Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

irst off, I think my opening point was that you sent me a bunch of links stating x amount of time then providing no evidence for the time period listed. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/plants/plantaefr.htmlhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/seedplants/ seedplantsfr.html A pretty picture:http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossil-art/geotime/dev/devlife/devonian-plants.htm And to facilitate this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DevonianAnd to demand evidence (which is notwithstanding forthcoming) from us is a little hypocritical, as all you cite is a book written before natural philosophy even began. is irrelevant as it is YOUR belief that dinosaurs existed millions of years before us therefore without evidence, your statement is worth nothing.The existence of dinosaurs is a scientific fact. Thousands of palaeontologists have laboured for over a century to produce incredible volumes of fossils, which can be dated to an era millions of years older than any human fossils.http://www.suite101.com/paleontologyhttp://www.paleoportal.org/http://www.paleosoc.org/ I must confess I was rather looking forward to something a little more challenging, but their argument is so obviously flawed and rather a waste of time.You haven't yet addressed any argument. You've simply quoted a book which has been proved to be erroneous (most saliently by the links above)."How many God's are there?" - I choose to put this one first as it is, in my opinion, the most stupid mistake they made. "And God said, let us make man in our image" - the site obviously have not been introduced to what God actually is - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - The Trinity. God is three divine Persons, therefore "us" refers to the three divine Persons. That in itself is enough explanation for the list of verses they blindly included below this one. Something that I did find amusing is that they actually included this verse last: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They even included that which refutes their whole argument! I think I can understand why they included it last ... As for the verses that speak about the god's of Israel, these are referring to the idols that the Israelites created such as the golden calf which Moses (a servant of God) broke and burned to the ground. Second argument: "When was Eve created?" - Again, they make an obvious blunder; both verses clearly state that Eve was created second. "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them". This verse is one of many short summary's that provide little detail due to the extensive detail Moses listed elsewhere. The 'opposing' verse they included was "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Again, Eve was created second, but this verse describes the event in much more detail. Third argument: "Does God respect a person?" Again, obvious faults: The verses given to show that God does respect man are all OT, and the verses that show that God does not respect man are NT, bar the top one which does not even use the word respect. What does this say? The NT is the time and after the time that God sent His only Son who was rejected and crucified, the OT is the time before God sent His only Son. Major differences here, which are self-explanatory. Fourth argument: "What is the human lifespan?" The 'opposing' verse again is very obvious; "Yet his days..." ; there is an obvious "yet" which implies that although there is a shorter lifespan (70), the days shall be 120.., hence the reason it didn't just say 'and his days will be' – which would infer it to be the ‘normal’ lifespan - it is "yet his days will be". Fifth argument (last argument, if you want more, just holler): "Who created the heavens and the earth?" Ahh this one made me smile. The two arguments were a) "God" and b) "God and Jesus". Wow, they really haven't heard of the Trinity have they? The two are one, including the Holy Spirit which makes it three. Furthermore, their 'opposing' argument in no way supported its cause. The two verses were in relation to a completely different subject.Two can play at this game. Upon what evidence do you base these claims, other than your manifesto (the bible)? How did you come to the conclusion you have expounded upon above? Have you submitted this hypothesis to a rigorous examination, cross-referenced with established philosophical principles?It really was quite an experience reading the so-called "discrepancies" which I have heard so much about from atheists. A part of me guessed that the discrepancies would be very obviously flawed (which they were) but still, it was rather amusing.As brevity is the soul of wit, I'll deal with only one discrepancy: why does the Book of Genesis state that humans were created less than one week after the Earth was initially formed, when the Earth was uninhabitable for billions of years after its formation by accretion? In your answer, do not include any quotations from the bible. This is a purely rational exercise.The link you gave me that supposedly tells a scientific story of how the world came about was typed in miniscule writing and I could not even find the theory or the pages you suggested I read. Is there a link on that link I am supposed to find? There was a page finder at the top so I fast forwarded to page three and I got a list of staff. Not sure what I am meant to be looking at...Grow up and find it yourself. The information is easily accessible by Google, and we cannot be expected to spoon feed it to you constantly. I... never "shy away" from the scriptures as I know they are true.How?It is these people I have no respect for due to their obvious lack of faithFaith is a weasel-word for gullibility.Of course, everyone differs here; some may have a scientific textbook that they find to be meaningful and obviously trueScientific textbooks contain knowledge. That is why rational people find them appealing. Scientists have observed the world and deduced how it works. You should not view science as dogma. Scientific models are given a far more rigorous scrutiny by the scientists themselves than you could ever hope to muster. Natural philosophers simply do not accept something until it is proven. I do not believe it is within my power to make these points in a more concise and succinct manner. I have sacrificed the usual flow of my diction and rendered some short, ugly sentences above to help you. but I personally find the Word of God to be the most reliant account of how this world began.That is because it appeals to you. Scientists care nothing for whether the truth is appealing or not, but incessantly contrive to establish it. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant to me; evolution is an established scientific theory, supported by scientific studies and experiments, has been directly observed in vitro and in vivoand does not conflict with other philosophical principles.The burden of proof is on you now, and you are clinging to your bible because you don't find the truth appealing, or can't admit that you're wrong.Grow up.