Ooow, a new thread would be nice.
Anyway, let's see if I can make some replies as well:
SamE said:
OK, I don't have time to read the 38 pages of "debate" here, but after reading the first 5, I got the feel that the evolutionists are "winning". I will present my theory of how everything happened, and then the reasons why ToE is incorrect, dangerous and just plain silly religious dogma. BTW, I have read many of the Talk.Origins pages and they are nonsense as well. Anyway, on to my theory.
About 6000 years ago, GOD created every kind of animal. A "kind" is what any 1st grader knows as a kind, such as a cat, dog, finch, bacteria, whale, bat, etc.
Is a wolf and a dog the same kind?
SamE said:
When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere).
As TLC said, if it's going to be like Saturn's rings, it would have to be outside of the atmosphere and would therefore be unable to be the source of the double barometric pressure you are arguing for.
SamE said:
This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth.
Is the abundance of oxygen a consecuense of the barometric pressure, or are these two separate statements?
SamE said:
Thus, and because there were no genetic anomalies, all organisms lived about eight times longer than today.
Exactly 8 times?
SamE said:
Because reptiles keep growing all of their lives, some grew as big as, well...dinosaurs! Yes, the dinosaurs never died off; they were just old (and therefore big) reptiles. Of course, the humans were also quite big, around 11 to 14 feet tall.
Those there exist any skeltons of these huge humans? And why are there no giant reptiles alive today? I mean, Noah took two of each kind onto the Ark. Therefore the giant reptiles would have survived as well?
SamE said:
After about a millenium and a half (less than two lifetimes), the human population of earth had grown tremendously.
There must have been lots of multi-births (twins, triples, quadruples. Don't know the correct english word) for the dramatic increase of humans in just 1500 years.
SamE said:
Not only had they grown huge, they were also very wicked, except for a man called Noah. God told Noah to build a HUGE boat (remember, his measurements were bigger than today) and to take a pair of each kind of animal that God brought him (and seven of the sacrificial birds). 110 years later, when the boat was complete, all of the animals and Noah and his family boarded the ark and the Lord shut them in.
Rain fell for 40 days (it hadn't rained before that),
In your opinion, was the earth very arid at this time?
SamE said:
and the fountains of the deep (underground water chambers) burst forth and flooded the planet (which was much more level in those days). Noah, his family and the animals (except for a dove and a raven) stayed in the ark for about a year. During that time, the continents shifted to approximately their present positions. Noah and his family and the animals got out of the ark and began to repopulate the earth. Of course, many of these animals bred to produce many different varieties within their kind.
After the flood, the warm oceans (from all the geologic activity) and colder continents (higher elevation than before the flood) caused the Ice Age. During the ice age, the Arctic Ocean remained warm,
Could you explain to me how the hot oceans would allow for an Ice Age?
SamE said:
and so did all of the northern coastal regions, including Siberia.
Why do you believe Siberia was hot during the Ice Age?
SamE said:
When the ice age ended, after a few centuries, the colder oceans brought on enormous snows which killed most of the larger mammals throughout the world.
I think I get it now, please correct me if I've misunderstood you: The oceans were warm, and the Ice Age cooled them down. But how does cooled oceans lead to enormous amounts of snow which killed most large mammals? Would they have been killed during the cold Ice Age?
SamE said:
Since then, not much geologically has happened, and no, the continents are not moving, they're just rumbling.
How do you explain that the Atlantic ocean is growing in its width, or that the Pacific ocean is shrinking?
SamE said:
About four millennia later, two lawyers and a preacher conjectured a theory that almost no scientists initially believed. The lack of evidence led to across-the-board fraud, such as Haeckel's "drawings" of embryos and the "discovery" of Piltdown man in the early 20th century. Gradually this idea caught on, and many intellectuals have been led astray by this blatantly false theory that only 7-8% of Americans actually believe today (that is, atheistic evolution). There are many problems with the evidence used to support evolution and the theory itself, and my next two posts will cover these.
Next post:
SamE said:
I will divide the ToE into four categories: Astronomy (which goes from the Big Bang to our planet), Geology (which postulates the age of the earth), Chemistry (which goes from chemicals to life) and Biology (which goes from bacteria/viruses to all organisms alive today). This post will cover the first three and the next will cover the latest.
This must be the Theory of Everything you are talking about. The Theory of Evolution only considers how life develops, evolves, from one organism to another.
Of the four categories you are listin, only one has anything to do with evolution. I'll reply to that first, and the others afterwards (Though technically they don't belong in this thread).
SamE said:
Astronomy:
Problems with the Theory:
1) The Conservation of Energy/Mass denies the Big Bang. The Big Bang is supposed to turn nothing into a bunch of hydrogen molecules. Do Big Bang advocates just ignore the first law of thermodynamics?
The origins of the Universe is still highly theoretical. Exactly how the natural laws worked in the conditions described in the Big Bang is unknown.
SamE said:
2) A bunch of out-flying molecules just keep going, getting farther and farther apart. There is zero chance that they will decide to turn around and form gas clouds.
The others seem to have answered this sufficiently, but I'll give another one. I will assume that you are familiar with Newtons laws, which you probably are. Now, an object that is propelled in a direction by an explotion, will be moving with constant speed and direction as long as no force works on it. At this time, the only force that could have worked on the atoms were the gravitational pull of each atom on every other atom. Since this is the only force working on them, they will in time be ******** and will will moving against each others (Exactly what happens when all the Univers' mass comes together again in unknown, it is even unknown IF it will ever be together again. Because of this, atoms will come closer, and eventually make gas clouds.
SamE said:
3) Gas clouds never turn into stars. The properties of these are totally different.
Gas clouds do turn into stars.
SamE said:
4) Hydrogen and helium never form any heavier elements. The gap at an atomic mass of 5 shows how a helium-4 molecule must gain both a proton, a neutron and an electron to turn into lithium-6.
I don't know much about this part, and I'm to tired to learn about it.
SamE said:
5) Circular orbits like the earth's, Jupiter's and the moon's, almost never form by chance. Try getting a pendulum weight to go around in a circle to see it for yourself.
Well it does form by chance. Have you ever seen the ripples in water when you drop something in it? Besides, the planets and the moons orbits are ecliptical, not circular. That is the problem Tycho Brahe had to solve.
SamE said:
6) All of the natural constants are pinpointed to the equivalence of someone's fingerprints appearing on a gun. No one thinks the fingerprints are accidental, so why are the natural constants seen as random?
I don't get what you are saying here.
SamE said:
7) Where did the natural laws come from? The Big Bang explains none of this.
I'll explain those as soon as you explain where God came from. On the fundamental level, I can't, and you can't.
SamE said:
As for the evidence (red shift, background radiation) supporting the Big Bang:
8) The red shifts observed in stars are not universal - some stars are blue-shifted!
Now, you mentioned galaxies somewhere in you post. And you do know that galaxies rotate? And that other galaxies rotate in reference to the Earth. Because of that we can see the red shifts from one part of the galaxy, and blue shift from the other. Anyway, the others have already answered this.
SamE said:
9) Red shift isn't always reliable - some stars are red dwarves, some are blue giants and that has nothing to do with motion.
Same answer as for number 8.
SamE said:
10) Background radiation observed today is much more uniform than the Big Bang would predict. It is exactly what we would expect from a universe of stars producing radiation.
No, it is what we would expect from a Universe made from the Big Bang.
SamE said:
Age of the Earth:
First, some problems with the "evidence":
1) Radiometric dating assumes way too much. First, it assumes that all rocks began in an igneous (pure) state. It assumes that the earth is old enough for that rock to have been at most that old. It assumes that the rate has not changed much, but a worldwide flood would do something to that effect. It also assumes that no contamination would occur, and in many cases the specimens are contaminated.
To tired right now, and I lack a bit of the understanding of radiometric dating.
SamE said:
2) Radiometric (and isochron) dates almost never agree. This speaks for itself. We need a new system.
Not that I believe that statement, but what do you suggest?
SamE said:
3) Isochron dating also assumes that certain events actually happened while you can never be sure of that.
Same as for number 1. Sorry about that.
SamE said:
4) Carbon dating is inaccurate after a few thousand years. It also assumes the C-14/C-12 ratio is constant, while a worldwide flood would change that enormously.
How would a 110 year worldwide flood change things?
SamE said:
5) Tree ring dating doesn't deny a 6000-year-old creation - most trees have <5000 "years".
Not that I have thought much through this, but all organisms die sometime, why would one expect a tree to grow to a million years. By the way, a tree that seems close to 5000 years old don't agree with you agrument that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that a flood wiping out all life (except the Ark) happened after 1500 years. That leaves the Earth at an ago of 6500 years.
SamE said:
6) Ice cores only portray warm and cold periods, not years. So millions of layers means millions of warm/cold days, not seasons.
They have a bit of other information as well, like spores and dust.
SamE said:
That's all of the dating methods I can think of right now; please tell me of more that are used to get billions of years.
Now, on with the evidence for a young earth.
7) The oceans aren't salty enough. At maximum rates of salt entering the ocean and minimum rates out, you still only get millions of years.
Never heard of this agrument before, therefore I can't agree or disagree to it.
SamE said:
8) The moon is receding at a steady rate. So that means it was closer before. The moon can only get so close. At least the moon must be young, and without the moon, we wouldn't have tides, and life could not survive outside the oceans.
Why are tides neccesarry for life on land? And yes the Moon is receding. But calculate when it must have left the Earth please.
SamE said:
9) At present and minimum rates of erosion, the continents would erode away in only 14 million years.
Could you get me some numbers for that? And how does the raising of new land work with this?
SamE said:
10) The earth's magnetic field is declining at a predictable exponential rate, which leaves earth unlivable only 10,000 years ago!
To tired, and I'm not sure I would be able to answer that now.
SamE said:
That's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Chemical Evolution:
1) Without oxygen, there isn't any ozone and chemicals necessary for life break down. With oxygen, those essential chemicals oxidize and break down. Either way, abiogenesis loses.
To tired. Sorry, will have to pick this up again tomorrow.
*I grin like a maniac and repeat the above posters* 
