# Questions for Evolutionists



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Let's keep this diplomatic and proper please.

1. Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate, wouldnt it have been spinning so fast a billion years ago that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart? The spin of the Earth is gradually slowing down and shows that the Earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.

2. How can it be that if man stopped evolving 100,000 years ago, he only learned how to form civilizations and write within the last 5-10,000 years? Also, the oldest civilizations appear around the world about the same time, and all were already very advanced, building marvelous structures (like the pyramids). There is no indication of a general evolution of civilization.

3. Realistic population growth formulas, accounting for wars, etc., give several thousand years as needed to produce the current world population (not millions of years). The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.

4. The rate at which the Moon is moving away from the Earth (due to tidal friction) places a limit on the age of the Moon of a few thousand years. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned everything on land twice a day.

5. Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years.

6. Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere implies a maximum age of no more than 10,000 years. Buildup of radiocarbon in the atmosphere would produce all of the world's radiocarbon in only several thousand years.

7. Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the Earth were as old as evolutionists believe. The measured decay rate of the Earth's magnetic field indicates that life would have been impossible on Earth more than about 20,000 years ago (due to the heat that would have been generated).

8. Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.

9. The moon revolves around the earth at a distance of about 240,000 miles causing harmless tides on the earth. If the moon were located 1/5th of this distance away, the continents would be completely submerged twice a day!

10. The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

*Video 1*

I believe in the worldwide flood, but I dont agree with the creationist that the grand canyon was formed in 5 minutes. I see no reason to say it was formed so quickly.

Water in places other than Earth- I agree there's water outside of Earth. I see no reason why this goes against anything the bible teaches or why the creationist feels the need to say there cant be water elsewhere.

I also know that the Earth's orbit around the sun is that of an ellipse. I see no reason why it would have to be in a perfect circle and no reason why it being an ellipse contradicts anything the bible says.

About the % of the distance away from the sun- This point is moot because anyone could say that life "evolved" to adapt to how the environment was at this distance. I dont think the distance from the sun can be used to argue either point.

*Video 2*

Wouldnt the energy released from fusion destroy whatever lifeform caused it? Also, the examples given by the narrator of fusion are all powered by an outside force- man. It doesnt naturally occur.. except on the sun- where there is no life.

What does the eclipse have to do with anything? The guy is wrong- I see no reason why this would affect creationism at all. The bible does not say anything to support the creationist's claims about the moon. I dont know why he would talk about the odds of the perfect eclipse either.

The text books- Whether it's the majority of scientists or not you have to admit the big bang is still a theory. Yes theory is the next best thing to fact, but it isnt quite yet. The other things in the textbooks that the creationist uses have been 100% proven.

I dont have time right now to watch the rest of the videos, but I will.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2008)

VinCi said:


> your questions are just copypasted of a creationist site who has copypasted the arguments of Kent Hovind!


And all of your "evidence" is someones elses evidence copied from someone elses videos.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

VinCi said:


> When something becomes a scientific theory, IT IS FACT, it can never suddenly turn into a "nonfact".
> It's I M P O S S I B L E
> THEORY = FACT
> THEORY = FACT
> ...


Like you copy pasted the link to your video? I've got a lot more for you to consider than just those questions. I will continue to watch the videos and analyze what is said in them, but do they answer the questions I posted in my previous post?

In science the word theory is not a synonym for "fact". Theory is sometimes used for fact, but not every time. Theory is an observation, a hypothesis based on facts. Theory is an attempt to explain how or why the facts are the way they are. Of course we can observe things about the earth and the universe- things that are facts, but the big bang is a theory- an attempt to explain what we can observe. It cannot be proven that things are the way they are because of the big bang. 100 years from now scientists may come up with some idea that apparently explains the origin of the universe far better than the big bang. The only fact is that they dont know. They can only come up with theories.

Additionally, while I do not believe in the big bang- I am willing to consider it as an option for how things came to be if it could actually be proven. But it hasnt. Even if the big bang was true- atheists and evolutionists cant explain where it came from anyway. It's just as easy to say "nothing" exploded into a completely ordered universe as it is to say it was made that way on purpose. The big bang could be the scientific observation of what God did. You still cant disprove His existence if you could prove the bb. I have just as much right to say God did it as you do to say it did itself because there's no way to prove either.

Of course there's a lot more to talk about than just the bb and we'll get to that.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

sorry double posted.


----------



## peachy (Feb 9, 2008)

VinCi said:


> When something becomes a scientific theory, IT IS FACT, it can never suddenly turn into a "nonfact".
> It's I M P O S S I B L E
> THEORY = FACT
> THEORY = FACT
> ...


SHIT. :shock: 
so all those conspiracy theories are true after all????? :shock:


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2008)

peachyderanged said:


> VinCi said:
> 
> 
> > When something becomes a scientific theory, IT IS FACT, it can never suddenly turn into a "nonfact".
> ...


My theory is that Vinci is repeadly talking out of his arse.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

1. The rate at which the Earth's rotation is slowing hasn't necessarily been constant. The interior forces of an extremely rapidly spinning Earth wouldn't have necessarily forced it to explode.

2. No offense intended, but take a history course.

3. "If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface." As you stated, that wouldn't be physically possible...so people would stop reproducing and start dying. Growth rates change drastically depending on all sorts of variables.

4. There are theories suggesting that the moon was once part of Earth. It's probably older than 6,000 years, though. And, again, remember rates are not static; they are dynamically affected by many variables.

5. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about space dust.

6. If you believe in measuring radiocarbon, you should believe in carbon dating. 'Nuff said.

7. Magnetic fields vacillate. Evidence suggests the Earth's periodically switches poles.

8. Lots of stuff happened on this planet before it was in the stable state we see now. Salinity levels could have been affected by all that. Assuming constant rates is fallacious.

9. At some point the Earth's surface was submerged. So?

10. "Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used." False. Conservation of energy: energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can change forms. When energy changes forms it is not rendered unusable. Falling water turns turbines which create electrical energy which power coffee makers which grind coffee beans, creating heat and friction. 4 billion years (most of them without humans) is not enough time to use up all of Earth's energy. If you believe the universe will continue expanding forever, then when we get to the year infinity, all the energy will be gone. If you believe in the big crunch (opposite of the big bang), all the energy will be restored to one point, and everything will start over again or something like that.

And my own special counter-argument: Dinosaurs.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2008)

VinCi said:


> By the way: spirit, you SUPPOSEDLY has cured yourself of DPDR, why hang around just to start arguments? histrionic? i'm aware ur bipolar, borderline and was it schizo...?


As you have already said several times now.....



Spirit said:


> My theory is that Vinci is repeadly talking out of his arse.


....I havnt started any arguments.Go google "projection" or maybe look for a video about it....Gotta go see yas.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

egodeath said:


> 1. The rate at which the Earth's rotation is slowing hasn't necessarily been constant. The interior forces of an extremely rapidly spinning Earth wouldn't have necessarily forced it to explode.
> 
> 2. No offense intended, but take a history course.
> 
> ...


Very good work Ego, what about the questions I posed regarding the videos?

1. Good point
2. No offense taken- Can you explain a little bit for me?
3. Good point
4. I dont really know about the moon theory- I havnt studied that. Good point about the rates though.
5.
6. Not sure about 6. Havnt studied that out either.
7. Good point
8. Good point
9. This point isnt talking about the past- it's talking about the present. The idea is that the moon's distance is at the perfect distance while not harming life. It's an implication of design.
10. The law states that the amount of _usable energy_ decreases- not the total amount of energy. This does not break the law of conservation of energy.

And what about dinosaurs


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

Conjurus said:


> Very good work Ego, what about the questions I posed regarding the videos?
> 
> 1. Good point
> 2. No offense taken- Can you explain a little bit for me?
> ...


Okay so:
2. From the basic world history I know, while the development of human civilization has been a remarkable thing, it is completely accounted for. Before civilization, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. These small groups couldn't get much larger and still survive. Once people started forming cities, population exploded because of infrastructure that allowed for food storage, etc.

9. The moon's distance is fairly perfect for human life. Either that means that God made it that way or that means that since the conditions became perfect, human life could develop. The argument for this is the argument for God, so, lets just leave this as ambiguous.

10. Usable energy does decrease, but before we were burning stuff for fuel, the Earth was in a pretty nice equilibrium and probably didn't lose a significant amount of usable energy. Stars burn gargantuan amounts of energy every second and still live billions of years, why think the earth should die out after 4 billion?

And dinosaurs...I believe they exist. I hope you believe they exist. And if they did, they were really old. Definitely older than humanity as evidenced by a lack of historical records of human interaction with giant man-eating creatures and various measures including carbon dating which identify them as being approximately 60 M years old.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Now you present information and answers clearly and diplomatically. You make very good points.

I do believe dinosaurs existed- even if carbon dating is true and accurate and dinosaurs did exist millions of years ago, the gap theory still explains this.


----------



## egodeath (Oct 27, 2008)

Conjurus said:


> Now you present information and answers clearly and diplomatically. You make very good points.
> 
> I do believe dinosaurs existed- even if carbon dating is true and accurate and dinosaurs did exist millions of years ago, the gap theory still explains this.


True. One could say that in attempting a scientific explanation, one should avoid saying that God fills in the gaps, but on the other hand, one could argue that no singular unified theory exists explaining everything. I'm in the first camp; I believe the history of the universe/the Earth is perfectly explained by science. Who or what created natural law is another issue, which we've debated elsewhere.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

VinCi said:


> Conjurus, i want to give you a friendly advice:
> 
> Either step the flower* away from this if you absolutely need christianity in your life, because (NO OFFENSE MEANT HERE, It's christmas) if you dwell deeper into it and let it sink in your mind, you too will become atheist, or atleast very agnostic and this might make your DPDR worse or better, ebcause you finally find answers to some of the inevitable philosophical moral questions believer in god must ask themself "WHY DOESN'T GOD CARE?" "WHY DO ALL THIS BAD SHIT HAPPEN" "WHY IS IT SCIENCE, WHICH GOD SAID WAS EVIL, THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS ENHANCED OUR LIVES?"
> 
> ...


Do you know what the gap theory is? It's the idea that God created the universe and then perhaps billions of years later formed the earth into how we know it today. The gap theory explains that the earth was created by God and has been here for billions of years and that only about 10000 years ago did he shape it into a world for humans. Dinosaurs could have existed before this.

And actually, I used to be atheist and I am pretty agnostic. If you could be agnostic and a Christian that would be me.

When did God say science was evil?

And even if the earth and moon was formed that way, it still does not contradict christianity.

Im still waiting for someone to discuss my answers to videos 1 and 2.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

VinCi said:


> Maybe not indirect contradiction with *your* view of christianity, but it kills the bible, hence the whole fairytale in it.
> 
> YES, as I explained, THE GAP, since e don't know what caused BIG BANG, "GOD DID IT!" we don't know how many diseases came to be either "GOD DID IT!"


My view of christianity is from the Bible. Show me where it contradicts the Bible.

Diseases come from the curse that has been placed on the earth.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

We already know you think my beliefs are fairy tales. The whole idea of the curse is a small facet of my faith. If that's enough for you to dismiss the topic that's unfortunate because if we can have some clear communication between each other and I find that you present me with incontrovertible proof for your worldview then Im open to change how I believe. Simply waving aside my point of view isnt enough. You wont convince anyone with that outlook.

That being said you still havnt answered-



Conjurus said:


> Video 1
> 
> I believe in the worldwide flood, but I dont agree with the creationist that the grand canyon was formed in 5 minutes. I see no reason to say it was formed so quickly.
> 
> ...





Conjurus said:


> When did God say science was evil?
> 
> And even if the earth and moon was formed that way, it still does not contradict christianity.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

VinCi said:


> Ok, this will be one of the last posts the next 2 days due to xmas, but ok.
> my problem with curses and the whole belief in that.
> 
> Think back 2000 years up to the 16th century, anyone with a mental illness were believed to be cursed by the devil and usually put to death by Christians.
> ...


I already told you- I am agnostic and a Christian. I dont believe God and the Bible can be 100% proven or disproved. I still choose to believe it as it makes the most sense to me.

The church you're talking about I believe is the catholic church which I am not a part of. Give me a direct reference to where the Bible tells me to kill homosexual's and lesbian's. As far as a one way ticket to hell- now we're getting into denominational beliefs that go further than the blanket of "christianity". If you want me to get into why I wouldnt go to hell even if the Bible did command me to do that (which you have yet to show me that it does) I will, but until then I wont.



> EDIT: didn't see you had edited your post, anyway, yes the creation of earth being from small rocks gathering into a planet that crashed into another planet who became our planet over millions of years, which then after finally formed took 4,6 BILLION years to come to now, D I R E C T L Y disproves creation!


This doesnt disprove creation at all. What's to say this isnt how God created it?


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

VinCi said:


> I will do the bible reference later as I'm cleaning my house, but anyway, you got to admit, when the bible says "god created the heavens and the earth 6000 years ago and there was a flood 4400 years ago" and NONE of this is even remotely true, it's more true that you live on pluto than that either of those things happened, the bible starts to look more like a crazy story than the truth of _EVERYTHING_ or actually ANYTHING but yae,


Actually, the Bible doesnt say anything about how long ago it was created or how long ago the flood was. Those numbers are pure speculation by _some_ Christian's. As someone else said, you're well educated on the topic of a lot of this, but when it comes to what the Bible really teaches- no offense but you're a little confused.


----------



## peachy (Feb 9, 2008)

VinCi said:


> what a conspiracy is, is a hypothesis, not a theory.


no. the word "conspiracy" alone doesn't mean either of these things. 
con?spir?a?cy? ?[kuhn-spir-uh-see] 
?noun, plural -cies.
1.	the act of conspiring.
2.	an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2008)

What is most obvious here is that Vinvi blames God for his suffering.He is angry at God-the evidence is written all over this section.He claims that studying religion-in depth and thourougly as he claims it-was what sent him over the edge into delusion-If there was no substance or truth in religion, how would something non existent send you over the edge? If his athiest veiws would cure us all as he claims it, why then has it not cured him? If its not true then why not take some responsibility for it personaly and do something more constructive about it.


----------



## Conjurus (Oct 25, 2008)

Why is there no recorded history before approximately 4,000 B.C.? Evolutionists claim that man evolved over billions of years. If there were any truth to these claims, then man's historical record should span back at least hundreds-of-thousands of years, if not millions. There is no record of a cataclysmic event that destroyed mankind prior to 4,000 B.C. And if there were, surely some of the survivors would have passed this information down to generations to follow.

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.


----------



## guitarman (Dec 11, 2008)

VinCi said:


> When something becomes a scientific theory, IT IS FACT, it can never suddenly turn into a "nonfact".
> It's I M P O S S I B L E
> THEORY = FACT
> THEORY = FACT
> ...


Definiton of theory

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...
hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; *a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena;* "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"


----------



## Surfingisfun001 (Sep 25, 2007)

VinCi said:


> Conjurus, i want to give you a friendly advice:
> 
> if you dwell deeper into it and let it sink in your mind, you too will become atheist, or atleast very agnostic...


AH, now you are a prophet. Which is it VinCi, god, prophet, both? Or are you just simply an air-head that can't get past the fact that his favorite thing to do on the weekends is log onto DPselfhelp.com and prove to everyone on here how much you love the "Spirituality (God, Religions, New Age, etc.) Debate" section.


----------



## peachy (Feb 9, 2008)

see that's the reason you think you're being targeted. but i'm willing to bet the reason most people are compelled to respond is because you're a jackass and intolerant about this kind of stuff. that triggers people to respond. i have nothing to defend. i don't have any religion in my life that i can really believe right now. one thing that's been bothering me is i feel like i'm missing some part of what happened to you prior to this atheist intolerant mindset. did you ever have a time in your life where you did believe in some higher power/spiritual thing? what makes you so angry about it that we do believe? (besides the fact that you seem to think that makes everyone wrong-minded) i know that believing in something spiritual can fukk with your dp. i've been there. but i've also been there to realize that analyzing and debating and questioning all of this crap 24/7 can fukk you up just as easy. eh?


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2008)

VinCi said:


> Listen, the only reason I'm being targetted is because my views on the world is contradictionary with yours


Thats BS....I personaly dont care WTF you beleif...Isnt the reason you are attacking people because their veiws are in contradiction to yours ........We dont give a flying f-ck if your veiws are not the same as ours and we dont attack people because of it...Oh shit look...now Ive caught Tourette's .com from you........crap.


----------

