IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists (from a smart creation scientist)

I've studied evolution and creation for years, and I have NEVER lost a debate against an evolutionist.Here's a little of my logic:1) If evolution is true, then what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce with.2) Where are the 2,3,4,5-celled organisms? Seriously, there are bacterium, but there are NO EXISTING life forms that bridge the gap between 1-celled and multi-celled organisms. And even the 6-celled organisms are parasites, and they rely on larger animals for food.3) Did you know that Isaac Newton was a creationist--it's true4) What evolved first: male or female?Also, Life is NOT POSSIBLE to arise from nonliving matter. If you add oxygen to an amino-acid in the making, then the chemical oxidizes (decays). But if you withhold oxygen, then life is not possible. Either way, with or without adding oxygen to nonliving matter, life is impossible. Life comes only from life, and since God is life, then it makes sense that we are from him.

To Brian Johnston:First of all, there are many ways to define 'lost.' How exactly are you trying to suggest that i have lost such arguments. First off, the chances of a single DNA molecule being brought together without the aid of a creator is about 10 to the 119000 power! Check out Dr. Comninellis' book for more on that, or visit this website:Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiahthey have a complete, free, online encyclopedia on evolution and creation.
Anyway, I have never been proven wrong about science within any vocal discussion about creation (at least not in front of me, or that i know of). I would suggest a debate with Dr. Hovind (I understand many evolutionists hate him, but they have no reason to, and he is quite educated). He has a standing offer of 100 $ to anybody who will debate him publicly now. I met Dr. Hovind a couple weeks ago at a creation seminar in Oak Creek Wisconsin and I have actually become quite aware of his research. some of it may be speculated on but you should not point "you lost the debate" toward anybody UNLESS you have sufficient evidence to prove that a creationist is lying. Study both sides of an argument, and make sure whose side you're on before claiming that somebody lost the argument.

Hold on a moment:You do not know that oxygen wasnt present in the atmosphere billions of years ago (evolutionists like Miller, Urey, Ross, and Abt are going to say there was no oxygen because that fits best with their theories).First off, if you have oxygen added to the experiment, it will oxydize (decay, rot, rust, etc.) So, naturally an evolutionist would say that there was little or no oxygen in the atmosphere when the first single-celled creature evolved. But wait, the Miller experiment DID included ammonia (a by-product of life, and crucial in their making of amino acids) But if exclude oxygen from the atmosphere, you get no ozone, and without ozone you have no ammonia.You see, Miller cheated (he didnt know that there was no oxygen in the primitive atmosphere, but he said that because O2 would've destroyed the experiment). If he excluded oxygen he should have excluded ammonia (but he didn't) because ammonia is present in the atmosphere only when ozone (i.e. from oxygen) is also present.Also, Miller produced 2% ammino acids (some more, some less, but generally around 2%). The other 98% of his product was tar and other TOXIC chemicals that would harm a living organism. They're between a rock and a hard place about this whole oxygen thing. You see, they did not even come close to creating life in the lab, and even if they did that would not prove evolution (that would prove that it takes an intelligent mind to make life, which the creationists have been saying all along).
Also, since you don't trust me (and that's my fault, sorry) here are my sources: Dinosaur Adventure Land Hovind, Dr. Kent. "Lies in the Textbooks." CSE MinistriesEvolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi IlmiahFerrell, Vance. "The Evolution Cruncher." Evolution-FactsIn Christ,
Booboo

Sorry if I came across in the wrong way (literature and correct use of words is not exactly my area of expertise).When I wrote: "from a smart creation scientist" I was not referring to myself.Although I have done much to become 'knowledgable' in the field of creation science as well as geology and astronomy, I was referring to creationist source with that remark. Some of the logic I have derived into my arguments are from Vance Ferrell of Evolution Facts, Inc.
He has published a 900+ page reference book entitle "The Evolution Cruncher" and an argument I would use for creationism would be found in his book (although his book can be read for free online at this website:Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah )Sorry, I know that the "smart creation scientist" got a lot of you to thinking I was egocentric, but I am trying to express the logic of a creation scientist of whom I have read up on and hold as one of the leading authorities on science and the Bible.I do have one puzzling question:
why are vestiges still being used in this century as evidence for evolution?
Seriously, the coccyx (tailbone) is commonly called a vestigial structure--a bone that is an evolutionary leftover. But in reality, the coccyx is attached to 9 muscles that are vital to a few bodily functions. If an evolutionist is going to claim the coccyx is vestigial, then Dr. Hovind has a standing offer to pay to have theirs removed (I have heard him say that in person, and in front of the camera, so that is verifiable).
Also, the appendix is NOT vestigial--it contains some useful enzymes for the immune system. Now people CAN live without the appendix (my brother does) but you can also live without your eyes, and they are not vestigial.
I just got done with Ernst Mayr's (an evolutionist) book entitle "What Evolution Is" and he made the claim that the appendix is a vestigial leftover from our ape ancestors.

That's an interesting question.I have never engaged anybody in a written debate, (not counting this forum). So, every time I have ever argued/debated/discussed evolution and creation with others I was going on what I had available (books, notes, etc.) The opponents were either unprepaired or not very knowledgable in the field of evolution/creation.I am not trying to make a fool out of any evolutionists; I just choose to believe in the Bible, and I look where I can to find evidence for AND against it. However, since the evidence surrounding creation and evolution are still being tossed back and forth as a heated, world-wide debate, I cannot seem to find the CONCRETE proof against the Bible--unless that included the countless proposals and theories against a young universe (the Oort Cloud, the geologic strata, the "reliability" of radiometric dating, and DNA similarities among animals, etc.)Brian, you seem to have some sound arguments, and I do not doubt that you are educated, so I am not trying to argue here; I just am stating what I have learned, and building my belief on that.

Written debates do not interest me. Some of you may say that it's because I'm afraid. Well, partly. I'm afraid that what I type may be misinterpreted (if we are not talking face-to-face, it is much easier to focus on the wrong part of an argument, or to misunderstand a certain aspect if it lacks initial clarity on a subject, like my geology-expertise, or lack thereof).
Okay, I am a YEC, but I agree that proof for and against creationism is not abundant enough, or conclusive enough, to make a rational decision for the majority. Therefore, we must look into logic, historical references, statistics and variations at the molecular level, and reasoning to help build a convincing case for a particular side, and I openly admit it is difficult to do so when staring into a computer screen and typing comments one letter at a time.The Bible has remained consistent, for the most part, throughout history. The dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1947, and they were the oldest known historical records pertaining to the old testament (at least 3500 years old). Surprisingly, the stories and teachings found there parallel, almost exactly, those found in the modern Bible. So, if the Bible is at least consistent within the past 3500 years, then maybe it has great historical value. (That's from the logical point of view, at least).Now, I'm not trying to make the all-powerful claim that creation is proven, (Lord knows I would not be here, now, typing this if I could). I am, however, trying to understand the validity of science.An article I read on the atheist website "infidels.org" claimed that "there ARE NO creation scientists." That is simply a lie. Even if the evolutionist refuses to recognise a creation scientist as that, it would not disprove the existence of creation scientists. "science" comes from Latin "sciens" with means "knowledge." So, at the heart of its meaning, a creation scientist simply is someone is educated or "knowledgable" in creationism. Dr. Gentry, (author of "Creation's Tiny Mystery") is one of the most trustable creation scientists I have ever heard of (even talkorigins admits his evidence is quite sound).
Well, Dr. Gentry was one of the ones questioned in the 1981 Arkansas case, where they were trying to include 'alternatives to evolution' in the curriculum. Get his book for dozens of documentation and appendices on that whole thing.Sources:Comfort, Ray. "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists."Gentry, Dr. Robert. "Creation's Tiny Myster."Mayr, Dr. Ernst. "What Evolution Is." (this one is an evolutionist's perspective)In Christ,
Booboo

The problem is, whether you can demonstrate what I've learned is wrong or not, you cannot demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the BIBLE is wrong (it has a record of being irrefutable for over 1900 years now). Anyway, I agree that there is inconclusive evidence for SOME of the creationists' arguments, but again you cannot use circular reasoning for an anti-creationist argument.
Let me demonstrate:
'I walked into a museum (a secular one) and they offered to show me around. We arrived at a piece of geologic strate, extracted from the 1936 archaeological dig in Wyoming. He (the tourguide) said: "please do not touch the slab of stone--it's seventy MILLION years old."
I simply raised my hand and asked how he KNEW it was that old. He replied, "We determine the age of geologic rock layers by the index fossils found within... this one contained bones of a plesiosaur, and therefore was seventy million years old."
I said "okay" and he then proceeded to take us to the skeleton of a tyranosaurus rex and said, "please do not touch the bones--they are ninety million years old."
I, again, asked him how he KNEW and he replied, "we determined the age of the bones by what ROCK LAYER we find them in."
(CIRCULAR REASONING)
I personally have been to New England, and let me say, walking along the Atlantic beach is almost a definite find for fossils. However, Nova Scotia has an overabundance of polystrate fossils (trees extending through multiple layers of geologic strata).
First off, there is no proof that the geologic strata is reliable, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated that oxygen wasn't present during the birth of the world. I have yet to come across evidence for an old earth.
In fact, the majority of evolutionist websites I find nowadays are just anti-creationist websites, and they are not legitimate EVOLUTION websites.I know this is going to spark somebody's temper, so don't expect more argument out of me (Jesus' teachings taught me that, if you cannot win a major movement, then win people individually). Jesus didnt spend his time trying to change the Roman Empire--he just saved PEOPLE.In Christ,
Booboo

Dr. Cresswell:The problem is that I used to be a progressive creationist (I believed that the Bible should be combined with evolution, because I was taught in school that it was a fact). Basically this is how it goes:When I was 10 I started going to church.
Then, in 7th and 8th grade I was taught evolution so frequently and thoroughly that I tried to combine the Bible with evolution (hence I believed that the six days were not literal).Then, in eighth grade I attended a Sunday school class that focused on creationism and evidence against evolution. That was when I began to doubt that the earth really was ?billions of years old? and, not only did I become a full young earth creationist, but I also finally had the evidence and the research to back it up (at least at a high school level).The problem I have with evolution (from a Biblical view) is this:
Matthew 19:4 says: "...he who made them at the beginning made them male and female..."
Now, if evolution is real, then why did Jesus say that the distinguished differences between male and female was the beginning?Also, Exodus 20:11 says: "For in six days the Lord created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."
In that verse the original Hebrew word used for ?days? on the dead sea scrolls was the Hebrew word ?yom? which was to refer to a literal, 24-hour day.Also, six times in Genesis chapter one it says: ?and there was evening and there was morning on the (first, second?) day?? If there was morning and evening on the ?first day? then what honest reason would somebody have to conclude that the author of Genesis was not being literal? Seriously, the combining of evolution and creation was only done in the last century by people who thought that the Bible had errors and needed to be ?reinterpreted.?
If the Bible has errors, then the whole of Christianity is at stake?please read
Matthew 4:2 ? ??Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from? God.?
You see, Jesus told Satan, in the desert, that man lives on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God?otherwise man is wrong, and that is what the problem with people who combine evolution and creation?they specifically go against Jesus? teachings, as well as the other above verses.
Also, I am not talking for a creation scientist?I was talking for myself, but quoting from Vance Ferrell?s reference book (perhaps I didn?t go enough into detail on that one).I do not suggest AT ALL that the Bible should be twisted, interpreted, speculated, refuted, or otherwise fitted to mean that creation and evolution should be ?one and the same.? They are clearly two separate things according to Jesus, Moses, St. John, and God the Father.Please think about that,
In Christ,
Booboo

ignore the abundant question marks in my last reply, they are typographical errors that were originally " " 's when i was typing it.