Creation Evidence Museums...

I hope your not talking about the ScopesTrial because as you know just about evey evidence shown at that trial have all but been rejected by Evolutionists themselves...(Neandethal is human,Piltdown was a ape,Horse evolution,Useless organs etc) Evolutionists no longer belive jus about everything that they said..And as for the religion thing..Evolution is a religion because all religion is is a belief system and since Evolution is still a theory and not fact,Then its a religion...

Gravity,Germs,Kinetic theory are facts because they can be observed in the present using your 5 senses.When science call Evolution scientific they are merely redefining science.Not to get off topic here or anything but science began to flourish in God believing nations.God taught man that the earth is real,consistant & possible to investigate.Every branch of science has either been founded,co-founded, or dramatically advanced by men who belived in Creation & the flood...Back to topic at hand..Practical science gives so much to life..computers,man on moon,modern medicince etc etc,It goes on forever..However all these are based on doing tests in the present.There conclusions are based on experiments therefore there is little room for speculation.This everyday science is called operational or practical science.However there is another type of science which is called historical or origins science.When it comes to working out the past science is extremely limitid because it only has the present and history cannot be repeated.This is the only conflict with Evolution & Creation..Unfortunately the respect earned by the success of practical science has led many into beliving that the claims of the past carry the same proof and authority..It all matters on what the scientist belives in..There is no dating method that can prove the age of the earth thats why the age constantly changes..Evolutionary view constantly changes because it is built upon assumptions and frameworks...Evolutionists claim life evolved billions of yrs ago but they cannot prove this because they werent there..Evolutionists insist that if they could create life from non life/chemicals then this would prove evolution.In fact all this would prove is that intelligence is needed to make life,not chance..I dont want to get into a whole Refuting Evolution thread here but i might do that one day because alot of ppl here arent open to such evidence since most of the world now is very much evolutionized.My conclusion is that Evolution is religion because it cannot be tested and because its built upon assumptions..Since its such a theory it is a religion..Evolution is the science of Humanist and Creation is the science of the Bible..It is science vs science not science vs religion!...This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-05-2004 03:56 AM

To tell you the truth i dont know what kinetic gases is i just knew that they well at least most of them were things that are proved in the present not in the past so i jus put that in the list..You must realise the difference between practical and historical science..The law of gravity is fact because we can jump of building and test it..Its fact not theory.Are you talking about America with all those things? because if you are then i got no problem because America was also founded in Christianity.America prospered because there thinking was based upon Gods word..America & England both were aware of the consequences of rejecting Gods word..All they had to do was look at France..The violent birth of pure socialistic humanism
The dark ages was just a time where ppl werent sure about the infallibility of Gods word..Today the Bible still stands tall against Evolution..I dont really understand what i should be refuting with your dark ages claim cuz im a bit confused..But anyway thx for the challenge..The Flood has not been disproved..Yes there are some who disprove but yes there are others who dont.Im not getting into flood proof but its there.I would need to go get my books and other reasearch things but im not gona do that today...
Ok so youve challenged me to prove Evolution wrong..Im not going to write a whole essay on it even though one day i might and have in the past.But ill try write something very short & relevant...What can you do to make me refute Creation? well you just gotta attack my only foundation..The Bible..Hit me with all the errors ,contradictions,whatever you can to undermine the only thing i can base my belief on...Before i try my refute evolution thing ill answer your last last question about Genesis no i dont think we would be here but thats merely because there would be no life as i dont belive in evolution..So no genesis no life no earth in my view...Refuting Evolution:When Darwin put forward his Evolutionary theory there were 7 major scientific discplines that had not yet been established and/or invented at the time,While others had not been put on the side of world that Darwin was living..And if these principles had of been known? Evolution would not have gotten off the ground..So todays Evolutionary theory has loopholed this..And there are many Evolutionists who would have trouble refuting this argument..Think for abit and ask yourself what the mainstream world of science which is all Evolution and what they would have done to Creationists who tried to put there theory through established scientific principles?..What are those 7 facts??1.GENETICS - This had not yet been established.The laws of hereditory & genetics.Showing that the characteristics were passed on from parent to offspring through precise mathematical ratios.They do not arise from chance,random processes in what Darwin called blended inheritance.So Mr Darwin was ignorant of genetics as was most of the world so his theory was swallowed by the science community2.1st LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed this had only just been based by Lord Kelvin showing that the universe could not have created itself.3.2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Which says that the energy of the universe is running downhill.Its called the "Heatdeath" of the universe.The universe runs downhill & thats a fact it doesnt run uphill as Evolution suggests.4.NON-LIFE TO LIFE? - Louis Pasteur was just beginning to experiment that life comes from life never from non-life.They used to think that humans or anyother living thing could come out of a rubbish tip through spontaneous generation.Yes you can laugh at it now but they thought this was fact that was good science back in that time5.MATHEMATICAL LAWS OF PROBABILITY - Showing that life occuring by chance are effectively zero.About 1 to the power of 165,000 (So thats a 1,with 165,000 zeros after it).And example would be leaving your computer on with no operating system or software and giving it chance and time the computer may do the calculations you would want it to do.6.MACROBIOLOGY - Had not yet been established showing how complex the cell happens to be.1 cell is more complex than New York City.And we have around 100,000 billion of them.So evolutionists wave around a magic wond of millions of yrs to give the impression that anything can happen.7.FOSSIL RECORD - The fossil record had not yet been fully studied to show that there are no transitional fossils.Darwin being the intelligent man that he is acknowlegded the need for evidence and stated that "If my theory is right you will find intermediate fossil forms from one specie to another.And to this day the missing link is still missing and there are no links between species.Darwin stated that "My theory has got problems" But of course the athiestic world didnt want to spoil his great idea of Evolution in order to get God out of the picture so they just left it,shoved the fossil thing aside,hoped it went away and didnt talk about it as muchConclusion:
Evolution cannot withstand critical examination.Theres alot more ive studied that i could write but i guess ill see how we go from here.

1ST LAW OF THERMO...Yes it is relevant if energy cannot be created on its own how could the big bang occured? How could nothing turn into an explosion of life?2ND THERMO..Its relevant because evolution suggests the world his heading towards some sort of utopia.Natural selection.Suiting environments.Evolution by nature evolves into better and more capable things.Isnt that why evolutionists say humans are what we are?MATHERMATICAL LAWS OF PROBABILTY - All i hear on here is how blind faith Creation is but we have a Bible that stands tall and has plenty of proof to be Gods word (We know you have evidence against the Bible but we also have evidence for it).But Evolutionists just have chance and millions of yrs anything can happen.Like i said before they are both religion just different interpretations of the evidence.I pray for the day when evolutionists agree that yes it is the science of one vs the science of the other.FOSSIL FORMS - What specie has evolved into a another whole specie? Missing link is still missing so humans cant be proven 100% that we can from apes.Humans from amphibians? Another theory.Dinasaurs to birds? Plenty of presuppositions in those theories.Millions and billions of yrs go by and just a handful of transitions?.Disputed ones aswell appear?.There should be an overwhelming amount.Evolutionists should never have had to bring upon Puntuated equilibriam etc If evolution was fact.I read books on evolution and see different types of canine and they call it evolution? Its still a dog and will always be a dog.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution? Its your entire theory on how the universe came to be.Without it evolution could not have possibly occured.You must agree with this surely?The 2nd law does is also relevant.Evolution contradicts it because evolution supposedly evolves into better things yet.We know that the universe and its resources are getting more and more disordered.Quite the oppositeThe evidence for dinasaur-bird i dont think ive read much.But the fact that one is warm and the other is cold blooded can make it very difficult indeed.I do not belive its been proven where humans came from i belive the missing link is still missing.Homo erectus has been declared by many evolutionists to be fully human.Studies show that they walked straight like us and brain size were just about identical to ours.The bodies and nature were very similar to neandethal.This is still a theory because it is not a fact that we descended from homo erectusAnd as for the Chinese and Muslim thing well today there are millions of Chinese and Arab Christians.The reason people were confused about the Bible is because Darwinian type men were promoting something else as scientific fact.Its really hard for a Christian to stand up for the Bible at a time were Scientist and even Christians were saying "Look theyve got all the evidence there,The Bible cant mean what you say".Most of that evidence of course isnt even used by Evolutionists nowadays like i said in another topic about the Scopes trialI have no problem with the debate.It kinda sucks writing a argument then waiting and waiting for a response (Vice versa) but im down for anything.Yes all you have to do is prove that the Bible isnt unique to any other book etc.Like you said.But of course after you give me your evidence i must give why i think the Bible is Gods word..Agreed?My belief is not blind faith.Men like Ken Ham use real science they just use the Bible as there referent..Just like evolutionists use there evidence with there Evolutionary framework and time scale..Its the same thing..(Remember the science of one vs the science of the other)We should have quite alot to talk about actually..I will try too..May God (No pun intended) have mercy on us all...This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-05-2004 07:44 AM

Dont forget where the origins of the Bible came from..The Middle East..Muslim faith however arose a long time after the bible with no clear fullfilled prophecy of Mohammad..Also borrowed ideas from the Bible.Well in our version Jesus did this etc (False religion!)..I dont have the research on Christian influence on science but its here somewhere..All i can remember now is how God was what told man that the earth is real,consistant and possible to investigate..Evolutionized man i think would not be interested in such things except his instinct,Its quite obvious that man has Body,Soul & Spirit..These things do not come from matter..But thats a whole whole other topic..Anyway like i said theres alot to talk about..Anyway moving alongAm i wrong about the Dark ages thing? ok then well i dont know what to say..Well doubts arose and thats why the dark ages were like that..People starting doubting which leads to full disbelief..I dont think this topic is relevant though is it?...If so tell me why plzOk you want me to start with Bible proof..You mentioned before about putting it in the Bible forum?..You want me to write a proof of the Bible thread there?..If yes then it will be up asap..You want overwhelming evidence well i promise you that the only way you can reject is willfully not because the evidence isnt thereWhat you need to understand is that facts do not speak for themselves..Facts are interpreted..When scientist find dinasaur bone still fresh with blood cells still there (Yes its happened) They dont reject the idea that Dinasaurs existed 80 million yrs ago..When it is obvious that the bones would have decayed by now..More over again there are so many Dragon legends in cultures (The word Dinasaur wasnt invented yet,They were called dragons) Yet evolutionists to not accept that fact..Because they have a framework!...Creationists and Evolutionists are indeed both scientists with different opinions..Yes its true Ken Ham only accepts it if it fits the Bible but Evolutionists only accept it if it fits there framework and ideology..I hope your starting to realise how it really is science vs science..Once we get to that stage its all a matter of which ones right..Because arguments like it doesnt matter because thats just religion arent valid and dont fit the facts...We can continue the debate here or wherever just say what you want..I will try to get my Bible Proof thread up asap

You still dont get it..And until you do we wont get nowhere..Evolution is based on assumptions and does not carry the same authority as practical science..I am not against science and Creationists are not againsts it.We are against Evolution since its not based on facts we can argue and reinterpret the evidence for the Bible the SAME! way Evolutionists interpret there evidence to fit there framwork!...We need to get clear on this that its Science vs Science...Creationists are not against scientific breakthrough,technology all every day things no we are againsts Evolutionists who put there theories and teach them at school as fact when in fact they change consistantly and cannot be proven.Dinasaur bones have been found well preserved.Rapid buriel through water..Consistant with the flood..But this does not fit a evolutionary view so they cant accept it..Once again do you see the similarities?..Im not trying to con you or force you im just telling you how it is..We all must realise it is not Science vs Religion!..The Bible and Creationists are not against Science! We are against Evolution and Evolution only..

First of all i acknolegde that Evolution is science, I acknowledge its hardwork, I acknowledge that there trying to discover our origins.However Creationists base there evidence on a God that was there when it happened!. And the evidence we find cannot be so bad because the Bible which has not changed and Evolutionary theories change constantly well the Bible still stands tall.It hasnt won the battle of course but it never is disproved except by Athiest/Evolutionists with somewhat closed minds. It is a type of science. It is not general science. And no im not redefining it, Its Evolutionists who claim ours is scientific while theirs is just religous. Now thats redefining. Creationists however acknowledge both are science just interpreting the facts to different theories. Thats all!. It really isnt hard unless you willfully reject it. Until you acknowledge this we will continue debating with no foreseable outcome. Majority vote does not prove Evolution. Evolution has taken over scientific communities because they classed it as scientific. Creationists love to point out Evolutionists similarities to religous beliefs. There is faith involved. It is a belief system. Evolution is a way of life that most people want to live. Independant of God free from his law which resticts man in his pursuit of happiness!. So the world has embraced it. However it does not matter what people think. It matters what the truth is. And here is where the battle rages on. (In relation to your last challenge im completely lost ive never studied that but AiG have extensively covered it so im sure there are plenty of points to add from a creationist perspective)

But dont you realise that why then would the Bible keep giving such a hard time for Evolution? Why are so many Evolutionists refusing to give live debates with Creationists?. The Creation museum will show many the truth. You just have to be willing to accept God. The Bible does not change and survives all . Creationists a giving overwhelming evidence (Jus subscribe to Creation magazine). Im sure you guys disagree with all they say but look where its coming from. The only person who was actually there when it happened. Kinda reminds me of a passage in the Bible"Because that when they knew God, They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain
in their imaginations & their foolish heart was darknened, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is forever blessed amen" Romans 1:21-25

Your kinda avoiding the issue i think. Are you panicking?...Creation magazine is real science. They are using there 5 senses. They have every kind of scientists. All fields. It shows a scientist doesnt need to believe in Evolution like so many people here think. Its laughable? We are basing it on a very very very credible source and its science . Lets see Evolution is also science but based on what? Evolutionists opinions? The ideas of fallible men? A theory thats based heavily on presupposition?. Ideas and theories that keep changing,Not because they advance but because they invent a new theory which also cant be proven. But nevertheless they call it science and they call it fact. Evolution has barely made a few advancements since its inception!..This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:48 AMThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:49 AM

Did Plants Evolve? | Answers in Genesis Ive never studied this plant topic. So if you disagree theres no point arguing with me cause i dont have nothing to add.

Kingdom of the Plants: Defying Evolution | Answers in Genesis This may be what your looking for on fossil plants and plant evolution. Bible | Answers in Genesis I also found some more information on the Bible if anyones interested.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 11:16 AMThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 11:18 AM

You guys act like Evolution is so flawless. There theories change constantly. Not because of advancements but because its just another theory they invented. Another that cant be proven.

Your getting confused with Operational & Historical science again. Remember Operational is done in the present while Historical is based on assumptions about the past. We can always jump of a building to test gravity. Because we are working in the present using our 5 senses. Historical science is about the past. Scientist cant examine it because they only have the present. When scientist ascribe millions of yrs to the various layers in the ground ,This is not only an assumption about the past but it is based on people that werent there. People think Evolutionists can prove dinasaurs lived 80million yrs ago. But all they have dug up is dead bones. Dating methods are based on invalid assumptions. Many creationists write about the flaws of modern dating methods. If the earth could be proved how old it really was then Evolutionists would not change the age of the earth never. As ive said many many times Historical science just does not come with the same proof and authority as the scientists of the present who give us so many wonderful,every day,practical advancements and technology.

Understood..(My information comes from my own research,Yes sometimes i use AiG when im not sure myself..I will cut down of this).This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-07-2004 04:10 AM