Debate: Does God exists?
Side: God doesn't exists

(Part 2)The Bible contradicts science: (continued)From http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/ speciation.html --------------------------------------"[T]he global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data. Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires. There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply could not support that many organisms.""In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities.""The opossum, for example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of 70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood deposits-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and after the Flood.""They assume the aquatic creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers of fresh and saltwater. However, if the Flood was a global event, the floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is adapted to live within a particular salinity range. Organisms on the ocean floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water pressure. It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say accompanied the Flood.""Most plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence in water, particularly salt water, for many months. Those that did survive would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood model.""[W]e would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm.""Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?""If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?""[T]he Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest.""[N]owhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim.""Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been carefully thought through."Greg Moore creationist that believes in an old earth. (further references within article)--------------------------------------Additionally, I gave the first few I thught of which occur before the biblical flood myth and make extremely laughable assertions:- that there was an earth with water on it before there was a sun (Genesis 1)- that plants and trees existed before there was a sun (Genesis 1)- that there was night and day before there was a sun (Genesis 1)- that the moon is a source of light rather than just reflective (Genesis 1)- that birds existed before reptiles (Genesis 1)- that the sons of God came down and married the daughters of man and had children (Genesis 6 just before the flood myth begins)There are certainly more.the trilobyte/footprint has been debunked for more than 30 yearsFrom http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html --------------------------------------"The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half."The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line" (emphasis added - people can see the photos for themselves by following the link above)--------------------------------------From http://ncse.com/cej/2/4/tripping-over-trilobite-study-meister-tracks --------------------------------------"I unhesitatingly assert that this is not a footprint. I have observed and collected a number of types of footprints that meet all the critical requirements, and I have had no qualms about describing these in print even though some were totally new. The Meister specimen is the result of a natural break, which happens to resemble a footprint. This type of fracture is called spalling and the part which breaks out or is detached is called a spall.The specimen was in no sense faked, and I am sure it was found exactly as reported. But I, along with my geologist friends, are equally sincere in my belief that it is an accidental natural product and not a footprint.One might think a difference of opinion such as this could be solved by appeal to impartial judges or by a more thorough investigation of the field of evidence. But from the time of discovery, the specimen has taken on a religious significance that makes a friendly solution almost impossible."Dr. William Stokes - Bachelors and Masters from BYU, Ph.D in geology from Princeton University in 1941 and Professor at the University of Utah for more than 32 years (headed of Department of Geology for 13 years). Additionally, a Mormon who tried to convince other Mormons that evolution was compatible with scripture.--------------------------------------The evidence you gave for dinosaurs not being lizards was really badExceprts from http://genesispark.com/essays/lizards/--------------------------------------"It is a fact that many reptiles may continue to grow throughout their lives, so some creationists have simplistically postulated that a dinosaur (“terrible lizard”) is merely the result of having a lizard live much longer than today in the favorable environment of the early earth." (emphasis added)"What would a lizard that lived for centuries look like? The answer is that it would still be a lizard, not a dinosaur.""lizards and dinosaurs belong to different subclasses within the class Reptilia.""The most striking characteristic of the Archosauria is the triradiate pelvis. In the Lepidosauria (including lizards) the ilium extends dorsally, articulating with two, unfused, sacral vertebrae. The ischium and pubis are parallel to the ground surface, and fused in the midline (Romer, A. S., Osteology of the Reptiles, 1956, p. 320.). In the archosaurs (including dinosaurs), the ilium is expanded along its dorsal margin, and articulates with three or four fused vertebrae. The ischium extends posteroventrally and the pubis anteroventrally. The pubes and ischii are fused laterally for most of their length.""The teeth in lepidosaurs are pleurordont. That is, they are set in a long groove in the jaws with a high outer and low inner wall. The individual teeth are fused to the outer wall of the groove without roots. In the archosaurs the teeth are thecodont. They are set in deep individual sockets which enclose the long, cylindrical root of the tooth. There are also lower jaw distinctions with the lepidosaurs having a more developed coronoid process, which forms the upper margin of the mandible behind the dentary bone.""In the lepidosaur skull (See Romer, fig 62, p. 114.) the maxilla is firmly joined with the lachrimal and jugal bones, and there is no anteorbital fenestra (opening in the skull in front of the eye). In the archosaurians the maxilla forms the anterior border, and the lachrimal and jugal the posterior border of a large anteorbital fenestra. In the archosauria both the quadrate and quadratojugal bones form the jaw articulation, while in the lepidosaurs the quadrate forms the articulation.""Another key distinctive is the single headed ribs of a large monitor lizard (Varanus) compared with the double-headed ribs of a superficially similar dinosaur, like Thecodontosaurus. There are also substantial differences in terms of locomotion/posture. From their skeletons, we believe dinosaurs had an upright stride (with legs typically falling straight down like a dogs), while a lizard’s limbs are sprawled out to the side.""The dinosaurs appear to have had a much more “hot blooded” metabolism than do lizards. Lizards are unqualified ectotherms (without a way to make their own body heat), growing slowly and taking years to reach sexual maturity. They do not deposit fibrolamellar bone, a dense, interwoven tissue indicative of fast growth and high basal metabolism. Lizards also do not form large amounts of Haversian canals (channels running through a bone in which blood vessels and nerves are located); which are another indicator, though not unambiguous, of higher metabolism and growth rates. Dinosaurs display them (especially evident in juvenile dinosaur bones).""There is good evidence for differences in physiology as well. The dinosaurs appear to have had a much more “hot blooded” metabolism than do lizards. Lizards are unqualified ectotherms (without a way to make their own body heat), growing slowly and taking years to reach sexual maturity. They do not deposit fibrolamellar bone, a dense, interwoven tissue indicative of fast growth and high basal metabolism. Lizards also do not form large amounts of Haversian canals (channels running through a bone in which blood vessels and nerves are located); which are another indicator, though not unambiguous, of higher metabolism and growth rates. Dinosaurs display them (especially evident in juvenile dinosaur bones).""There are very distinctive differences in the skeletons. These differences, not size, are the distinguishing characteristics of dinosaurs."--------------------------------------Additionally, I mentioned bone histology (analysis of lines of arrested growth, etc.) and the fact that the overgrown lizard hypothesis would rule out young dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs, of which there are many fossils. Just because something is named lizard doesn't actually make it a lizard. I have a friend named Lizy and her ears will grow her entire life - how old will she have to live until she (or just her ears) will become a dinosaur?"... and uncredible."Dr. Don Batten got his Ph.D. from the University of Sydney and worked for 20 years as a research horticulturalist. Moreover, Dr. Batten is a creationist! and rotating editor of Creation magazine so his motivation is not to bash other creationists, just ignorant ones.Though your profile does say you are in college, so you at least (presumably) have your high school diploma...it does not reject them being overgrown lizards.Not sure if you have a reading comprehesion issue or just one of cognitive dissonance, but it very plainly rejects exactly that. Different skulls, jaws, teeth, pelvis, vertebrae, ribs, posture, locomotion, bone tissue and structure, growth rate, and metabolism = pretty different.reliance on evidence that you otherwise discount -What?You (wrongly) assert that geologists believe that the cataclysmic event that wiped out the dinosaurs involved water and buried dinosaurs in mud and sediment flow as support for the flood. In reality, they believe that a meteor struck the earth because of high iridium and shocked quart in a layer of the geologic column. If you reject the geologic column, you would also have to reject this layer as coinciding with the event. Additionally, the reason impact craters are thought to be related is based on the same dating methods that are used to show the earth is over 4 billion years old and must be discounted in order to believe the earth is a few thousand years old.Whop[sic] says that I haven't researched it and have determined that the invalidation was incorrect or unsubstantiated?Can you name one credible scientist that still believes the Meister find was an actual human footprint?Who says I have no scientific knowledge.You do. Your arguments that lizards turned into dinosaurs through aging, that there was a worldwide flood that magically left no physical evidence, that the world is a few thousand years old are only possible if one remains completely ignorant of actual science.You gave one good source, which was in further reading. Your argument is thus unsubstantiated and unreliable.I cited several believers and non-believers with relevant doctorates and decades of field research and you gave how many sources again?Simply because I didn't want to respond does not mean that I can't rebut them easily. I can rebut them easily.Ok Fredo, we'll wait with bated breath.