Originally posted by b_rad513
I am a creationist.

MY DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION:

I'll be blunt.

Who are you, and why should I care about YOUR definition of evolution?

Why not stick to the ACTUAL definition of evolution?

I've got to ask if the OP just copied and pasted all that from somewhere else without reading through it.

The theory of Evolution isnt perfect, its probably not even 100% accurate but Evolution of Biological Life is a FACT, there can be no arguements about it because we watch it happen.

I'm not going to go through a debunk each point because if you werent able to figure out the relatively simple answers to the "debunking" I doubt me wasting my time typing them out here is going to do you any good.

Originally posted by b_rad513
I am a creationist.

MY DEFINITIONS OF EVOLUTION (everybody should do this it is very important)

1. Cosmic: origin of time space matter energy
2. Chemical: origin of higher elements
3. Stellar: Formation of stars
4. Organic: Evolution or origin of life
5. macro: one kind of animal changing into another over time through many mutational changes
6. micro: Variations within a species. (the variations are only from information that ALREADY exists)
7. Lower case evolution: change over time.

Only the last two are true (well, what I believe)

I believe you have some good points but I'm not sure its totally convincing. The main reason evolution is not true is this...

1. Something cannot come from nothing/Something could not have always existed (dont bring God into this because he is supernatural...ONLY he can exist forever)

2. The second law of thermodynamics (SLT) does not allow planets or stars to form or anything in the Universe as a whole to come to order.

3. The SLT does not apply to earth because it could get energy from other sources. (many times this is misquoted by creationists.) How ever life does not form from nonlife.

4. Lastly there is no scientific evidence that macro Evolution has occured. If there is, please tell me, but be ready for a debate. Micro Evolution does not lead to macro. Think of the peppered moth situation. Did the color of the moth really change? NO! only the population size. If the soot from the industrial age had been blue the moths would not have turned blue! (sorry if you don't know about the peppered moth but i assume most of you do and I am to lazy to type it all out. Its real simple just look it up). In other words, there was no Evolution taking place.

5. Even if you find a way for time, space, matter, and energy to have come from. Where did information come from? Information only comes from something that is already informed. An example is a computer. A computer only can hold and find information, because humans created it that way and programed information into it.

Watch Dr. Kent Hovind's debates. He does have sarcastic statements but he really knows what he's talking about.

Quick reply to the last post...Evolution is random, how can it not be? is there a mind behind it? NO. so please explain it...also Evolution HAS to talk about the origins of the universe. If it is impossible to have this universe exist without Evolution than it must have been created. THIS CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION. The theory of Evolution must line up with how the universe was formed otherwise it is not a coherent theory.

Oh and one more thing. We are not trying to prove creationism so much as we are trying to disprove Evolution. This is because we HAVE to ADMIT that it is mostly beliefs. Do you hear me, it is a belief. I am just showing you Evolutionists that Evolution is a belief also (because it could not have happened). However, by disproving Evolution we prove there must be a designer. Keep in mind this does not mean God, and most certainly doesn't mean any specific religion.

Thanks for reading and please respond

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]

[edit on 13-9-2009 by b_rad513]

1. Without telling me what type of bird you are referring to I must say some bird species do not have 'wings' for the purpose of flying. Penguins dont actually have 'wings' at all, they have flippers which help them swim, and balance...other birds that cannot fly, such as a turkey or chicken, do not have wings for the purpose of flying either, its a balance proportion. without these wings the animal may not have balance enough to walk. and the theory of evolution by natural selection doesnt mean that the species itself changed in order to survive, it proposes, that just as all humans are born different, animals are all born different. even in the same species..some people are dwarfs, some have shorter arms than others, some have webbed toes, ect... animals within a species are all different in their own way too, evolution just proposes that some of the differences the animals have make living in nature easier for them to survive, which in turn could mean these animals would have more offspring than the ones in that species that their differences make it more difficult to survive.

2. Im wondering if you just have peices of information these proposing scientists have tried to fully explain...they dont just 'line up' ape and monkey skeletons and compare them to each other. They show the close relationship between the characteristic traits, such as chromosome composure, organ systems, the way we all work, and yes, even similarities in skeleton composure as well as muscle and brain functions. But its not just monkeys we have compared ourselves to, in the kingdom, phylum class order family genus and species we compare homo-sapiens (humans) to other animals within the same family to show relations of the animals and ourselves. its only a theory that we came from monkeys nobody has ever said it was fact or not, and it doesnt seem like you have the facts to disprove it.

3. the theory that lightning hit the ocean and created living cells may be a theory, but its deffinately not the only one, and for good enough reason. The theory I look at here states that the microscopic cells such as bacteria formed from gasses emitted from earth and the sun, liquid such as water from the earth, and possibly other forms of material. Think about it, all bacteria cells do is regenerate or reproduce, and take in energy for food they find.
the entire cell is surrounded by a gell-like liquid that contains water and other elements found in nature. obviously the nucleas formed first, then the other parts of the cell such as where it stores and processes food came to form so that it could take in energy (food) and emitt a different energy (the wasted material it spits out). with these obviously their needed to be tubes that open up to take this energy in and out of the cell. With time the bacteria cells would attempt to take more and more food as energy. this could cause the bacteria cells to grow into more complex systems, similar to how milk helps your bones. of course they didnt just make new organ-like structures just out of the blue and random. first they began to make more and more things that would store and process the food they take in and emit out. and I do believe that more than just one strand of cells were formed at once. There are millions of types of cells that would have been all different in some way. all these cells do is take in and emit energy. how the became more complex is still being looked into i do agree, so no its not 'proven' but your answer doesnt disprove anything either. look at a jellyfish, they do not have skin, or bone. they are in a perspective, similar to as well as different from, single cell organisms. they take in small fish and energy through a tube, 'digest', and emitt a new product from what they did not take in. take frogs as an example of how animals came onto dry land. other animals also came onto our land. there may have been many different strands of organisms that created the chain to other speices.

4. that theory doesnt state that the female makes these changes with her body, it states the environmental factors do. similar to things such as a sunburn, darkened skin from exposure to the sun, more hair on ones body from colder climates, ect. the female carrying the child does not make changes, the chromosome composure isnt affected by the changes the enviornment makes.

5. then explain downs syndrome and how it doesnt 'reverse' itself?

6. that was only one theory of evolution, and yes it may not be true that organisms can rearrange their composition but you look at it as if they speak of superhumans who can change themselves...they simply suggest that as time progesses things change, and that is a fact.

7. are you aware of the animal donkey? a hybrid from mating a horse with a mule? this fact blows your whole idea there out of the water.

8. scientists job is to discover...why would they ignore a fact or question? anyways, the origin of matter is a question trying to be solved. neutrons, protons, electrons all come together to create atoms, which is matter in the raw. elements are the beggining of matter, which they combine in many ways to create other compounds. think for a moment what a neutron and a proton is..they are attracted to each other while electrons simply rotate around it by what i think would be a magnetic chain reaction..the protons may attract the electron, as the neutron would repel it, or vice versa.

9. Mars was once in the habital zone of orbit around the sun, giving it opportunity to generate water and yes, even an atmosphere, but the atmosphere was faint on mars when their was one. its not a really active planet if you know, there are no strong magnetics within mars, possibly no tectonic plates as found on earth. all the necessaties of life were NOT found on mars, only some of them.

10. Ok theres a million things wrong with your idea here...first off, there are two exoplanets, which means a planet outside of our solar system, the star is called 581 and has three planets found so far to orbit it. 581 A is a gasplanet like jupiter, however 581 B holds water currently and has a land mass. 581 C is farther away and is mostly Ice at the moment, (ice age ring a bell?), but does hold some water in spaces. Secondly, radio signals dont travel at even half the speed of light. The stars out there are estimated at hundreds of millions possibly billions of light-years away, so the radio signals that are transported out may not have traveled this distance yet. ever think of that?

ok your little thoery here...number 12 you call it (dont know what happened to the number 11), Ill try to explain a little more about this. First off, are you aware many of our most abundunt elements found on earth are found in the sun as well? The sun is constantly in motion from its strong and large magnetic structures constantly attracting and repelling one another. is it not possible that many of our planets came from the sun as its known strong magnetic storms became so big that it broke? its known that the sun was once more powerful than it is now, so why then wouldnt the past magnetic storms have been strong enough to emitt large chunks of magnets (which would explain many asteroids) and magma created by friction heat from the magnets pulling and pushing? No, it would not emitt a spherical planet, but with time the orbit the planet has with the sun could help shape the planet into a sphere. the fact that the planet the sun could have possibly emitted wasnt as magnetically strong as the sun could mean the magnets didnt pull and push on each other like on the sun..this would also help explain how we are magnetically orbited. with the magnetstorm like problem out of the way the elements had a more stable place to produce chemical changes. This doesnt disprove your statments about granite or polonium, it simply gives you another point of view that in a sense takes your statements and things found by evolution together in a way. could you tell me facts that state what i said was wrong?

If evolution is false, that does not mean creationism must be correct. There just might be other unexplored, unknown or undiscovered explanations.

It is also possible that both are true to some degree. Perhaps God created many things prior to man or tried many times to create life but never got it quite right until man and the animals of today. Perhaps we and our animal brothers appear similar to prehistoric mammals or dinosaurs because they were the original versions and we were modified slightly when God tried again.

I also think people can be considered ID'ers without having some link to creationists with hidden agenda's. I don't get why this is always assumed by evolutioists.

Perhaps we have not figured out the real timelines or correct interpretations mentioned in the bible, specifically genesis. Maybe Creationism and Evolution are both correct. Or perhaps both incorrect.

Abiogenesis should not neccessarily be lumped in with evolution. Evolution is an explanation for life after it already exists.