Debate: Evolution is a lie
Side: True

9) Here's the thing about fossils... If you go to any dinosaur museum it will say that they have been preserved due to sediment and mud flow. We find fossils wide spread across the globe, which implies that not only could a great flood have happened but it is required to have happened. Geologists say that every place on earth has been covered by water at some point or another... this is why we find fossilized sea creatures everywhere on earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/fossils  "Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms... One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘. . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.'" The archaeopteryx is a forgery... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html  "Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding the real alleged missing link between dinosaurs and birds." http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=918  Think through this... the back of the head and the eye brow ridge for humans grows for life... just like all lizards grow until they die... now, if Adam lived 930 years, could it be possible that the eye brow ridge and the head were larger? This would also explain the dinosaurs. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210170623.htm  "Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no 'missing link.'... However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz." Here is some more about "missing links:" "Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?" http://www.icr.org/article/2709/ Here is more.... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html 10) He is begging the question, "how did life arise in the first place?" He automatically assumes that life can arise from non-life without any proof of such. Second. he also says that we are animals even though there is no proof that we are but by the evolutionary definition of what an animal is. This also explains why the Bible calls the bat a bird; there are different definitions. It is merely an attack to show that creationists are stupid when it truly revolves around opinion. Special creation implies a common designer just as evolution can imply a common ancestor (regardless of if there were more than one origin bacteria). If there were no other living things that are common to one another then no organism would be able to digest a different organism. I am not denying all the similarities between animals; however, saying that because they are common proves evolution is a pre biased fallacy.11) Micro-evolution is different from macro. There has been no evidence of macro-evolution as presented in the rebuttal to video 9 because there are no transitional fossils. His entire argument is based on what he thinks has already been proven. There is no evidence of a kind drifting away from their own kind to a point in which neither can reproduce. What I mean is that dogs can still breed with other dogs regardless of if they are different types of dogs. A kind is something that can reproduce with one another. Here is part of my post to another person: "http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm 'So exactly why can’t microevolution lead to macroevolution? In order for this to happen, something very fundamental must occur: new genetic information must arise in an organism. The organism must then pass on its genes on to its descendents, and with later accumulations of changes over several generations, eventually macroevolution will occur. This theory actually seems pretty logical, yet as logical as it may seem, it is not what we observe when microevolution occurs. In fact, we observe exactly the opposite of what must happen if microbe-to-man evolution is true. And that is, we see organisms become more specialized as they adapt to their environment, or when speciation occurs. Sometimes these changes might even be beneficial despite being an overall loss of information. For example, beetles on a windy island will sometimes lose their wings due to a degenerative mutation.[2] This mutation is actually beneficial in this circumstance because the beetles aren’t able to fly and be blown off into the ocean. But even though this mutation is beneficial, it still resulted in a net loss of information.; Even a biased source for evolution agrees... http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html  'So there are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.'" The same biased source agrees again: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html  and http://www.discovery.org/a/18121 "NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change... The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a 'species' is defined by the standard definition of a 'reproductively isolated population.'"12) I’m not denying that people lie a lot. But he is also implying that evolutionists do not lies. As can be seen in the video series, there are a lot of lie! Look at the Discovery Institute. There is a difference between creationism, which is putting religion first, and intelligent design, which is putting science first. Intelligent design makes reasonable sense just as most people think that evolution makes logical sense. The origin of the term "science" really means "knowledge" and has changed over time to be defined differently and only applied to the natural world. "The word science comes from the Latin 'scientia,' meaning knowledge." http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html  His entire argument is based on modern definition of science. There have been no scientific breakthroughs because of evolution "science." http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf  Question number 13.13) I have seen a text book with Haeckel's drawings... it was in psychology class. As can be seen in the video series, this is false. Next, we have to get something straight. Kent Hovind was put in prison for "tax evasion" not fraud unless you want to consider tax evasion as fraud. His family and friends think that he was put there because of his video attacking the illuminati, which shows that he might not be guilty. Next, we have all done something wrong so that does not discredit him. Finally, his entire ministry was tax exempt because he was fighting against evolution being a tax funded expenditure. He had every right to not pay taxes because it is called "passive protest." All of Kent Hovind's information is more than likely true and has just as much credibility as the man in these videos does, if not more. Here are the frauds for the missing links: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html/  You can also look at "Understanding the Times" teachers edition videos that show why the "missing links are false. Multiple citations against them, just type in on google each individual one you want to learn about. See other post about the size of human heads and eye brows being actual evidence for the Bible.14) God is evident but that doesn't mean that people believe it. Some people create illogical thoughts and some people create rational thoughts. For some people, they will see skid marks on a road and think that someone painted it there while other will clearly think it was from a car because it is obvious. This also goes into Biblical ideas about how people suppress the truth for lies so that they can believe that they will not have to stand before God in the end. http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html  and law of biogenesis. Why do you think a building has a builder? Or does it? You think this because it is there not because you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste the builder but because the fact that it is there implies it is created. We have never observed anything coming from nothing, therefore, everything had to come from something and since nature cannot do this on its own a God is required to understand this. Yet again, he was not a fraud he was tax evasionist. Get facts straight. Ad hominem attack on Christians being primitive? You can advocate creation through Jesus: http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg79644  Creationists do look at the world with a biased; however, so do evolutionists. Everyone has a bias. However, Intelligent Design does the very same thing that evolution does (Discovery Institute). Also, those who fight saying that a person has a closed mind usually is himself closed minded. Saying that creationists have never disproven evolutionist facts is not an argument because we have, just some people deny it. It goes both ways. They say we don’t have proof, we say they don’t have proof. His entire argument is based on opinion not fact.15) Citing Men in Black can be argued against evolution just as it can be argued against religion. Actually, saying that all the religions believed the earth was flat is incorrect. The early Christians denied this: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/12/contra-mundum-the-flat-earth-myth.html  The Bible verses that people think say the earth is flat are metaphors. I don't deny that science believes evolution to be true and that a "theory" is basically saying it is fact. That still does not negate the fact that they could be wrong. However, in fact this proves that evolution is hegemonic and that the "scientific bourgeois" rules over young adults. It is not free thinking to be an evolutionist now and because of this, it proves that no person who is not an evolutionist is closed-minded but instead open-minded to the thoughts of the supernatural. Think of this, "1 Corinthians 1:27, "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;" Read Romans 1 and 2 Peter 2... These are prophecies of atheism. Intelligent Design actually has a multitude of evidence in support of it... this is not saying the Christian God is right but saying that the evidence points towards some sort of intelligent being designing us. They consider that an alien could have put us together, etc. He just said at about 8:00 in part 2, "Now, very early explanations of the universe are as yet unknown because our current theories are insufficient to explain it." What he said refutes his entire arguments in part 1 and part 2 of his 15th falsehood. He contradicts himself.