Creation vs Evolution: Origin of Life and Modern Man.

Con said "I have found NUMEROUS articles and scientific study that our evolution of man, homo sapien, has been around for around 200,000 years. " You can believe that all you want, but just because you write it down doesn't make it true. When I debate someone it's usually nice to get more than a few sentences as clarification or "proof", but if this is all you can say about the theory of evolution then this won"t be a very hard debate. You said "Scientific fact has completely botched your first argument that, "everything was created by the Judeo-Christian God about 7,000 years ago. "" Says who? Are you going to expound on this sentence a little? "In conclusion, I have already defeated PRO's argument that he said he will be debating. " Really? I think you're wrong. In fact, evolution is just a fairy tale. . http://thetruthwins.com... Do you see the problem with your logic? Writing a sentence and putting a link under it is not debating. If I just wanted to read wikipedia or bbc I wouldn't be debating you right now. Even though you basically just wrote down a bunch of links as your argument, I still read them and this is what I found. The npr. org article was basically a timeline. It had no proof and didn"t even say how they dated these ancient humans. The Universetoday. com link again was just a timeline and it actually seemed to talk more about pollution and walking on the moon than about 200,000 year old humans. If you're going to provide links as evidence can you please at least read the full article. Next up we have the bbc. com link. Again it was just a timeline with zero proof. The article literally had the words "recent findings" and "fossil record" but that was as scientific as it got. No proof or explanation as to how they made up the idea of ancient humans. The earthmagizine. org link did not work. Lastly we have the wikipedia link which was sadly the most in depth and scientific of all the links Con gave me. I"m going to be honest though and say that I did not want to read that whole page and check all 231 sources, did you? So if Con has a point please narrow it down and don't just send me a link, otherwise the next thing I know we may just be sending each other books to read instead of actually having a debate. Now that I got that out of the way I would like to explain why I am right, and why my belief is the most logical of the two. The fact is that there are only two ways two look at the universe. Either it was brought into existence by a creator or it just happened. Both ideas are hard to believe and almost harder to imagine, but one of these is right. Scientists say that God isn't part of science because you can"t test him, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. By that logic the big bang can't have happened because we can't see it, we can't recreate it, we can't go back in time and test it, and it defies the laws of physics. Here are the biggest problems with Con's argument. Macroevolution has never been observed, and is not possible. If macroevolution is not possible then the theory of evolution has already lost, so I challenge Con to give me at least one example of macroevolution. The second and biggest problem is that Con has to argue for the existence of life without God. This has never been observed. Life cannot come from non-life. I challenge Con to give me just one example of life coming from non-life. Now as you would expect if the Bible was correct science would show a young earth. And it does. The moon is estimated to be 4.53 million years old and 238,900 miles away from earth. The moon moves away from the earth every year. If the moon were more than 1.5 billion years old it would have to have been touching the earth. Even if the moon did not recede this fast as most all evolutionists claim, the tides caused by the moon would cause many problems for all life on earth. [1] Then there are the comets. If our galaxy was as old as evolutionists say it is, we shouldn't have comets. The lifespan of a comet is only a few thousand years, any longer and it melts. How does our solar system have comets if evolutionists claim it's 4.6 million years old? [2] We also find evidence for a flood such as seashells at the top of Mount Everest and many other mountains. Things like these collaborate the Genesis account and provide evidence for the theory of a young earth. [3] In conclusion I think the creationism is the most logical and scientific explanation of the world today. Thank you. [1]. https://answersingenesis.org... [2]. http://creation.com... [3]. http://www.creationscience.com...