God vs. Evolution

I apologize, but I never got around to fossil record and DNA evidence, as round 2 I wasn't sure my opponant was taking it seriously, and every other round, I have run out of characters. "One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils. " Such fossils are found all over the world. .. (I need the characters). ., Many of these are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and, at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7" First off, coal takes a long time to form. Millions of years in fact. [1] Secondly, natural disasters occur regularly. Volcano ash, or just a regular stratovolcano, or perhaps a flood (minor. They do happen you know) could cause a period of rapid fossilization followed by normal fossilization and sediment piling up. The process would still take millions of years before the trees were buried, and the trees never seem to start (from the examples I have seen) to layers lower then where we have dated them. Same with fossils. They appear in a nice, neat order that wouldn't be found if all of those species died at the same time. If they all died at the same time, they would be all mixed up, with sabre-tooth tigers sitting next to t-rex who are partying it up with a Homo Habilus. The only difference is, they cross several layers because they are taller. "Many of these roots and rootlets, . .. .. .. .. , but rather were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found. " Well, there are numerous explanations. Again, minor floods do occur from time to time. the earth shifts too, and there are numerous minor factors that could influence this. And this is similar with fossils. It is rare for us to actually get a complete fossil. Many times, complete skeletons that you may see in museums, while are often plaster casts of the real things in the first place, have replacements, who's design and dimensions are based off of the same parts that weren't missing from other fossils of the same animal, re-sized to complete 1. So I fail to see why this is significant. "Secondly - I advise you to watch The Mysterious Islands. Please try get hold of it. It will explain more clearly. . .. Something God programmed into them. But not one species EVER becomes another. I wish for proof! " Well, I think you fail to understand species. A species is defined as a set of creatures that can create fertile offspring with one another. Well, a horse and a donkey can mate, but mules are not fertile animals, so they are separate species. However, there are often times where species A is similar enough to species B to produce fertile offspring, and species B is also similar enough to have fertile offspring with species C, but species A and C cannot. So the definition of species is somewhat flawed already, but i will give you examples of changes in species. . http://listverse.com... Not all of these are species changes, in fact, most of them aren't. However, over long periods of time, minor changes that we observe in 20-30 years can amount to significant changes. Think of it this way. You grow from a baby into an adult. If you took a photo of you at 4 and you at 30, you would see significant differences. The same can be said of Australiopithicus Africanus and us. However, if you took a picture on your fourth birthday, then another a week later, you probably wouldn't see any differences, and any small changes in height and maturity would be overshadowed by fluctuation in your health and mood day to day. The same for species. They are always changing, though just looking at parents to children, and small genetic shifts will be overlooked for individual differences. You only grow (or evolve) a little every day, but multiply that by 20 years (billions) and you will see significant growth. And I know you want to see a lion change into something else, but a lion has relatively long pre-maturity life span, is small in number and produces few offspring. So change will take much longer than that of bacteria. "Evolution is racism, it is Hitler. Hitler tried to fulfill what he believed Evolution asked him to do. He tried to wipe out the "undeveloped". " I wanted to spare you from having to break Godwin's law. Hitler was a committed Christian who did accept evolution. However, he used something called Eugenics, which is a racist misapplication of evolution. Eugenics is the study of races, and often tries to prove that one race is superior. However, modern genetics and evolutionary study tells us that we are incredibly similar. Since a black man and an asian woman or a asian man and a white woman can make a fertile child more often then not, we are one species. the differences in our genetic codes between me and a black person are no different between someone with more distant European ancestry then me. There will be some small differences in the races, like black people may have more people who are tall and Jews have more susceptibility to certain diseases, and these trends prevail because of racial 'incest' over long periods of time. However, about 99.7% of all human DNA is the same. Obviously those with more similar ancestry will have slightly more shared genes, but it is so minimal. This is an emotional argument. As someone with Eastern European Jewish ancestry, I do a facepalm to this argument, and I do feel some anger that you would try such an emotionalistic approach. If someone killed 2 people because 1 + 1 = 2, would that make it wrong? No. Not saying Eugenics was right, but just because someone does something bad over a belief doesn't make it wrong, unless good deeds are inherent to that belief. "It is impossible to believe in God and in evolution. If one believes in God. .. then one would believe in the Bible. The Bible strictly says that God created Heaven and Earth. " That's for biblical literalists. You just used a No True Scotsman fallacy. People believe different things, even withing Christianity. there are over 10,000 denominations, all with different beliefs. "If anything was found against Evolution I KNOW that the word would never get out. " Well, scientists would be interested in disproving evolution. Since they used it to help medical technology (understanding bacterial evolution to ward off treatments), they would be interested in proving it false, and finding better ways to save lives. "Even is evolution was proved wrong with facts (which it is) the world would not acknowledge it. Humans are too stubborn, too self-willed. They do not want to submit to any authority, God or man. " That's not true at all. People have craved dictators. Stalin is still revered in some places. Hitler and Lenin and Mao all had the people's support coming into power. And the vast majority of the world is religious. The vast majority of the atheist population is declining, because they had atheism forced on them, and the rise in atheism is no longer part of communism, but an intellectual western movement. "Remember that time when you kicked and screamed for food? .. . I admit, I have done this. . .. He died for me. It's like some one taking your crime . .. onto himself, and you reject him. " Well, this is intellectually bankrupt. It is just a claim, nothing else. It appeals to emotions, and has no evidence. "Remember, I too have sinned but I am free because Jesus Christ our Lord died for me and rose again after the third day. " Again, where is the evidence? "Lastly - Sea anemones are not plants. They eat! They are animals! !! " Fine. I concede that. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (I chose Wikipedia because they explain it well. They cite their own sources) My opponent, in a single round has committed 4 logical fallacies. 1. Godwin's law, using Hitler when Hitler is not relevant to the discussion. 2. Appeal to emotions 3. The No True Scotsman fallacy Vote for me. Good job on your first debate