Yes, he’s presupposing that modern ants evolved with modern plants, completely ignoring the ideas behind common descent.
He’s going through the Hovind style of strawmen.
As to a young earth, it’s completely absurd. He needs to explain the problem of meteors, just to get off the ground.
But he won’t.
Please respond to post #292 using scientific data.
You have to prove the bible because it is not a given. It is not a fair assumption to say “the bible is 100% accurate”. I don’t get why this is rocket science. The bible is a collection of ancient texts, many of which are horribly flawed
Actually, primal earth’s atmosphere was comprised largely of CO2. The earliest plants which evolved photosynthesis were capable of processing this CO2, but it left a toxic byproduct… Which other organisms evolved to take advantage of (much like how you can witness bacteria evolving to be able to consume Citric Acid and Latex today). The first “plants” and “animals” were single-celled organisms.
Of course, this is not new information. It’s been known for decades. If you had taken the time to do your research – even a quick google search – rather than waiting to be spoonfed, you would understand the answer to this question. But you’re not interested in the answer. You’re simply trying to pose a “gotcha” – “HA! EXPLAIN THAT, STUPID EVOLUTIONISTS!” Of course, even most laymen, let alone most evolutionary biologists, already know your claims, and can explain them. I’m still waiting on proof for your worldview, to be honest.
Coevolution. The first land plants, of course, did not rely on animals for fertilization. That should be fairly obvious.
Of course, this is not new information. It’s been known for decades. If you had taken the time to do your research – even a quick google search – rather than waiting to be spoonfed, you would understand the answer to this question. But you’re not interested in the answer. You’re simply trying to pose a “gotcha” – “HA! EXPLAIN THAT, STUPID EVOLUTIONISTS!” Of course, even most laymen, let alone most evolutionary biologists, already know your claims, and can explain them. I’m still waiting on proof for your worldview, to be honest.
No, not really.
Of course, this is not new information. It’s been known for decades. If you had taken the time to do your research – even a quick google search – rather than waiting to be spoonfed, you would understand the answer to this question. But you’re not interested in the answer. You’re simply trying to pose a “gotcha” – “HA! EXPLAIN THAT, STUPID EVOLUTIONISTS!” Of course, even most laymen, let alone most evolutionary biologists, already know your claims, and can explain them. I’m still waiting on proof for your worldview, to be honest.
Seriously, what is this, “explain evolution to retards” hour? The answers to these “questions” you keep posing (and I say “questions” with the same level of sarcasm with which I would say “race realist”) are all out there. It took me 5 minutes on google to answer every single one. Of course, you can feel free to keep posing stupid questions, and maybe someone will give you a remedial biology course. Or, you know, maybe not. Because you’re an idiot and a waste of breath. I’m doing this less for your sake and more for the sake of anyone else even remotely interested in knowing the truth.
But here, let me do you a favor:
Next time you have a question, google it, and make sure that the answer isn’t immediately available within the first few results, k?
You can’t insult people like this in Great Debates. This is a formal warning; don’t do it again.
Whoops. Note to self: make sure you’re in the right section before posting things like that…
I don’t see any scientific data in your posts.
I see references (and not even direct quotes) to/of the Bible.
All I see is “Nuh-uhhhhHH!” as replies.
Point of order: he also cited The Crocodile Hunter.
Don’t you feel silly now?
Yes. 
I blame home schooling. We should force them to make their children attend regular school for maybe 3yrs, between 8 and 16yrs of age. While they can still see with their own eyes.
Before they can become this.
Christianity is like baseball. Many attend, few understand.
So here is a question, if we were created why didn’t God build us better? Our backs are not built for an upright posture and give us no end of trouble. We have an appendix which can be fatal. A womans birth canal is not quite large enough for a baby’s head. Our feet are poorly adapted for walking. Why not do a better job the first time around?
CAPT
Well, we are supposedly built to resemble God. A better question would be: “Was the first platypus really assembled out of spare parts?”
So God has a bad back and flat feet? :eek:
CAPT
That probably accounts for Isaiah 66:1:
God supports the Ottomans?
There were no meteors on the ark!
God, temporarily, made all the aminals vegetarians!
CMC fnord!
He has to put his big flat feet on something.
Standard creationist answer comprises handwaving about fallen humanity no longer being in perfect working order. Detail never really explored, because it’s a vacuous argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny - easier to change the subject to moon dust, or polystrate trees, or the Grand Canyon, or Clams on Everest, or more likely, each of those things in quick succession.
In fact, refusal to stay on topic is the primary defensive weapon in the creationist toolbox.
Mods - quick question: can we get quotations marks placed around the word “debate” in the thread title?
Another tack they take is to argue that what we perceive as “Design Flaws” are features, not bugs, and the Designer had perfectly cromulent reasons for doing things that way which *you *could see if *you *had Faith. The fact that we don’t all choke to death whenever we swallow is a Good Design, despite the epiglottis looking like a jury-rigged kludge.
Yes- they lose ground on every individual argument, but they make up for it on volume. Those of us who tried to argue with GEEPERS (just to name one) will find the strategy of constant topic changes very familiar.