Thread: Its time to admit evolution is a fraud

Originally Posted by StephL

These 72 laureates give credibility, something for common sense to chew on. Most people would agree, that this "demographic" is over-proportionally intelligent and highly educated, whatever else they might be - or not be. They also tend to be male, and have a high percentage of Jews among them, but neither lessens the impact of the above mentioned criteria in any way. That's why it's okay that they probably didn't only count science laureate's signatures. And of course you didn't address the number of 97% of scientists, nor the list of scientific institutions having petitioned.

Why do you always make apeals to authority, institutions, jews, whatever it is....that's not how you verify a theory. We are talking about evolution. Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference.

Who do you think does the actual scientific discovering and technology inventing - the actual work? If you want to know about science and it's body of knowledge - ask scientists. Did you read the numbers? Which institutions have all partitioned?

More apeals to authority, this shows desperation I think. You in no way need to be an evolutionist to be a scientist. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed my degree! lol.

It's about trying to get it into one or the other Creationist head, be that you or somebody reading, that evolution has been proven zig thousand times already, and that zig different scientific disciplines are doing it!

You mean, like a scientologist, just brainwash and harass them until they say yes?

Once you start with the 6000 years you're so absolutely out of touch with this technological age you invoke - it's baffling.

No, what is out of touch, is the dating methods used to assume the earth is "billions of years" it sounds so ridiculious, like something out of an Austin powers movie. What's even worse is that you assume the sensible conclusion is the backwards thing. It makes a lot of sense to me the earth is around 6000 years old. And you know what makes even more sense to me? That others wouldn't believe it, just like they use to refuse to believe the earth was round. All through history man has been decieved by pseudo science for political agendas (mostly world government!) and this is not a new accasion.

And yes - what is proven, that's the relevant thing. If you want me to simply "accept" something, because you and other Creationists say so and the bible says so, then you got the wrong person, I'm afraid.

You were the one that refused to debate the actual theory itself. You had to resort to things like "science says, and scientists say" without engaging the material, which by the way you have posted none other than dust clouds, bits and parts from different animals, and assumptions about how they must have 'evolved' including dinosaur feathers. It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance, and I think you should be too, or you are in significant danger. I care that you come to the right conclusion, but I can't force you.

What I can do is provide you with the information, you claim would be missing, and rebut what your article says, as I already begun. That was up to now the one source of yours worthy of consideration and step by step rebuttal, because at least it sounds scientific and intelligent. So it's to be considered potentially harmful to impressionable minds. Being exasperated by the first two videos of this thread, I spare myself the rest. As Deviant says - I'd like to hear back from you on your source and my replies.

I'll keep looking into what you say about it, because I care. Just let me catch up in between breaks when I get the chance.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

It's time to just get the information out there, I don't think you are ready to accept this clarity or information, It's not a matter of 'proving evolution' it's a matter of accepting the work that shows it's a lie and illusion. In this technological age where the data has been collected we can easily see that evolutionists do have a religious belief, and that it is a cult with an agenda. They agressively push their agenda because without this false doctrine they are screwed including economically. Your only hope for this theory to survive is if people remain illiterate and willingly ignorant. Simple....

Isn't this the same thing as disproving evolution? Watched the "Evidence for Evolution fraud", but it seems to me is that a lot of assumptions are made, as well as pointing out plain old mistakes. The brontosaurus fossil for example, was a mistake made because of incorrectly classifying what was a apatosaurus. There was no conspiracy or intent to lie, and this revelation of the mistake was pronounced throughout the scientific community. However since the name "brontosaurus" had already been in use for some time, the name just stuck to it in popular culture. Plus it sounds more cool than saying apatosaurus lol. Anyway, this wasn't an attempt at fraud, but a mistake made based on the fossil remains at the time. The news article "Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed" by NPR summarizes what happens nicely. Also keep in mind this mix-up happened in 1877, so it is a very dated event to be pointing out.

So again, how is evolution a lie and illusion? How is it wrong? I have to wonder why evolution sounds so threatening to people unless it is because it will unravel their religious or ideological framework. I would think things like the age of the Earth, red shifts from stars and galaxies, and things like M-theory would do more damage than evolution. Maybe since evolution is a simpler concept to grasp so it gets attacked more? In relation to Christianity specifically, I'm not sure what the big deal is. It has no mention of God, so maybe that's the kicker, but it seems like it leaves a lot of room for Christianity in terms of its conceptualization. I'm just wondering what the big fuss is about and why evolution is such a dangerous subject.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance.

There it is, you've finally come to the truth of how you really feel! This has got nothing to do with the science of evolution making no sense to you. At the end of the day the reason why creationists such as yourself battle against evolution is because you have somehow convinced yourself evolution takes God out of your life. So now you are fighting a holy war! The holy war against evolution!

But at the end of the day, the problem here isn't the science behind evolution, the problem is YOUR view of God doesn't allow for evolution. You have LIMITED your own God to a being that must be fundamentally separate from nature. You have LIMITED God to a being that cannot use a natural process, such as evolution. You have LIMITED God to only using "magic" that must be outside of nature and unexplained. That Gods work is in the "unexplained" which becomes problematic when that "unexplained" becomes the explained. Now what?

What an internal struggle.

But its all in your head. You're the one telling yourself that God can't use evolution to create life. You're the one telling yourself that evolution means your life has no deeper meaning. But if you really believe in an omnipresent and all powerful God *the fundamental Christian God*, then who are you, a mere human, to LIMIT how that God can or can't create life?

Do you not realize there are literally millions of people that believe in God and evolution at the same time? AT THE SAME TIME? Do you even fit these millions of people in your world view or ask how can they do this?

As a christian, you must be familiar with the concept of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a part of the trinity right? Therefore, a fundamental form of God. And arguably, the most IGNORED in Christianity. Where is the Holy Spirit found in christianity? In a book? NO. The bible is clear, the Holy Spirit is only found in LIVING beings. The belief literally translates the Holy Spirit as: The Spirit of God inhabiting a Living Being.

The bible is also very clear that not a damn human has the right to tell the Holy Spirit whom to inhabit, what to say, or what to do.

The burning bush is an example of the Holy Spirit inhabiting a bush. Thats GOD inhabiting a BUSH. Could the Holy Spirit have also inhabited the first fish-like thing to walk on land? Why not?

This is why the Catholic church has NO NEED to be against evolution. Evolution does not in any way diminish the Catholic God. I wish you could understand this view point, because this religious fight against evolution is silly and pointless. It doesn't have to take away your God, in any way.

If you want to discuss further, evolution can easily co-exist with spirituality. The theory of evolution literally states that all life on earth has ONE origin. We are all related. And we all come from the same source. This is both a spiritual and a scientific truth. And that's a really really nice union.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference.

We do, in fact there has experiments done to show just this very thing. One well known one is with fruit flies that were split into two groups, and they were fed slightly different diets. After many generations they were put back together and it was found that the vast majority of the flies would only mate with other flies that were in the same subgroup as they were. Seeing how the thing that separates one species from another is the ability to mate and produce offspring, this would be the first step in two separate species branching off from each other.

There are other animals in the wild that have shown to be very closely related, yet also split off into different species over time. The classic example is with the finches that Darwin found and now thanks to modern technology we can even take DNA from the birds and compare them, and it backs up evolution even further.

Also there are fossil records showing gradual changes among some animals, and even today you can find things like vestigial organs that are remains from our ancestors. There are also weird animals like fish that walk on land and stuff, which would be some transit point from a fish going into an amphibian.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

No, what is out of touch, is the dating methods used to assume the earth is "billions of years" it sounds so ridiculious, like something out of an Austin powers movie. What's even worse is that you assume the sensible conclusion is the backwards thing. It makes a lot of sense to me the earth is around 6000 years old. And you know what makes even more sense to me? That others wouldn't believe it, just like they use to refuse to believe the earth was round. All through history man has been decieved by pseudo science for political agendas (mostly world government!) and this is not a new accasion.

We know for a fact the earth isn't 6000 years old. The entire field of science of astronomy and geology proves that, but we also have human made tools that also date older than that, and archaeological evidence showing human settlements prior to that time period. Then of course we have fossil evidence as well.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

You were the one that refused to debate the actual theory itself. You had to resort to things like "science says, and scientists say" without engaging the material, which by the way you have posted none other than dust clouds, bits and parts from different animals, and assumptions about how they must have 'evolved' including dinosaur feathers. It's not that I don't understand the theory, it's that the theory makes absolutely no sense. I know it's a long held tradition in school systems, I know it is essential for all the tradgey in human history, and I just don't care to support it, because I am for humanity, not against humanity. Humans do have purpose and meaning from a designer, a creator which is God. I have a very real connection to Jesus Christ, the son of God. He fights all my battles and his spirit teaches and instructs me to live, and because of that you will never convince someone like me, that evolution is real. I am well and truly beyond childish notions about chance, and I think you should be too, or you are in significant danger. I care that you come to the right conclusion, but I can't force you.

So basically you are going to believe what you want, regardless of the evidence presented? Hmm I wonder why someone wouldn't want to debate you?

Deanstar?
Why are you are not answering to my last post in here and do as if it wouldn't exist?
I went to the hassle of transferring this endlessly long thing into this thread, coming from the other thread, where you already didn't answer to it. So please look on page one in here, last post on the bottom, where I go through the first few paragraphs of your article, which I also quoted in whole.
I showed you evidence how evolution is happening today and not only in micro-organisms, how it happened in the past and what the transitional life-forms are, how your article wilfully misquotes biologists by for example claiming the concept of punctuated equilibrium would contradict evolution etc., etc., etc..
With links and quotes and pictures and whatnot.
Do you try to make the impression, this post would not exist, because it unfortunately is on the prior page in here?
Or have you really not seen it yet?
Please go back one page - you find my extended reply there - full of actual content - I wait for an answer to that.

Besides - if somebody like you claims that the scientific authorities would disagree with something, then showing that they do instead agree in overwhelming majority is an adequate argument and not a fallacy. But we dealt with that, get at my biological content!


Look here - in my last post there are among other things these links:

Time In A Bottle: Scientists Watch Evolution Unfold -- ScienceDaily
Observed Instances of Speciation
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur – Observations of a Nerd
Your Inner Fish: Book and PBS documentary on Tiktaalik and Neil Shubin.
10 Missing Links in Vertebrate Evolution

Originally Posted by StephL

Deanstar?
Why are you are not answering to my last post in here and do as if it wouldn't exist?
I went to the hassle of transferring this endlessly long thing into this thread, coming from the other thread, where you already didn't answer to it. So please look on page one in here, last post on the bottom, where I go through the first few paragraphs of your article, which I also quoted in whole.
I showed you evidence how evolution is happening today and not only in micro-organisms, how it happened in the past and what the transitional life-forms are, how your article wilfully misquotes biologists by for example claiming the concept of punctuated equilibrium would contradict evolution etc., etc., etc..
With links and quotes and pictures and whatnot.
Do you try to make the impression, this post would not exist, because it unfortunately is on the prior page in here?
Or have you really not seen it yet?
Please go back one page - you find my extended reply there - full of actual content - I wait for an answer to that.

Besides - if somebody like you claims that the scientific authorities would disagree with something, then showing that they do instead agree in overwhelming majority is an adequate argument and not a fallacy. But we dealt with that, get at my biological content!

I will go through it line by line, but no time this evening, just wrote a quick response to something else.

Now that's a word!

Deanstar, I don't have the patience to sit through several hours of misinformed videos, so please tell me one specific argument against evolution that you find the most convincing, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. Then you'll just be left with a bunch of arguments which are by your own admission less convincing than one which wasn't even valid. That'll do the job well enough and save us all some time.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Deanstar, I don't have the patience to sit through several hours of misinformed videos, so please tell me one specific argument against evolution that you find the most convincing, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. Then you'll just be left with a bunch of arguments which are by your own admission less convincing than one which wasn't even valid. That'll do the job well enough and save us all some time.

Originally Posted by deanstar

Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer.

Well, there you go. Address away.

I'd love to but I don't even understand what you mean at the moment. It looks you are saying that animals can't ever reproduce? Of course, animals can reproduce, we observe them doing it all the time. Please clarify.

I think he is referring to incidents of hybrid species which are commonly sterile. For example the mule is the offspring of a donkey and horse and a liger is a cross between a tiger and lion. Both are sterile. I'm assuming he has never heard of the cama (llama and camel) or the grizzly polar bear (rather self-explanatory) which are both examples of fertile hybrids. There are also numerous examples of asymmetrically fertile hybrids with the males usually being the infertile ones.

It's all rather irrelevant to how speciation actually occurs with natural selection but that's what I think he is referring to.

Edit: Actually, there have been a female liger that have successfully bred with a male lion so ligers are at least asymmetrically fertile.

Oh sorry, I confused you with the original poster. I'll let him speak for himself.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

Why do you always make apeals to authority, institutions, jews, whatever it is....that's not how you verify a theory.

I thought to you, God is the only authority in the universe, and you constantly make appeals to his direct word (the Bible) as evidence for his existence and for evolution's impossibility. I guess by your own logic, you cannot, therefore, be verifying your theory that God truly exists and is the authority of the universe and evolution is impossible, then? Lol, do you ever think about what you say or is throwing eggs at your own face something you just enjoy doing?

I think we all need a break from this conversation:




That eclipse was pretty derp, would we immediately experience daylight again that suddenly? I think the responses on this page are getting to the core issues, though.

So I take it nobody bothered with all three videos at the start?

OP, you made it easy for the first video, since you said apeals to authority are invalid and the first video is a huge appeal to authority where the authority is the very group of people promoting themselves. Not to mention, the increase in islamic faith is from immigrants and not from converting french people onto it; in fact they (The french) hate these immigrants now because they are very violent. Also from 2007 to 2014 the number of religious people has gone down, not up according to a quick google search and the studies down by the french government (Except for islam and their increasing number from 1m to 4m mostly from immigrants).

The second video talks about Darwinism and the evolution Darwin proposed; I'm sorry to inform that Darwins theory of evolution is no longer in use. Much like Newton fails when it comes to the workings of gravity beyond our little planet/system, yet people don't say gravity is false based off this fact; Darwin was also of another era and his teachings have become rudimentary. Don't get me wrong, both of them have done amazing things and were great for their time but we have new concepts and a better understanding of the world now. So pretty much the second video is arguing against a rock and not evolution.

The third video kills itself, it says that without fundation the "theory" becomes useless. He says this after saying that Materialism is the fundation of both Atheism and Evolution which is not true. The one who described it was actually a man of faith; Charles Darwin and his wife (also cousin?) were people of Judeo-Christian faith, so while he didn't go with the local "everything was created as is" he also believed that evolution may have started from the Eden or "Creation Spot" so its fundation was not materialistic at all.
Atheism is also "without god" this says nothing about other beliefs in the supernatural/occult. Isn't one of the many Buddhism (or is it the original?) branches a form of atheism? So yeah, since his fundation was wrong then it becomes useless "and we still got 40 minutes to go".

That is for the three initial videos; so I think it would be better to stick to the discussion that was going on with StephL instead of the videos. You know, in case the rest of the videos/sources you have Deanstar are like the first three then yeah the initial talk/quote with StephL is much better to use since it got articles, rather than weird videos that kill themselves.

The creationist philosophical argument:

Nothing can exist without a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That cause must be an invisible man with magical powers and a lot of bizarre rules.
The invisible man with magical powers has no cause.

In summary:

Everything must has a cause, therefore there is something with no cause.

The premise applies to everything but the conclusion based on it.

DeanStar

You have made quite a splash in the Dreamviews pool. On this thread you have attracted 12 contributers (StephL, snoop, Alric, Neo Neo, BLUELINE976, Darkmatters, juroara, Denziloe, Hukif, Universal Mind and me) among them are some of DV's renowned philosopher's.

I like your exciting and deep Dream Journal. (Seven Dreams so far) A dream entry is worth a whopping 10 community points. You also get one point for each tag for upto ten tags per dream. So that's potentially 20 Community points per dream entry.

Any way

I share about The Gap Theory in the comments of one of your dreams. The Gap Theory is why most Christians believe that evolution is true

but

from Adam and Evev the Earth is only six thousand years old.

Many believe The Gap Theory was started nearly a thousand years ago.

The day I'm considered a philosopher is the day philosophy as an academic field dies a slow, painful death.

Originally Posted by Deanstar

Lets focus on a simple direct thing, Why can we never see one type of animal develop into another, considering they can't ever reproduce? This should be a no-brainer. It astounds me the time wasted on trying to back this theory. So I'll say what others have said, since there is this unwillingness to even address anyone's work that I reference.

So, I guess domesticated dogs and cats aren't a thing anymore? Last time I checked, dogs are not the same things as wolves, nor are cats lions or tigers. Humans caused this domestication and without us they would not exist. They are clearly different animals, as well. Mind explaining this?

I think it's a fair assumption that he has never heard of those fruit fly experiments where they created new species in the lab simply through breeding. As in simply through reproduction, strains of fruit flies emerged that could not breed with each other. Creationism debunked without even a stupid doubt.

Here's a good article on speciation in general.
Evidence for speciation

I heard a Creationist claim, that the craters on the moon come from some sort of divine waterjets in connection with Noah's flood - forgot the exact non-reasoning about that...
Oh - and if we once make it to the moons of the gas planets - that's going to give us some fabulous planet-rising in the sky! Nice vid!

Originally Posted by StephL

These E. coli gained new features while evolving over 20.000+ generations - this number gives you a hint, why you can't see it happening from your armchair - a lot of reproduction usually has to go down before something significantly changes.

The E. coli is a form of bacteria. Now 20,000 generations of bacteria is a lot, and the reason it's possible to observe that many 'generations' and more in a lab is because it has absolutely no validty to things like full reproducing animals. Out of these small genetic variations of bacteria, I don't see anything significant to come out of this. All this experiment really proves is you can manipulate bacteria in a lab a little bit from some defects. But what would happen if you took that bacteria in it's natural conditions? Not much it would just act as it is, as it has for thousands of years. You could also observe bacteria growing on some food when it gets old and that's a natural process and it does not indicate the bateria is 'evolving'. Any small changes in forced conditions over so even 50,000 generations, is basically insignificant. For those reasons I don't think this experiment has any relevance to evolution theory, and you couldn't apply it to animals. It's bacteria!

It has – see above, and evolution has a tree-like structure, with the “basic kinds” coming first and then it`s diversification.

You can't conclude what you see as "basic kinds" having any order whatsoever. You could definitely seperate kinds of animals. Elephants in one group. Crocodiles in another. Girafees, bears, birds, etc. But you can't take these groups and conclude that they all come from one source. None of these diverse animals can even mate with each other and there is no evidence that they once could, or that they branced off from the same animal. Evolutionist want to say that some bacteria in the sea grew into fish, and then dinosaurs and land animals. This is a massive leap and conclusion where there is nothing that suggest this other than their imaginations.

Besides this mentioned fruit-fly

A fruit fly could never be considered an animal, if you mutated a fruit fly, that wouldn't even count as a different kind. Species and kind are two different terms. Species is not a definition that I even use cause any genetic variation can be a 'species'. Blue and brown eyes or different races could even be a 'species' of humans. But that's not how I measure different kinds. There is a huge different between humans and say, chimps.

There are transitional life forms and more and more are being found. The feathered dinosaurs are not controversial, neither the fact, that birds evolved from dinosaurs - you've been belittling that idea

The reason I am skeptical that feathers came from dinosaurs, is that no animal without feathers, has been able to grow feathers, and it's difficult to imagine even after thousands of generations, that something like a cow or a lizard, would ever begin to grow feathers. They do not have the genetics for it, lizards, cows, and other such animals have been reproducing since recorded history and we have never seen even one of these animals even begin to grow feathers, and there is no reason to suspect it is possible at all. Feathers are very different from crocodile skin, or scales, or even fur. It's just a fantasy.

What you learn, is that speciation is usually happening in a bottleneck situation, when population sizes are thinned out, and then later the new species stabilizes and gets bigger and bigger.

Let me ask you a serious question about this. I'm not trolling or trying to be being funny. But give me an example and explain to me the origin of an elephant, and how it branches off and fits into the family tree relating to a girafee. In the family tree of evolution show the original animal, and how it branched off to eventually become the different things including the elephant, and giraffee. Then we can see the history and theory of these examples, and if it makes sense that a giraffe grew it's neck becoming spotted, while the elephant had another branch that grew it's nose, becoming grey skinned. These are two different animals. So I want to know from the family tree of evolution how they both evolved from the same animal somewhere in the past.

the emergence of life from non-living chemistry is called abiogenesis, and has got nothing to do with evolution. Whatsoever. Evolution only starts, once you have a single-celled organism, but it does tell you nothing, not even hypotheses, as to how that life came into existence.

So we can rule that out of the discussion, cause if it can't explain the origin of life, and has nothing to do with evolution, then evolutionist should never use it as an example for anything to try and prove evolution. Good.

the fact, that we can't properly reconstruct every single sequence of happenings just means that - we can't yet explain every single aspect of it - but with time more and more of these "mysteries" get resolved.

Since Darwin it was expected that the fossil record would resolve questions. But it didn't all the fossils observed contradicted the theory because of the explosion of life where all the fossils are just random and 'there' not in any linear or transitional sequence of evolution they just 'appear' as 'there' and there is no reason how they would have evolved according to the theory. Still today no fossils prove how we got all the animals, or how humans would have evolved. Darwin has been long disproven but still evolutionists continue to try and look for something. Along the way they have made up fake bones to try and support themself. They even used a pig tooth to create an entire animal to claim an evolutionary link to humans. This wild speculation and imagination is not scientific it's just deceptive.

This article practically has ten "missing links" with text and pictures

I could get say a knife, fork, and spoon. And say how I found the missing links to a fork, and how the fossil of the knife evolved into the fork. It's the same logic with bones in the ground. What a 'missing link' is, comes from whatever you imagination can make up with what you find. Even Lucy's hips were power sawed into a humans. So evolutionists have tried in the past to re-shape the bones, glue different bones together, even use different bones to make animals that didn't exist, all to fit their theory. Fossils are not a good way to try and prove evolution.

I'm all too aware, how I could have done better - but this must suffice now for today.

I admit that the video's I posted in my original post of the thread, are far from perfect, but they each have some sort of piece to the puzzle about why I question the theory of evolution. I didn't reply directly to the videos and content of yours, because I think you will agree it's too much for us to reply to each others video's. It's easy to have a direct discussion, or I could post hours and hours of lecture's, and no-one would read it, and we couldn't discuss it on a forum in writing. So I suggest we just stick to our own words. It makes the discussion more straightfoward instead of just copy and pasting things from the internet. I mean if we are writing a paper, then yes the references will be in an essay format. But this is not an academic paper we just having a discussion about it.

A fruit fly could never be considered an animal

Wow, I thought the sterotype of stupid creationists was a tad overblown by atheists and then I hear this tidbit coming from someone who considers his views on life to be more credible than the views of thousands of biologists.

Guys, I think we are done here. We don't need to debunk this thread when he is doing a better job of debunking it than any of us. Sorry if that devalues your work (especially Ms L's) but face the facts people: we are way out of our league here.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The creationist philosophical argument:

Nothing can exist without a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
That cause must be an invisible man with magical powers and a lot of bizarre rules.
The invisible man with magical powers has no cause.

In summary:

Everything must has a cause, therefore there is something with no cause.

The premise applies to everything but the conclusion based on it.

That is very different, from my reasoning. As a philosophy that's complex to reason about it and I wouldn't have all the answers but I could conclude something like this.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

(So basically, cause and effect, every law of nature, every kind of power material and invisible, created by the Lord)

Now you may ask, and how did God create himself who created God?

I would bring up something like this
Colossians 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

(so basically being omnipotent, he overcomes everything and can do anything, even questions about the seeming impossibility of his existence)

That is some of the creationist doctrine. As a philosophy I could reason about it in many different ways, but I would never go along the reasoning that you did. You made that reasoning up just to make a mockery of things.

There is a theory called "gap theory" in which some believe that in genesis, is a gap of a extremely long period of time, in which some try to fit 'evolution' into the bible.
I don't believe in this theory because The bible (KJV) makes it clear that it is refering to 7 days of creation. Not periods of billions of years. There is no reasoning which makes any sense to suggest there is millions of years between a verse in genesis. Most of the history of the earth is put together within the old testament. There is not massive gaps of time left where God tries to use 'evolution' and I would never subscribe to that for many reasons. I just wanted to put that out there for people that want to say that evolution is a possible tool God could use. I don't think it is, and in using evolution that would be admiting that creation needs constant 'improving'. But it states that from the beginning what he made was "good" in that you could not improve upon it. So this idea that he needed 'evolution' does not really make sense because otherwise he wouldn't have said after each day of creation, "and it was good", this is like a stamp of aproval that says, it's perfect, you can't improve it. As discussion here, The theory of evolution to me also makes no scientific sense, so not even any principalities support such a theory, let alone something God would want to use.