Evoltution v. Intelligent Design

Rebuffs: Pro maintains the stance that there are no inconsistencies in evolution. The most obvious rebuff of this is the lack of missing links - a point even admitted by Darwin in chapter three of the Origin of Species. According to a respected scientist, Dr. Hovind, evolutionary theory errors in four areas - 1) The assumption that the universe is billions of years old; 2) Life coming from non-living minerals; 3) mutations creating or improving a species; and 4) Natural selection having creative power. I cannot begin to break down all that means in the space allotted, but "Pro" can surely imagine what each point means because it sums up most of what I have already stated. If I were able to demonstrate to "Pro" that the world is only seven thousand years old, then that would dis-spell the first major tenant of evolution, "the earth and the natural organisms in the earth have been evolving over billions of years. " Here are a couple abstract facts that limit the age of the earth. The shrinking of the sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "millions of years. " The sun is in a constant state of shrinking both in mass and diameter. This change has been consistent since the beginning. If the world is indeed billions of years old, the sun's mass would have upset the gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance to maintain and support life [1]. The moon is traveling inches away from earth every year [2]. This change has been charted for nearly half a century. If the world were truly billions of years old, the moon would have been so close to the earth as to have been nearly touching it. But surely, the tides would have overtaken most of the world in a great flood only paralleled by the Noahic flood. If "Pro" wishes, there are many more of these "anomalies" that I am perfectly willing to share. Enough otter space evidences, are there any fossils or occurrences on earth that suggest that the world cannot be billions of years old? This evidence is courtesy of the great American novelist, Samuel Clemens. The Mississippi river has been shrinking consistently since it was first discovered by Hernando de Soto in the 1500's. If this rate had been constant for billions of years, the Mississippi river would have been millions of miles long also. However, my opponent will probably refute most of what I have stated by saying that he is not a Uniformatarianist, and that he does not believe that these processes have been occurring because the earth is billions of year old, and had these been happening the situation on earth would be dire indeed. This is circular reasoning, another tactic that evolutionists have perfected. But still, there is more evidence that suggests that the world is only a few thousand years old. The current population (over seven billion) could have easily spawned from eight people in a little over four thousand years. Evidence, human growth trends, even suggests that this was in fact the case. If that is not enough to give credence to intelligent design, the oldest coral reef in the world in 4200 years old; the oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old. Is it not ironic that all three of these fact coincide? Christians believe that the flood occurred over four thousand years ago, which also happens to be the life time of the oldest living organisms. Whether one believes in evolution or not, one would have to admit the existence of a world-wide flood. Not only does the Bible talk of such, but over 250 legends of world-wide floods had been found as of 1980. The flood was a very catastrophic happening that killed all beings that were on the earth except for the people and animals who entered the ark. Some Bible Science: By the way, I love the way that you compared the Bible to a Spider Man comic. The Bible is the single most respected and read book in the entire world, and if "Pro" does not understand why, then he cannot be helped. Evolution leaves humanity hopeless and alone, the Bible gives hope and incentive to live uprightly. Of course, Santa Claus does too, so why would "Pro" care? Also, "evolving morals" is a ludicrous concept. In order to win this debate, it would help if my opponent did not exist. So, I am going to utilize my powers of pragmatism, because it is beneficial to me, and I will hire and hit man to fly to Zagreb and get the job done. If everyone did what they thought was best, there would would be more murders, rapes, and theft then there are today. What "Pro" does not understand is the depravity of man, but alas, I will talk no further on the subject. The Noahic flood is a integral part of intelligent design. The world, as we know it today, was not per se "created" by God, but rather, judged by God. The world that God created was a perfect biosphere in which there was not decay and no limit to growth (which is where dinosaurs come from, reptiles who never stopped growing). During the flood, the "depths opened," this created a vacuum of sorts which sucked the living organisms in, compressed them and mixed them, and over the years, these destroyed living organisms turned into minerals and fossil fuels that we use today [3]. In nineteenth century America, whaling was a fairly large industry, one that Herman Melville wrote of in his novel Moby Dick. The oil found in whales was in fact a form of petroleum, but since petroleum deposits were so scarce in that day, American fishermen would hunt whale. During the flood, large creatures (such as the whale) were "swallowed up" by the earth and they rotted producing the great deposits that now exist today. The fumes from the decay of the organic substances created immense amounts of pressure, which is now used to generate electricity (Natural Gas). This is a highly reasonable and very likely explanation for much of the rock formations today that are used to by evolutionist to "prove" evolution. But enough Bible science. "Pro" included an example of Archaeopteryx, which, according to my thought process (my lowly irrelevant thought processes) was immune system at work, not evolution. For a few moments, I want discuss the Big Bang Theory. As mass compresses into a ball the size of a nickel, then, it explodes, and all the rock balls it formed find a star to circle around, evolution begins on earth, and that is how we got here today. I'm not intellectual, which I'm sure you can tell, but that is not scientific at all. To test this experiment, I got some of my friends, and we went to a park. Here in America, there are these things called merry-go-rounds, except for, these ones have no horses; just three bars that you hold onto. We got the thing going round and round really fast, and in our stupid American way, told the guys on the spinning saucer to jump off. Well, they all came spinning off, but they all fell down, dizzy, and in no humor to get back up. Now that you have read that, we can thoroughly discus the spinning nickel theory. First of all, then the guys came spinning off the saucer, they were all rotating in the same direction. This is supposedly what occurred with the universe, and yet there are several planets that spin "backwards," such as Venus. This in it of itself refutes the Big Bang Theory, but there is more evidence that refutes it. Whenever has an explosion created order? The two largest explosions (meaning the largest explosions of lasting impact, not the ones that have never been used such as the Hydrogen bomb) were at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Both were scenes of massive devastation in 1945 when bombs were dropped on each of them. Explosions create disorder, not order. "Pro" claims that creation is not a hypothesis; it is, and it is this - The universe that exists today maintains a delicate balance and intelligent life that can only be explained in this, the existence of an Almighty and all powerful God who created it. It is also a scientific theory because there is much evidence that suggest the world is, in fact, young. This is where I stand, and here I firmly stand. Creation coincides with science, and science proves creation. 1) R. Kippenhahn, Discovering the Secrets of the Sun, Wiley Press, 1994. 2) . http://english.pravda.ru... 3) . http://www.sjvgeology.org...