Creationism is real

"If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain." -Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change. 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? http://www.alienseekernews.com... Click the link it has an arguement Basically proving that giants existed and that God's word talks about it making it real and making god the creator If the universe is billions of years old, orbital mechanics require that spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters should have blurred or spun apart long ago. How do Big Bang advocates explain their present shape? Is there any direct evidence for the "missing mass" of the universe (Cold Dark Matter)? If science must always be open-minded and willing to revise or discard a theory if the evidence requires it. The fact that Darwinism is open to criticism and revision is clear enough in the current controversy over the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Over the past 130 years we have built on Darwin's theory and superabundantly substantiated it with all kinds of evidence he would never have dreamed of. Yet at the same time we have had to reject some of his conclusions, such as his mistaken concept of heredity. Nobody has been dogmatic about Darwinisn or considered it a sacred cow immune from attack. People build their scientific reputations around finding novel interpretations of nature; no one has ever become famous for doggedly defending old biological ideas. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total energy of a closed system must remain constant over time (with a tiny limitation imposed by the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, but that is not important here). For a theory about the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics, the theory must stipulate two distinct points in time (call them T and T*) such that the total energy of the universe at T and the total energy of the universe at T* do not match one another. The creationist argument implicitly assumes that Big Bang theory stipulates a time t < 0 prior to the origin of the universe, at which time there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist), which they contrast with the origin of the universe, when there presumably was (and since which there ever has been) a positive net balance of energy. We can consider this problem from both the perspective of general relativity alone and the perspective of quantum gravity. You may wish first to establish some background by reading section (i) of my reply to the assertion that Big Bang theory must be false, because something cannot come from nothing (i) If we use general relativity alone, then the origin of the universe is also the origin of spacetime. That means that on this view there can be no such thing as a time t < 0. But if there is no time t < 0 when there was no energy, then the presence of any amount of energy at t = 0 cannot violate the first law of thermodynamics. 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. (ii) If we add quantum mechanics to the picture, then we are faced with Lee Smolin's three options covered in the linked article above: (A) there is still a first moment in time; (B) the universe continues indefinitely into the past; (C) time breaks down in the very early universe. Scenario A does not violate the first law of thermodynamics for the reasons discussed above. Scenario B does not violate the first law of thermodynamics as long as the total energy of the universe remains constant at all times; unsurprisingly, models that actually fall under scenario B respect the first law of thermodynamics. I am still unclear about exactly how scenario C is supposed to work, but if there is no succession of time in the early the universe, then it would seem that the first law of thermodynamics cannot apply to the early universe, either. Because I dropped my first contention does not mean he should win It just means he has negated one of 3 contentions Therefore creationism must be real vote affirmative