Creationism is real

>>>Question... How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years?<<< Even ASSUMING this fact is correct, since your source to this claim is from a Creationist video series, this isn't even a problem at all. Just because the brain has a maximum capacity for object X, doesn't mean that it HAS to have the maximum amount of object X. Just because we can memorize much more DOESN'T MEAN we have to store our brains until it's full. ===== Bones of a Giant ===== You know what's great about the internet? You can find tons of information, and tons of crap. Let me break down this so called evidence for Creationism: Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, the place where this photograph takes place, is a Creationist museum[1]. While this isn't proof against this photo, it definitely strikes down the credibility of this museum. Scientists go from facts to conclusion, while Creationists go from conclusions to facts. In fact, this museum is famous for it's many inaccuracies, and even outright hoaxes[2]. You should check that link, because the person who exposes it all is actually part of a Christian based science organization. But enough about their lousy reputation, what about the fossil of a giant femur? Well, I've seen this photograph a million times already, and it's a hoax. In fact, even the Mt. Blanco website admits that the femur was sculpted to "illustrate" a story[3][4]. These so called "photographic evidences" are plainly hoaxes. Also note that if a human were to be this tall (in comparison to the femur), this femur would NOT look like this. At this height, human bones would be much bigger and probably change (hollow interior, etc.). Also, the joints would have to be modified for the additional weight - the giants would look more like 4 legged dinosaurs in an awkward way. This is why movie monsters like King Kong and Godzilla can't exist - they are too big and oddly made for their size. When you increase the height of an animal, it's volume increases the same. So if a human were to be hypothetically 100 times bigger, then it'll be 100 times heavier. However, it's muscles and sinews would only make it 10 times stronger. So relatively speaking, it will overall become weaker and in fact would need a different skeletal composition to sustain the extra weight. Now apply this concept to the giant femur - do you really think nothing will be different? ===== Questions concerning the Big Bang, orbital mechanics, and cold dark matter ===== First, I find it quite displeasing that you just copy-pasted those from IRC.org (Creationist website). Likewise, since the character limit is 5,000 instead of 8,000, I don't have the appropriate space to attack your constant new arguments. However, I can do away with these three questions even though I'd be nice destroying it. Even if you disprove the current theory of Big Bang and so forth, it DOESN'T prove Creationism. To say so would be a false dichotomy. It's feasible that another explanation that isn't the current one or the Creationist one, is true. ===== Random paragraph about Darwinism ===== This isn't an argument, more like the introduction to an essay. I'm just saying this so naive voters won't say "HA! HE DIDN'T REFUTE THAT PARAGRAPH!" ===== First Law of Thermodynamics ===== It's disgustingly obvious that my opponent has copy-pasted yet another argument from somewhere. He's been doing this for the entire debate, and frankly, I'm getting annoyed by this. And what's hilarious is that this gigantic argument is an articulate contention AGAINST CREATIONISM. Just read the following: "I would like to interject that it is very odd that creationists would think that virtually the entire physics community would unwittingly come to accept a theory that violates one of the fundamental laws of physics." Yes, I would too. I would also like to interject that it's very humorous when my opponent not only shamelessly copy-pastes from a website, but he lacks the simple fortitude to check that he's copying the right argument. ===== Conclusion ===== I am absolutely unimpressed and disgusted. Unimpressed by the many arguments that my opponent has used and conceded. Disgusted by the wanton copy-pasting he has done throughout this debate. If he has no decency to type his own d*mn argument, then I dare say I won't take up a debate with him next time. Anyway, his argument has been sufficiently refuted, vote CON. ---References--- 1. http://www.mtblanco.com... 2. http://www.asa3.org... 3. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us... 4. http://www.mtblanco.com...