God created Man vs. Man created God

Lizardman,

“Which parts are "extremely scientifically accurate?" If this was true, then there wouldn't be a huge controversy over evolution vs creationism”
Well there actually is. It is a big debate that is taking place all over the world, evolutionists are taking large measures to counter creationist attacks, the web is full of such debates.

“Science shows evidence that the earth is millions of years old.”
And science also shows that the earth is 6000 years old. The fact that the C14 isotope can be found in all biogenic materials on earth shows that the earth is actually 6000 years old. It’s up to the individual to determine which theory is best supported by the evidence.
There is also good evidence that the techniques that are used to derived dates of millions and billions of years are inherently flawed and that all of the nuclear decay that has occurred only happened in a short time.
http://www.icr.org/article/301/

What’s the problem with humans coexisting with dinosaurs? I think the real problem is the intellectual ‘straightjacket’ that the theory of evolution has put on you. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of dinosaurs no so long ago. The first two links below are to historical evidence. The second link is to the Biblical reference of the dinosaur “Behemoth”. The last link documents the existence of dinosaur soft tissue and blood cells, this alone conclusively proves that dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/133
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/trackscambodia.htm
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/

“Ancient Chinese was spoken long before the bible was written, and everyone in the Middle East speaks Arabic and Hebrew.”
The first (and probably only) rule to know about archaeology is that it is not a ‘science’, the subjectivity of archaeology is astounding, especially with dates that extend back further than about 2000bc. All methods that are use to date languages have large amounts of interpretation that is intrinsic to its conclusions. And it is no different with this example. It’s all how you interpret the evidence.
The dating system that is used to date archaeological material around the world is based on the Egyptian chronology. So if the Egyptian chronology is wrong then the whole world’s chronology is therefore wrong. And this is exactly the case. There is a period that is read into world history called “the dark ages” which lasted for a couple hundred of years. During this period there was no culture and no record of civilization, basically if you dig down at archaeological sites you will pass through successive stages in history, when most archaeologists get down to where they think the Dark Ages are they ‘rule a line’ and say that there is a couple of hundred years missing. The only evidence for this is that there is an absence evidence!
The source of this problem is due what is called the “Sothic Cycle”, where way back in Egyptian history there was a vague astrological/lunar cycle that was used for a calendar. We know almost nothing about this cycle or what it could have been, but nether-the-less the Egyptian, thus the world’s, chronology has been built apon it.
Because the worlds chronologies are based on this cycle, huge dating problems manifest themselves. Problems arise when comparing different cultures with one another, this problem is universal. But when one discards the Egyptian chronology, one finds that all the problems disappear totally. But unfortunately the archaeological community at large are stuck in their old ways and are reluctant to start building a new global chronology.
Major works such as “Centuries of Darkness” and “A Test of Time” discuss this is detail.

“Noah collected two of every animal. . .can you explain in an "extremely scientifically accurate" way how he traveled all around the world and got a male and female of every species of every animal on the planet?”
Well the Bible actually states that all the animals came to him.

“if we were all descended from his family, that would mean that they had to in-breed with each other, since there was no one else around. Why doesn't everyone around the world share the same DNA?”
Well, we do have the same DNA! Inbreeding is only a problem when the genomes of the two parent organisms become sufficiently deteriorated. The reason that incest is outlawed is because of the obvious deformities that result from such relationships. These deformities occur when both parents (brother and sister for example) have unexpressed errors in their genome, this isn’t a problem for them though. These errors only express themselves as deformities when the parents both have the same error in the same region of their DNA (as all family members do). When both sibling’s DNA combine in the female egg, the errors from the two parents combine, making the offspring deformed. (this is only a basic and rough explanation for the sake of brevity). How is all this relevant? Well when God made Adam and Eve He made them perfect, so there were no genetic errors in their DNA. When Adam and Eve sinned they brought apon themselves a curse, one aspect of this curse resulted in small mutations occurring in their genome. But because these errors were extremely rare, siblings could still reproduce without ANY deformities occurring. But in time, after generations of procreation these genetic errors started building up. It was only until the time or Moses that incestuous relationships would have started producing deformities in the offspring. This is when God outlawed incestuous relationships, preventing deformities from occurring.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2726/

“This [immaculate conception] is scientifically impossible, so therefore it's not "extremely scientifically accurate."”
The immaculate conception of Mary was a miracle, it wasn’t meant to follow scientific laws, it wouldn’t be much of a miracle if it didn’t, would it? Anyway, the scientific method could easily have been applied to test if it was indeed an immaculate conception. It only becomes ‘unscientific’ if the scientific method can’t be applied to it, which it could. One would simply do an exam on Mary to see that she was indeed still a virgin. So when you determine that Mary is a virgin, and that she is also pregnant, then you can conclude that it was an immaculate conception, this is as scientific as science gets!

Wisey lost these arguments in another poll but clings deperately to his failed pseudo science in the forlorn hope that repeating it will make it come true.

It won't. C14 is created:

a) Everyday through the action of the sun on ozone and is everywhere. Only in organic material is it locked at a specific point and those things may be dated with astounding accuracy. b) through contamination - it's in water and therefore in soluble rock - it is in the sea and therefore in animal deposits d) the action of radiation from a nearby source will affect carbon in non soluble rocks.

If you understand it is everywhere and that there are a variety of reasons for it to exist in almost anything on earth, you can follow that wisey's argument is a dud.

Also the experiments he quotes are detailed on the stes he mentions and are highly suspicious. The methods used are unscientific, allow for contamination in the lab - in other words, the results are quite probably from the air around the sample. Also the amounts quoted are so small as to be negligible - the last two points taken together are sufficient in themselves to deride the claim.

As to DNA he shows a total lack of understanding of the science and also of evolution - we have tried to inform him as to the truth but it interferes with his own "truth" too much for him to understand.

The immaculate conception does not only appear in the christ myth but in many others stretching throughout the centuries. Wisey refuses to believe in any of the others - "they are simply myths" - yet he clings to the christ myth. Why believe in one when he doesn't believe in any of the other identical stories? The others are simply absurd and quite silly. How he believes them is worth aquestion- not if he might be right but that he might be insane!

It's sad that he keeps trying to make the same claims in new polls when he loses the argument in another!