Evolution

The ordering of the letter of our DNA, A, T, C, G, determines the characteristics of each living organism. So if the DNA is completely alien to anything we have on this planet, obviously the organism will also be unlike anything we have on this planet. Each cell contains 9 feet of DNA, so in an average meal, we eat about 55 million cells, which amounts to 93, 205 miles of DNA. Since Pro is so sure that we could survive eating 93, 205 miles of alien DNA, I suppose if an alien space ship were to crash land on earth, he"d be the first to say, "let eat the alien bodies; don"t mind they are so radically different to any food on earth, they can"t be any worse than MacDonald"s. " This is wishful thinking, and pure speculation. God made all our foods with similar DNA to us so we could eat them. Alien nutrients would obviously be radically different from the nutrients we have in our earthly foods. Even the so-called new DNA he claims we created still has the same A, T, C, G base, just with two additions. I"d like to see him show me DNA with none of the four letters we are accustomed to, and name the person who ingested in and lived. I wouldn"t be so foolish to let myself be the guinea pig for that experiment, and hope he wouldn"t either. "What's more logical? That God just "poofed" more animals into existence? Or that they slowly transformed over millions of years? " Just think, this question comes from a man who claims to believe in God, so I ask him which is more logical, that God made a vast empty universe, and then life accidentally came into being and evolved without his involvement? That the Creator of it all simply doesn"t care about his own creation? That we, despite God"s existence, were not even made by him, but by blind chance? Is all that really more likely than creation by God? One would think that if God "poofed" the first people into existence, he can "poof" a few animals from time to time. Why would that be too extraordinary for God? If, as he admits, God does exist, then what makes creation by God so unlikely? What kind of God would create an entirely empty universe and not put any life in it, all these countless billions of light years worth of space, and for what? He claims that "evolution becomes more rapid as time goes on," but he hasn"t proven any of the dates he assigns to the fossils, so again, how does he know? He doesn"t, its speculation. I can say that 3-5 = -2, and that would be mathematically correct. But in reality if I only have 3 apples I cannot subtract 5 apples from them. There is no such thing as -2 apples in the real world. Similarly, evolutionist have equations they use to calculate the half-life of C-14, but they have no real life test that can show the validity of these equations in the real world. Sure, it makes sense on paper, but no one can observe C-14 for 2, 570 years to see if it really takes that long to decay, and thus prove the equation right or wrong. My opponent said that some elements of carbon decay within seconds, and yet, these are not ones being used to date fossils in millions of years. Every single radiometric dating technique used to date fossils in millions of years has a half-life longer than any human could live to observe. So this is pure speculation. The half-life given for Potassium-40 to Argon-40 is 1.26 billion years; from Thorium-230 to Radium-226 is 75, 000 years; from Uranium-235 to Lead-207 is 700, 000 million years, and Uranium-238 to Lead-206 is 4.5 billion years. . http://www.google.com... So lets not be fooled by my opponent"s distraction with this idea of elements with very short half-lives of only a second, or two and a half seconds, because none of these are used to get the dates he presented in this debate. And he merely claims they are used but doesn"t tell us how. Obviously if something decays in a matter of seconds, all of it will be gone long before we get to a million years, let along a billion. After all, how large are the samples anyway? Nor does he address the problem of simultaneous decay. Its not like carbon atoms in the head are waiting till the ones in the tail have decomposed to begin decay, so you just don"t get millions of years. Tests, experiments, and observations should be carried out to confirm the validity of equations, but none have been presented by my opponent to show the half-lives are correct in his dating scheme. Thus, again, its not science, but speculation. Pro asked, "Why would God decide to create all of these beings that came way before us such as dinosaurs? " What"s his alternative? He says that he believes in God, so what kind of evil god is this he believes in that didn"t create us and cares nothing about us? I don"t need to know why God made the dinosaurs anymore than I need to know why he made centipedes, I only need to know the purpose for my own life, and he has shown me. And millions of other people out there have experienced what I"m experiencing, a relationship with God. These people are not mad, in fact, some are incredible intelligent. When I see the power of the sun, the vastness of the universe, and the enormous fossil of a dinosaur, it amazes me at the greatness of this God who made it all. How wise, powerful, and incredible he must be. Maybe he made it all to show his glory, his power, his magnificence. In Pro"s link we are told that 238 U has a half life of 4.5 billion years. . http://www.hps.org...... The example they gave to calculate this began with these word: "suppose we isolate 5.00 mg of pure 238UO2, which contains 4.41 mg of 238U. " Now let"s be realistic, which I don"t think evolutionists are doing. If it takes 4.5 billion years just for half of this tiny sample, just 4.41 mg to decay, we could calculate backwards to test their equations by dividing half of 4.41 (which is 2.205) by 4.5 billion to get the amount that is supposed to decay each year, a figure so unimaginably small that it simply would be to small to even be detected. This all chunks down to speculation. Pro thinks he is very similar to a chimpanzee because they have similar physical traits. Let"s compare a chimp to me, now a chimp has fur all over, not a predominantly hairless body as I do, it walks on all fours most of the time (not erect like me), it cannot speak English and shows no ability to fully understand other languages, it cannot do complex mathematics as I do, nor appreciate art, beauty, or do self-reflection; it has no moral code. No, I"m no where close to being like a chimpanzee no matter how much DNA it has like mine. My opponent claims I misunderstood the Scientific American article, just look at it for yourself and ask yourself this: can I use all my memory capacity in my lifetime? If your answer is no, Pro stands refuted. Jesus said that God created us. If Jesus didn't exist as my opponent claimed, we don't have to take him seriously, but I have shown that he existed and most historians agree that he did. If Jesus was just a nobody, or some ordinary preacher, we wouldn't have to care what he said, but via his resurrection, his claims to be the Son of God, and full revelation of God to man were vindicated. This is why we have to take him so seriously when he says that we were created by God. Not by evolution, not by some blind, random, accidental mutation, but by God, who has a purpose for us. This is why I gave evidence for the resurrection such as the empty tomb, the appearances, and origin of the disciples belief. Pro didn't refute any of these, nor present any reasonable naturalistic explanation except to fly in the face of historical scholarship by denying the existence of Jesus. Indeed, I'd love him to challenge me to a debate on the existence of Jesus. If we were created by God as Jesus says we were (and Jesus quoted from Genesis, showing that he believed the Biblical account of creation), that leaves no room for evolution. My opponent couldn't even address the image on the Shroud to any degree that would make me even doubt its authenticity, so again we have good reason to accept Christ Jesus as who he claimed to be via the miraculous image encoded on the Shroud. Pro speculated about the dates of his fossils, his sources give no rational method of determining these dates, no tests to show the validity of the equations used to get the half-lives were shown, Pro didn't show any example how elements with short decay rates could get him to millions of years, nor has there been any observation to prove the long decay rates, so he hasn't upheld his burden of proof to show the dates of these fossils were as he says. This is important because if for example only a hundred years separated fossils which he claims require millions of years between them, his theory would need to be revised. He's the one claiming evolution only occurs over millions of years to get the radical changes. No one has ever observed evolution, just slight variation in creatures, but bacteria always remain bacteria, viruses remain viruses, dogs remain dogs, humans remain humans, and based on this natural observation I predict it will remain this way. Pro is speculating that what no one has ever observed, and isn't being observed now, will happen in the future.