Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

You wrote a huge dispute and this was the brief version..... holy crap. Anyways... i don't know if made a typo or you misread but the date the devonian era (when seed bearing plants first appeared) started was 146 million years ago, not 46 million. Okay well NerdvanaGirl made a good response highlighting the scientific and organisations who support the position of evolution and the fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old. However you seem to want more proof, and I can only guess you mean you want the raw studies and data and the theories that prove these positions, how they work, etc etc. I will try my best to find these specific pieces of information and explain them to you but these types of things just aren’t that easy to find. I have found one such site (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) that explains the origins of earth, radiometric dating, criticisms of the process, and refutations of such criticisms. However this point and some of the specifics, methodology and theory is beyond my comprehension or ability to research. But since I know that reputable scientists, such National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science accept these theories and have proven them that they are true. This is not based on belief, but on trust. Say for example, flying to the moon, or sending out deep space probes. I do not understand the technology or physics they use to do these things, but these are people who have spent their entire lives working in this field and studying a specific topic so I can assume they know what they are talking about, and to prove they do know what they are talking about and earn my trust, they have sent rockets to the moon and back, and other major feats. This type of accomplishment validates their claim that they know what they are talking about so I can trust that they are giving me the truth, even though I may not know how they got it. The fact that what they do is applicable and works, means I can trust the findings such reputable scientists present to me, and if the entire scientific community agrees with them, then I can safely trust that they are telling the truth. However the thing is you can’t really you use that same reasoning for the bible, because you cannot use the information from the bible to construct an accurate view of reality. If the bible, a book supposedly written by god, can make mistakes, then I don’t believe I can trust it. (side note, Science does make mistakes as well, but the difference is that they will admit their mistakes and pursue higher knowledge, because they are not interested in protecting their own ego, but interested in truth. To admit there are mistakes in the bible would mean god could be wrong, and since god can’t be wrong you must go against everything that contradicts the bible if you are to believe its validity). So, some of the things the bible tells me that are wrong includes: Leviticus 11: 13-19 tells me bats are birds, the word fowl means bird and we know that bats are not birds because they produce milk for their young (key feature of mammals), they do not have feathers, and their wing is anatomically different from a birds, Google image it if you want. For another problem with the bible let’s look at Noah’s Ark. Now I am way too lazy to type out the information I have but there is a youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g) that describes all of the facts and figures that make this story impossible, and thus fake. The parts which have factual content are from 0:00 – 3:23, and two other frames at 6:10 and 6:18 show other facts that support the claim that this story is impossible, and thus fake. Please ignore the terribly annoying voices of the two characters and listen to the facts presented. I am using these two case studies to show that the bible can be wrong, and thus it cannot be trusted for truth, especially if the Vatican cannot admit they are wrong. I would have less of a problem with the bible if the Vatican admitted that humans can make mistakes, but they don’t, they claim infallibility, no matter what evidence points to the contrary. Okay for your passage about sea monsters "God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good" Genesis 1:21, this doesn’t mention dinosaurs, only what you consider to be a sea monster. Aside from the fact that dinosaurs also existed on land, there is undeniable fossil evidence for that (unless you just say it’s fake… which it isn’t), this doesn’t mean dinosaurs. Isn’t it more likely that the when the people who wrote this book said sea monsters, they meant things like whales and sharks and giant squids, than dinosaurs. It seems like the gap from this quote of sea monsters to the bible recognized dinosaurs is too wide for me to bridge. I’m not going to rebuttal all of the rebuttals you made against the points raised by the sceptic’s annotated bible for discrepancies in the book of genesis simply because I do not have time to do in-depth factual double rebuttals for that many points. I’ll admit that many of them are weak but there are several instances in the bible, like I pointed out and thoroughly explained above, of scientific and logical failings. Sorry if you couldn’t access the document put out by the national academy of sciences, I see what page you went to and it wasn’t the correct one so don’t fret. Here is the link again (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=5) and if you look on the right hand side of the page you will see a table of contents, one part says the origin of the universe, earth and life 3-8, click that and you can use that button at the bottom to scroll through pages. You can look through those pages and some of the other ones listed in the table of contents if you like. There was one statement of yours I found kind of odd, here it is, “and finally the lack of time they put into their relationship with God as opposed to the time they put into seeking out faults in His Word”. If god really is god, then why would there be flaws in his world, if god is perfect, why would his work be anything less than perfect either. I mean he created it 100% on his own and there were still mistakes? This just seems somewhat antithetical to your overall notion that god is perfect and loving. And if you say there are faults because he created humans with free will who could choose to do evil, then our biology is at fault the faults in the world, and god is at fault for our biology, therefore god is still accountable for the faults in his world.For my final remarks what I have to say is that I am atheist not solely because I don’t like a book, a religion is more than that. And I am not atheist in the sense that I know there isn’t a god, because it is impossible to prove or disprove god, god is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, much like the claim that I can fly when no one is looking. But my understanding, and mankind’s collective understanding of the universe is enough on its own for me to explain reality and the world around me. God, to me, is an unnecessary hypothesis and I do not see the need to include him in my world view, and until some real evidence comes along to persuade me otherwise I won’t believe in God any more than I will believe in Zeus, leprechauns or a slim American.PS – just kidding about the Americans, I know they aren’t all fat. And thanks for the comment… as long as you weren’t being sarcastic (I find it tough to distinguish sarcasm in text), and the same to you as well.