Get a life

He lost me when he suggested that the earth was only thousands of years old. Why are creationists so blind?

There is a theory that when the big bang happened, rocks and gases flew away from the blast. As we know the rocks hit each other and made planets when they became one. They then made a gravitational pull that gases came to the surface, and heavier gases flew to other planets with stronger gravity. A good example is jupiter which had a gravitational force so strong, the entire planet is mostly gas with a rock in the middle that u can bike around in one day. Then early life forms came into play. Today we take in air and the waste is carbon dioxide. But for some reason the early life forms took in carbon dioxide and the waste was oxygen! Then these microscopic creatures made the atmosphere and became plants and animals and adapted to oxygen. This theory is very solid and i cant think of a different way that life began.

The bible doesn't present fact. Smh. It's an ancient book of stories written by primitive people who didn't know any better. Exactly how can you prove the bible stating "in the beginning God created" as fact? Were you there? Do you have inside information? Does any of this even matter? No. Moving on.

Like if you didn't read the entire thing. [spoiler] Top kek [/spoiler]

Stopped reading right off the bat, just no man, just stahp.

This isn't Pokemon

BUT WHO WAS EVOLUTION?

Lol That is all.

I was about to say F*** your BS, but then you started talking about Macro and Microevolution. Then I started listening. Finally, someone's that's not a complete imbecile talking about this topic. Tip: don't argue with people if they don't know what Macro and Microevolution is/ if they don't know the difference. There's no point in arguing with idiots. I've had too many people stare blankly at me after I asked them "Hey, what's Macro/Microevolution?" Afterwards, I proceed to tell them to "Come back when you're not ignorant."

This ain't sunday school kid

Wow so much stupid in one small place I can't believe a black hole hasn't formed yet.

Uh oh, HOMOPHOBE ALERT

Well that's it, he finally snapped and keeps violating the code of conduct.

ITT:SSG ACM being an ignorant, cringeworthy, nit-picky pegboy.

I have a little side-note to make with the basis that there is "mountains of evidence of macroevolution" Think of every cell as a CD, it contains massive amounts of information. Now we need to give it a consciousness, "The knowledge of good and evil" if that makes sense. Once that is done it must start re-writing itself. Every bit of information on the CD needs to be rewritten. Even with all this info, life must start [b]THINKING[/b]. Here is an experiment you can try. Place a CD with a song burned on it inside of a bucket filled with water. Now, be patient and wait. PM me when the words to that song have changed. The Cambrian Explosion/Radiation, 542-490 ma BC. 542 ma years ago is when humans start to find mass amounts of life in the Sea. Trilobites, Burgessia, Vrokodia are a few out of 120 species found in this time. And you're telling me this just came out of nowhere? Evolutionists say that the reasoning for this is that Soft-Bodied organisms dominated the Sea before they evolved. However...these "Scientists" provide [b]NO EVIDENCE[/b] of Evolution before 542 ma, BC. Thankyou, for giving me something to write about..

Dig it

I'm sitting here reading this like... "But wait you have to have Macroevolution with microevolution..." What the -blam!- don't you understand about it? After many many many little changes occur in an organism, and you look and the current one compared to its ancestor say 100,000 years previous, the animal has evolved to fill a new role. What the -blam!- do you not understand about it? Say my child Mucroevolved a resistance to, I dunno, HIV. Now my child spreads this trait (assuming it is dominant) throughout many members of our species. Now say, everybody gets really horny and we all have one massive orgy and all get HIV (except for those immune) and we all die except for them. That would be similar to your Pesticide example. Now this variation in our species repopulates the Earth. After many hundreds of years, they develop a resistance to another disease that wipes out all others. This process goes on for 5,000 generations. You should have a species genetically different enough at the end to be considered no longer "homo sapien" Excuse me for the -blam!-ing terrible example, but I am current falling sleep and need rest. Good night.

Except that evolution is not cyclical. Mechanism of evolution (i.e, geographic isolation, selective pressures, etc.) will almost never spontaneously disappear, as the pesticides did. If the pesticides had been continually used, the mosquito population would not have reverted to a state of vulnerability. Many of the mosquitoes would still have the vulnerability to pesticides buried within their genes, but any born with this trait would die. Over time, the portion of the population carrying the recessive vulnerability genes would become smaller and smaller. Eventually, they would reach a point where these recessive genes would become so incredibly rare that the population could not ever revert to its previous state of being vulnerable to the pesticide, even if the pesticide were spontaneously removed.

Bumping for the sake of informing the flood.

Tl;dr

The only type of evolution that has been proved is micro evolution. The rest is just a theory.

You can't say ape like because they were apes. We still are apes just like how a lion is still a cat. Not to mention that you are stupid for believing in a book that was translated and rewritten multiple times over the course of 2000 years. Your argument is invalid and stupid stop making us Christians look bad, some of us actually don't take the bible word for word and we just search for the moral meaning in the stories.

[quote]Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true. If “evolution” merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments. For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before. A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were. Almost all illustrations of “evolution in action” in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although “adaptive variation” would be a better term. It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as “evolution,” because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God’s participation being needed at any step along the way. Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and television programs still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolution are used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process. The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin’s theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony. The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because [b]its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.[/b] It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have many similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but whether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable examples of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits. One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important defect of the theory of evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. [b]This Darwinism mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information[/b] or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis. The Bible teaches, “In the beginning God created” and “In the beginning was the Word.” A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. [b]No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started[/b] because all evolution can do is to further minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, “In the beginning God created” (Gen 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live. The Bible also says that God created men and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because [b]no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence[/b], including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God. “In the beginning was the Word.” The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact. [spoiler]By Phillip E. Johnson. Edited by me.[/spoiler][/quote]

The bible also says, just to name a few, that bats are a type of bird, insects have 4 legs, that there is a solid roof over the planet called the firmament and that stars are tiny objects in the sky that can fall down onto earth. Don't try use anything in the bible as fact in an argument, it just makes you look completely stupid to anyone who has read it and doesn't blindly believe everything in it.