Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/25/09 11:19 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

:we know the lifestyle of prehistoric man from his stone tools (thats back the full 2 million years) to the use of metals.

How do we categorize tools with 2 million years? There is nothing to base 2 million year old items on. After that long, the tools would surely be decomposed beyond notice. As for clarifying on the statement that evolution needs to have such a large time frame: Nobody could believe that we evolved much faster than what you claim because we would see clear evidence of it. This is why the theory thrives on the misconception of time. It is much easier to believe we evolved 2 million years ago than 5 or 6 thousand.

And as for the Egyptians, I find it coincidental that they came about shortly after the accepted timezone of the Flood (5117 B.C I believe). They did not come straight from Adam. Also, 900 years could have very well been normal as the Earth at that time was encased in a protective vapor of water (probably invisible). Therefore, the shield protected harmful sun radiations and extended life. The Flood could have easily occurred if this vapor were to condense. When the vapor fell, ages began to gradually get shorter and shorter until around the 1800's when modern medication began to spark. (don't take me literally on 1800's, I am merely trying to set a general area).The Flood itself can easily account for the continental breaks, chaotic climates, and geography - not to mention the extinction of dinosaurs, and the break in the beginning of humans.

Evolution requires an old Earth, an old solar system, and an old universe. Nearly all informed evolutionists will admit that without billions of years your theory is dead. Yet, hiding the origins question behind this span of time makes the unsolvable problems of evolution difficult for scientists to see and people to imagine. Our media and textbooks have implied for over a century that these almost unimaginable ages are correct. Rarely do people examine the shaky assumptions and growing body of contrary evidence. Therefore, most people today almost instinctively believe that the Earth and universe are billions of years old. Sometimes, these people are disturbed, at least initially, when they see the evidence. Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young, possibly less than 10,000 years old.

Plus, if the Earth was that old, wouldn't it be covered by so much more debris from space? I'm sure these minerals would be nothing but a memory.

I'm pretty sure that just because you don't understand the system, simply responding in "I'm right you're wrong" answers does not defend your argument.

Also, since when has math been unreliable?

At 11/24/09 10:34 PM, Latiasneo wrote:

At 11/24/09 09:51 PM, Hybridization wrote: You dreamers put your faith in blind, impossible luck. A world like this cannot be created by luck. It HAD to be planned out.

Who planned out the planner?

(I'm predicting an answer along the lines of: "The planner doesn't need to be planned out.")

Well, no one planned out the Planner. God created what we know of as time. He has no beginning and no end - something we will never understand until we meet Him (maybe not even then :)!). Everything operates in unison because He created it that way. I believe the main confusion between creation and evolution is the age of the Earth. God created all things in "adult" form. (ie: chicken before the egg). Now, if everything was created aged and not young, then the True age of Earth could very well be millions or billions of years. However, the Earth has only been around for perhaps a few hundred thousand. I am unsure of how everything adds up, but I'm pretty sure the numbers show around ten thousand to one-hundred thousand. Metaphorically, the "adult" chicken was only a day old, but it was created as if it were years old. The apparent age of Earth may be millions, but the actual age is thousands. This throws off even the most "intelligent" archaeologists.

So maybe this is one big misinterpretation. Both arguments could be correct in the sense of Earth's age. But, I'm unwilling to say that we were created through evolution because the Bible strictly states that animals were created at once and then humans. After all, the Bible does have more reliability seeing as it has never been disproven even once despite the hundreds of prophesies. Besides, even if I was wrong, what would I have to loose? If we die and there is nothing, then I have lost nothing. But if you die and you find that you are wrong...

-Lydia

At 11/24/09 07:30 PM, poxpower wrote: So if NASA finds life somewhere else in the universe, you'll stop being a creationist?
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHAHHAHHH
AHA
HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Hmm, most likely. The fact that no life has "evolved" anywhere near Earth seems impossible. After all, if everything started at once, what makes Earth special? Why are other planets uninhabitable while Earth is perfect for life? How has the evolutionary process occurred only here by pure chance? NASA can't find a single form of life in the universe. Haha, even in the most advanced laboratories, they cannot create the "simplest form of life", which evolution claims came from inorganic materials. For a "perfect" theory, you sure have a lot of holes to fill. And if you have to avoid every point I bring up by disregarding it in some simple dismissal, you are even more senseless than I suspected.

You dreamers put your faith in blind, impossible luck. A world like this cannot be created by luck. It HAD to be planned out. How can you sit there and tell me that even the human body that functions as one unit - countless systems and cells working together for a common purpose - came from chaos? When has chaos EVER produced order in this way?

But, as I said before, reasoning with "scientists" who simply relay childish answers interpreted from their equally 'brainwashed' professors is futile and is quite frankly wasting my time.

But before I leave this thread, I've had something quite funny on my mind. If birds had evolved, why are there flightless birds? Growth of wings would be completely pointless for them. I know I'm not into that whole evolution thing, but it's just a thought - nothing to be seriously debated over. I'm just curious to your answers.

-Lydia

Let's take a few steps back to the general argument instead of what makes science. I would turn from creationism if evolution didn't have so many faults. For one, if evolution was real, why can we not find life anywhere in the universe? Life on Earth is enormously diverse. There are millions of species. There are microbes that live in boiling water, salty water and at the South Pole. Life is in abundance in the hottest deserts on Earth. You can't put your foot down without squashing something. Swarms of life would evolve all over the universe if life could evolve on Earth under such extreme conditions. But life does not exist anywhere else in the universe -- no radio signals, no x-ray signals, nothing. With billions of stars and galaxies in an infinite universe, you'd think NASA could find even a speck of life to support this claim. So, by all means, explain this to me.

-Lydia

People like you believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. We are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. We are basically taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense! You actually believe this nonsense? Time does not make impossible things possible! As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could 'evolve' given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense! Evolution is a religion not a science...You put your faith in time and luck!

Evolutionists are either brainwashed or have no genuine knowledge of science. Those people you look up to like that madman Darwin came up with THEORIES not laws. Theories which have NOT been proven even ONCE. In fact, they have been proven false several times!

Why do I even bother arguing with you people? You will obviously try to find some way to make yourself feel secure about your unstable dispute by ridiculing my Christianity. Sometimes, it is hopeless to reason with you stubborn dreamers. Oh, please excuse me, stubborn "scientists".

Trying to poke holes in my post will only prove my point.

-Lydia

At 11/22/09 07:53 PM, Latiasneo wrote:

And just for laughs: If evolution was real, why are giraffes necks long?

Because trees are tall and long necks help them to eat the tree leaves?

...hahahaha?

Did I miss the joke or something?

Apparently you did. Wouldn't it be more "efficient" to feed off of the plants at ground level than have to strain and completely handicap drinking capabilities? Why would it need to evolve to eat trees? Your theory claims that animals improve. Yet, that is no improvement.

At 11/22/09 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/22/09 07:16 PM, Hybridization wrote: Proof in a sense that you aren't simply taking two skulls of different animals, placing them together and saying "they must be related".

not quite.

Evolution only proves itself based on itself so has it really proved anything?...

not quite.

"We know how old these bones are from studying the rocks, we know how old the rocks are from studying the bones."

not quite.

Just because you cram that ideology into everyone's heads doesn't mean it's true. It does not prove that we came from a single celled organism which by NO means could have possibly transformed into something so complex as humans.

not quite.

It's childish responses like this that loose my respect for the other side of the argument. Please give a reason for saying "not quite." Unless, of course, there is no other answer, and you have no true basis to argue upon. You're basically only saying "I'm right, you're wrong no matter what!"

And judging by your simplistic answers, you are unfit to carry on this debate.

At 11/22/09 03:06 PM, Togukawa wrote: So what would constitute "proof"? What scientific theories do you consider "proven"?

Proof in a sense that you aren't simply taking two skulls of different animals, placing them together and saying "they must be related". Evolution only proves itself based on itself so has it really proved anything? No. It's simply explaining itself over and over again in a cycle. "We know how old these bones are from studying the rocks, we know how old the rocks are from studying the bones." Just because you cram that ideology into everyone's heads doesn't mean it's true. It does not prove that we came from a single celled organism which by NO means could have possibly transformed into something so complex as humans. And last time I checked, the world is getting worse, not "better" as Darwin would claim.

But by ALL means, if you can give me solid proof of evolution, then I'll shuttup. But the reality is, to believe in creation OR evolution, you need faith not facts. I'd be an evolutionist too if I had that much faith :). It takes alot to believe we are here because of a spontaneous reaction that defies all reasoning. I'll stick with a plan that we're here for a purpose and a reason. Wouldn't you rather say, "I'm special?" than "I'm just an accident?"

And just for laughs: If evolution was real, why are giraffes necks long? That hinders them with drinking water, so wouldn't they have "evolved" long before that to solve that problem? Or am I missing a couple trillion years.

-Lydia

Evolution is proven, doesn't mean everyone wants to know its true tho.

Haha. You have obviously not paid very much attention in science class. Either that, or you are unqualified to argue. Evolution has not been proven even once. They cannot prove wait they claim, and until they do, I will not believe it. "Scholars" simply implant that junk into your mind and you automatically believe them because of their status and popularity. All evolution has done is contradict itself.

-Lydia

At 11/21/09 01:40 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/21/09 11:28 AM, Hybridization wrote: If it is a fact, then everyone would believe it. Evolution has NEVER been proven.

That's a gross exaggeration. Evolution is supported by 98% of the population and has been described as being as sure of any other kind of science.

Ah, so you suggest that if 98% of the population agrees that 2+2=5, then it that is what it becomes? Simply because the majority of the world is too gullible to use their own reasoning does NOT mean science is correct it making it's claims. Science cannot prove evolution, it can only observe and guess.

At 1/18/07 11:31 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: But this isnt something thats debatable.
Its a fact.
Proven.

If it is a fact, then everyone would believe it. Evolution has NEVER been proven. All it does is observes the animals we have currently and "scientifically (using numbers and coincidences)" guesses our orgin, simply because they find any other reason to be preposterous. If the evolution side relies on guessing, then it is even more ridiculous than I first thought.

Christianity has nearly irrefutable evidence. Example: the geographic faults and continents support the Great Flood as well as the severe climate change shortly after. "Wait," you may say, "Isn't that doing the same thing as evolution? Observing and guessing?" In fact, it is NOT. Christianity has written proof that these events happened - the Bible. You claim that the Bible is false, yet to make that claim, you would have to fully understand that it was not written by one person, but MANY people in MANY countries (meaning, different societies with different false gods) who (mostly) never even knew of the other writers, CENTURIES between each other, and spoke different languages. Now, please explain to me how a completely coherent "fictional" story can be thought up the exact same way in this span of time and flow with such precision to predict hundreds of events including the creation of Israel? The odds are, I believe 1/10^(1T)

Also, do not associate us with Islam and other religions. Christianity is the only truth. You cannot place us with the others and still maintain a solid basis for an argument.

-Lydia

Nobody's EVER proven evolution or creation so we're arguing over nothing people!

I don't care how many times you try to thrust that junk into peoples heads, you can't prove either argument. You say science defends evolution? No wait, we're guessing on what happened. Does that mean an insane man who spent a meaningless amount of time watching apes is the Pope of science? No? Hm, I guess if everyone agrees that 2+2=5 then it does...?

Oops! I think I just went in a complete circle....

Is there any possible way to save a project with the demo version of Sytrus still intact? I really like the plugin, but I'm not paying $100 for the full version.

I've been looking around for free programs that are compatible with FL Studio, but many of the softwares are worthless or have terrible instruments. The only finding that I have been pleased with is the Autogun. I'm simply looking for a generator such as Sytrus with multiple presets and good quality sounds.

Any help would be appreciated!

It's the ability to choose.

I don't think the question is when, but how.

In my opinion. the 2036 Apophis asteroid collision seems the most likely. Other than that, I'm content with dying normally.

Because more people are homosexual then take advantage of kids

Is there any way to watch NG uploads on the iPod Touch or iPhone? I'm sure this question has been asked several times.

Listen to my song "Nightlife in NYC" on my profile. It should give you a good idea, I think.