Atheism Evolution vs Creation by God

I really don't care if I win or lose the debate according to voting standards. Nobody hardly votes on this site anyways. Website are mostly bias, so why would I post a site that supports me based on our bias that we share. It's better to look at both sides in your own research and figure out who supports their claims with the most facts, evidence and logic. It would do you no good for me to post my manuscript sites, because you probably can't read Hebrew or Aramaic, and if you can, you probably can't understand. correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't get my manuscript evidence from the internet to begin, but I have checked out the claims later (Not during this debate) and it would take me just as long to find the good sites again as it would you. I guess I will try to suffice you anyway, I apologize: http://tanakh.info... http://www.truthnet.org... http://en.metapedia.org... This last one posted is a good one and I suggest you read the section about contradictions. While the masoretic text and the Septuagint have a couple of inconsistencies, the Aramaic Peshitta has hardly any. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.skypoint.com... These tell a little about the Aramaic Peshitta New Covenant. But the main topic is not "manuscript evidence." It is "Creation by God." Don't complain about sarcasm, everybody does it. mir"a"cle G2;mirək(ə)l/ noun a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. "the miracle of rising from the grave" https://www.google.com... A miracle is something that specifically can not be explained through science. I gave examples of proof of claimed miracle from the scriptures and you have tried to explain them with science, But I will now show how your rebuttal is flawed: Geysers: You say that you have recorded water coming out of a rock. I would like to see, if possible, this recording. Did it gush out in a way that split the rock completely in half and leave erosion marks all around and inside that would be visible years later? For some reason I doubt this, but show me. Were there any like it around the same place? The rock I'm talking about Is 45-50 feet tall and is the only one in the area, or in the world that is split from top to bottom with erosion all over. A simple geyser would not leave erosion marks. Erosion takes time. Our story tells us that the water continued to flow from the rock for a while, giving us water in the desert. Obviously this would cause erosion. Here Is a link to see "The Rock at Horeb": http://splitrockresearch.org... Your link about Ararat only gave me a little information about HOW they know when and how this mountain formed and didn't tell who even did the studies. It sounded more like a guess as to when and how it was formed. And how would they know when it was formed, carbon dating? I already explained how carbon dating is very faulty. Here is something recent that happened (18 years ago) In 1996 up at Berkeley University, they used two advanced and different dating methods, the bones of "Erectus" were found to be between 53,000 to 27,000 years old. That's a 96% error. It's not getting better with time. I do not stand with the dating claims about the wood of the formation. I see too much error in carbon dating to trust it. I don't have to pick which I believe. I am against carbon dating 100%. And you are correct, all we can do is speculate. But I'd say logic says it was a boat. It it being a boat supported your evolution theory you would support it whole heatedly knowing that it looks like it was obviously a boat. But since it would support rather a big flood, you ignore logic. But moving on... There are good reasons for all the things you mentioned and sited to be found in the bottom of the sea as they are all things that relate to a sea ship of some sort or something that would go on a ship. But and army of chariots in one spot at the Red Sea where the scriptures just so happened to claim the parting of the sea and drowning of the Egyptians has no good scientific explanation. Your water elevation land bridge argument doesn't work and actually made me laugh. You want me to believe that an army of chariots hung out at that spot and just sat there for thousand of years until the water level started flooding the area and then just stayed until they were buried in water? That's hilarious! That's the only way that could work! The Red Sea currents would not explain how the chariots got in the water in the first place. And if it was the currents that put the chariots there, the chariots would be scattered all along the Red Sea. But they're not, they're only in one spot. Also, the chariots are found in a spot in the Red Sea where the ocean floor is significantly raised. If they got there by current, there would be no way of getting them to the top of the raised ocean floor. Instead the rise in the ocean floor would act as a stopper preventing the chariots to continue down current. Here is a good link about these chariots: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Here is a video about Sinai and the split rock: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... For the petrified trees: http://www.youtube.com... Please explain... Now to the quantum theories. I said don't use a theory to support you evolution theory at hand. Use fact. You can talk about your evolution theory all you wand just Like I can talk about my Creation "theory" all I want in this debate. But I am not using other theories to support my Creation "theory" and simply ask that you don't either. Let's stick to facts and evidence please. Ok you aren't getting the idea of nothing and it's quite funny. Nothing can not exist. If it existed, it wouldn't be nothing. Nothing is the abstract concept of non existence. noth"ing G2;nəTHiNG/Submit pronoun 1. not anything; no single thing. "I said nothing" synonyms:not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought https://www.google.com... Evolution: I know that living organisms adapt to their environments in different ways. But only on a small scale withing its own kind. Not from kind to kind. I apologize for the lack of sites.