St. Helens
    4. fossiles in many areas.


    I'm not sure what you want me to talk about, but the trees are amazing. We found that when volcanic activity is preasent, carbon dating is worthless. The great flood was said to have volcanic activity with world wide cotastrophism. The only way a fossile will form;
    1. cotastrophism is needed to completely bury the object
    2. great preasure is needed.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image95
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Then you need to get the word out about how you were treated when you refused to go along with the gigantic, obviously well kept, secret conspiracy in which many respected scientists are involved.

      You could be a super hero to your creationist followers by getting to the bottom of this master plan.  I'll bet Liberals are at the core of corrupting scientific evidence that proves creationism is true.  You also have the eyewitnesses described as "we" to back up your accusations of not being funded because you disagreed with the other scientists.  So, what are you waiting for?  You'll be rich and famous!

      1. sooner than later profile image57
        sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I've seen things you could only dream about or watch on tv. My story is not unique to the field. So if you ever go to the grand canyon, be sure to read the plaques and believe everything you read- In the meantime I'll have the fossile evidence that rebukes it.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image95
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          So, why not publish these astonishing facts if they support your statements?  Again, what are you waiting for?  Don't just make accusations of fraud against modern scientific methods, show the world how much smarter you are than these guys.

          1. sooner than later profile image57
            sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Happens every day sparky. Nobody gets rich- your type only "Buys" selective information. LOLO

            1. Randy Godwin profile image95
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              No, it doesn't happen everyday, and it's "Mr. Sparky" to you!

              I do not "buy" selective information, especially your->

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                .... and what's this "your type" rubbish?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image95
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Earnest!  I think by "your type" he means logical.

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Hi Randy! Yep lookin that way. smile

  47. Presigo profile image57
    Presigoposted 7 years ago

    Had a feeling when I saw this start that it wouldnt complete before it ended

    1. spiderpam profile image73
      spiderpamposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ditto, Congrats to you on 103 fans!

    2. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      So - what did you think of my statement? It is clear none of the fundies bothered to read it.

      Do you think I made a reasonable case?

      1. DogSiDaed profile image58
        DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I personally would say you're the only person around here with their head fully screwed on wink

        Having said that, my view is of course 'biased', if by biased you mean I adhere to logic and rational thought.

        I haven't been able to read through all your points, but I am doing, and everything I've seen is factually accurate and sourced properly, so that's how it should be done. The odd bit of light hearted banter isn't out of place in a debate either, we don't all want to be serious now do we? smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          LOL

          Well - I must admit to a certain level of frustration. I took quite some time to present what I considered to be a reasonable case that did not go too heavy on the sciences - only to see it not get read an have a barrage of pre-prepared, copied questions that did not relate to my statement thrown out there.

          Which was the intention. I could have written 1500 words of gibberish and those same meaningless, intellectually dishonest questions would have been thrown out.

          Odd considering how many times I have been accused of "not debating" wink

          Not sure how to "debate" with some one who will not read what I write or answer any questions I ask.

          Oh well...... I have learned something.

          I am right to make fun of them instead. big_smile

          1. DogSiDaed profile image58
            DogSiDaedposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            An idea for next time: When presenting your case, post links with irrelevant information and see if they pick it up. Reckon they would?

  48. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    You keep talking about anger, perhaps the world is a mirror? lol

  49. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I'm with the dead dog with the bung eye on this one. smile

  50. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Nice to have piderspam back just to make totally sure we will learn nothing more! smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image59
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      big_smile

      I do have a certain amount of sympathy - I mean - it must be hell walking around and every single thing challenges your beliefs. I guess there is some therapeutic benefit to attacking us here.

      I hope so anyway.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image95
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I agree we should be sympathetic, but only to a certain point.  I happen to live deep in the Bible Belt, so many of my friends and family members are firmly ensconced in the numerous local churches.  I have to bite my tongue often in order to behave in a "Christian manner."

        I recently had a minister tell me he was going to "grab hold of old Satan and tear him out of me."  What can you say?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image59
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Oh yes - only limited sympathy. At the end of the day - it is self inflicted. I have spent some considerable time in the "bible belt" and learned the hard way that atheists are not exactly welcome in some parts. Especially outspoken atheists.

          1. sooner than later profile image57
            sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            and you said religion was dead.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image95
              Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Religion, like racism, has a firmer hold down here than in other places.  But education is improving things in both areas.  Sometimes the older practitioners of these beliefs have to slowly die off in order for common sense to take hold.  There are still many all white churches around here, by the way.

              1. sooner than later profile image57
                sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                We can only be responsible for ourselves Randy. I'm sorry many religious branches bother you. really.

              2. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Fair dinkum! All white churches??? You explained a bit about the area before, but... all white churches?
                That is terrifying! They get to vote???

                1. sooner than later profile image57
                  sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You would find very quickly that these churches are not closed to black people. Most black people go to 'black churches' and many of those groups are racist against white people. Check out Obama's 'previous' Rev. for example.

                  You two try to make silly connections for anything unjust. But you fail to do some foot work prior to working your foot, into your mouths.

                  1. sooner than later profile image57
                    sooner than laterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Being a black racist isn't any better than a white racist.

                  2. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    As usual you missed by a country mile! Totally familiar with all of Obama-talk, ans saw the whole thing play out.
                    The black people of America are racist? lol
                    Perhaps some do not feel welcome by the gun totin fire breathin racists in the church that may just decide to "shoot em a black" if a black American went to their church?

                    I have worked in America, and felt safe on 139th in Detroit. I saw racists cops, racist religionists till my gut hurt in America! I was a young man then. I have been back several times since, and in some places it remains the same.
                    If the black people around you are sick of taking your racist crud maybe that is what you are seeing!
                    Go somewhere, learn something!

                  3. Randy Godwin profile image95
                    Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I should know dude, I've lived here all my life.  If a black man entered some churches he would, most likely, not be harmed, but there would be no mistaking the discomfort of the members or the visitor.  It simply isn't done in many churches around here in this rural area.

                2. Randy Godwin profile image95
                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure they can vote, but there are still many who think they shouldn't be allowed to do so.  Old beliefs die hard, and slow for that matter.

 
working