text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,820 times Debate No: 75810
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

Full resolution: Evolution is a more plausible explanation for the origin of species than Creationism.

First round is acceptance.

I accept!

Since Pro didn't provide any defintions, I will.

[1] Evolution- the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

[2] Creationism- the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

I hope you agree upon theese definitions.

Good luck! ;)

Debate Round No. 1

== Evolution ==

It's undeniable that evolution is true, so it's perplexing that people deny that it explains the origin of species. Evolution is simply the combination of two mechanisms: genetic mutations + selection. We know both exist.

(1) Genetic mutations

Genetic mutations occur when mistakes are made in transcribing DNA. [1] Mutations can occur in both hereditary cells (eggs and sperm) and in somatic cells. [1] We know mutations occur because mutations are what cause cancer. [2]

(2) Selection

Selection is the process whereby certain mutations are favored and thereby become more prevalent in a population. There are two types of mutations that are selected for in nature: survival characteristics and sexual advantages.

(A) Survival characteristics are ones that help an individual survive, maximizing the chances that the individual survives to reproductive age and reproduces, passing on its genes. An example is the polar bear's white fur. White fur blends in more with the surrounding snow, making the polar bear less conspicuous to its prey. Bears with white fur would have been more able to hunt in the snow than bears with darker fur and would have been less likely to starve to death.

(B) Sexual characteristics are ones that females of the species prefer, so they are selected for. The male peacock's colorful plumage is the classic example. [3] Female peafowl prefer males with more colorful tails. The female of the species is more of a dull brown color, allowing her to blend in with the environment better and making it harder for predators to spot her. But because females so prefer colorful males, the advantages of being colorful for the male outweigh the increased risk of predation. People often forget that to have an evolutionary advantage, one need only survive to reproductive age. You can die right after passing on your genes and still "win" from an evolutionary perspective.

There is also a third type of selection called artificial selection, which results from human intervention. Cows were created when humans domesticated aurochs and bred them for certain traits (e.g. producing lots of milk, which is why they have such big udders). [4] The original aurochs are now extinct [4], but we can still see domestication happen before our eyes with, for example, the breeding of domesticated foxes. Simply selecting for the trait of "tameness" also happened to cause the foxes to look and behave more like dogs over time, suggesting that certain traits are linked to "tameness" (e.g. tail wagging to show happiness). [5]

Combining the two

So we know mutations exist and we know selection occurs in nature. The combination of the two explains the origin of species. The first species was a single celled organism that managed to internalize certain proteins and encase them in a membrane (similar to modern bacteria). Eventually, mutations resulted in simple multicellular organisms. Over time, these simple multicellular organisms evolved into more complex organisms. This added complexity conferred enormous survival and reproductive advantages, resulting in something called the "Cambrian explosion," which was an enormous and rapid increase in the number of diverse species. [6] These early species were invertebrates, but over time evolved a backbone, which allowed even more species diversification to occur. Enormous dinosaurs evolved, then died off when a massive asteroid hit the Earth in Mexico, setting off earthquakes, tsunamis, acid rain, and kicking up dust that blotted out the sun. [7] As cold blooded creatures that cannot regulate their internal body temperatures, dinosaurs had a hard time living in such conditions and because they are so large and needed lots of food, they couldn't survive when their food sources were severely impacted. The death of the dinosaurs paved the way for the evolution of modern mammals and eventually early human-like species (hominids). Early hominids evolved from ancient (now extinct) apes because they were better adapted to the drier climates outside the equatorial belt. Hominids evolved to walk upright to give them a better view over the high grass and evolved greater intelligence to allow them to hunt new species of prey (e.g. antelopes) that apes were unable to catch. We have found many different species of hominid fossils: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus. We know these are not modern humans because of their shorter stature, larger brow ridges, and smaller brains. Some were even still covered in fur. We have also found fossils from Neanderthals, which actually co-existed with humans for about 75,000 years. [6]

It's pretty basic and undeniable that mutations occur and that selection for certain mutations also occurs. Over a long enough period of time, if a species acquires enough mutations, it will be so distinct that it will no longer be able to interbreed with its ancestors. Its DNA will just be too different. If the two species tried to interbreed, the mixing of genes that are too different will result in such a messed up fetus that it will not be able to survive until birth. In mammals, if the offspring is completely nonviable, it will result in a miscarriage. Even in humans, there are enough genetic mutations that 20 percent of pregnancies are nonviable and result in miscarriages. Two species that are far more different from each other than two humans will have a much higher rate of nonviability. Even if two species had a nonviablity rate of 80 percent for their offspring, they would not be able to effectively interbreed anymore. It wouldn't even require 100 percent nonviability before the species diverged.

Ultimately, denying evolution as the origin of species is implausible if we know that mutations occur and that selection occurs as well. We've seen evolution happen on a human timescale with domestication, e.g. of cows. There's no reason to think it didn't happen over a longer time scale as well.

== Creationism is implausible ==

(1) The Bible is not inerrant

Creationism relies on a key assumption: that every word of the Bible is absolute fact. There are a number of things that prove the Bible is not inerrant and that it contains falsities. If I prove a falsity in the Bible, I prove the entire basis for Creationism is a faulty assumption.

(a) the Earth is not 6000 years old

The Bible traces a genealogy from Genesis to 1 Kings that estimates the age of the Earth at about 6000 years. However, using various radioactive dating methods to test sedimentary Earth rocks and meteorites, scientists have estimated the age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years. [8] In addition, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old -- which is established by measuring how fast other galaxies are moving away from us and is confirmed by the redshifting of light from the Big Bang. [9] Even humans have existed more than 6000 years: the oldest human fossil has been dated as being 195,000 years old. [10]

(b) Mythical creatures

The people who wrote the Bible thought that mythical creatures existed. They said that there was a fire-breathing leviathan in the ocean and unicorns that came out of Egypt. [11] These creatures do not and have never existed. The more plausible explanation is that the Bible contains "oral tradition" myths passed down through generations, including the Creation story. The Leviathan comes from Sumerian pre-bible mythology about the god Ninurta overcoming a Leviathan.

(c) Basic physics

The people who wrote the Bible also lacked a basic understanding of physics, which is why they wrote that the Earth was flat (Job 38:13; Isaiah 11:12; Rev. 7:1), stationary (Eccles. 1:5; Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Joshua 10:12; 1 Chron. 16:30) and rested on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6, 38:4).

(2) Creationism is illogical

There are so many basic logical questions Creationism cannot answer (but my opponent must to win this debate):

How did God communicate the Creation story to humans?

Why did the Bible not mention giant dinosaurs that used to eat humans (if we were created at the same time)?

Why did the Bible not mention all these other weird human-like species that used to co-exist with us (if we were all created together)?

Why haven't modern animal fossils been found in ancient rock layers where they don't belong, e.g. a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian rock layer (if we were all created at the same time)?

Without logical and *good* answers to these questions, Creationism is not plausible.

Rebuttal #1

== Creationism is implausible ==

My opponent claims that "There are a number of things that prove the Bible is not inerrant and that it contains falsities". Yet, he fails to show any evidence to back up his claims. This is more of a personal opinion, you say this because you personally agree with evolution over creationism. Let's take evolution for example. There are my people who disapprove and don't believe in Evolution because it's just another thought of how we, our world and mammals have evolved.

So, since you claimed the bible is false, and everything in it, there are many things that prove Evolution to be wrong. Here is a detailed example about eggs and sperms.

[1] Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

Rebuttal #2

The Bible is not inerrant

Creationism relies on a key assumption: that every word of the Bible is absolute fact. There are a number of things that prove the Bible is not inerrant and that it contains falsities. If I prove a falsity in the Bible, I prove the entire basis for Creationism is a faulty assumption.

There has been many prophecies that prove the bible to be correct. We can look around today, and see that all of these things that have been prophesized are true.

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Now, we know from teachings of History and Evolution that, Pythagoras was the first to predict that the earth was round. Pythagoras was born in 571 B.C and died at the age of 75. The book if Isaiah, which prophesized the roundness of the earth was written in 150 100 BCE. [3] "The oldest surviving manuscripts of Isaiah are two scrolls found among the Dead Sea Scrolls; dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, they are substantially identical with the Masoretic version which forms the basis of most modern English-language versions of the book.

(a) the Earth is not 6000 years old

Scientist seem to believe that the earth is some billions of years old, proved by their dating method. But, another method they use "Radio-active" dating methods. But, scientist also use " Carbon-14 dating methods. Radiocarbon in Diamonds

[4] Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

As shown, dating methods confuse with how old the earth actually is.

Radioactive dating isn't reliable either.

[5] 'Radioactive isotopes are unstable and will decay into more stable isotopes of other elements. One common radiometric dating method is the Uranium-Lead method. This involves uranium isotopes with an atomic mass of 238. This is the most common form of uranium. It decays by a 14-step process into lead-206, which is stable. Each step involves the elimination of either an alpha or a beta particle. Therefore the process is:

Each individual atom has a chance of decaying by this process. If you were able to examine just one atom, you would not know whether or not it would decay. The chance of it decaying is not definite, by human standards, and is similar to the chance of rolling a particular number on a dice. Although we cannot determine what will happen to an individual atom, we can determine what will happen to a few million atoms....What happens statistically is that half of the available atoms will have decayed in a given period, specific to each radioactive species, called the half-life. For example, if element Aa had a half-life of 1 day and we had 1,000 lbs. of it on Monday, then we would have 500 lbs. on Tuesday, 250 lbs. (half of 500) on Wednesday and 125 lbs. on Thursday.....The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each Ã"Â±-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old.

Obviously, we can't depend on Radioactive dating to determine how old our Earth actually is. We have Carbon, used by scientist that shows us we have a young Earth, then we have Radioactive dating which shows us we have an old Earth. Seems like science has a major conflict.

(b) Mythical creatures

Many creatures described in the bible were very unusual and bizarre. [5] There are certainly many strange creatures mentioned in the Bible. Some descriptions are symbolic and are simply meant to represent certain nations, people, or ideas in prophetic visions; these creatures were never intended to be taken literally. Other passages are indeed describing a real beast, although the names provided by translators were sometimes taken from mythology. The King James Version, translated in 1611, contains several mentions of mythological creatures, including the unicorn, the dragon, and the fearsome cockatrice.

Now, this doesn't mean that all of these animals talked about in the bible were fake.

Hebrew word re'em, signifies a horned animal similar to the aurochs, a now-extinct ancestor of today’s domestic cattle. For some unknown reason, the translators of the KJV chose to substitute “unicorn” for the name of this horned animal each time it occurred: e.g., Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 22:21; and Isaiah 34:7. The Bible, in its original languages, never actually mentions unicorns.

The cockatrice is a legendary monster, half-rooster and half-snake, with the ability to turn people to stone at a glance. It may not be so well known as other mythological beings today, but, at the time the KJV translation was made, the cockatrice was a pervasive myth in Britain. The word cockatrice was used to translate the Hebrew tsepha`, which properly means “poisonous serpent or viper,” in four of its five occurrences: Isaiah 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; and Jeremiah 8:17. John Wycliffe used cockatrice in his 1382 Bible translation, and the KJV translators retained the term.

How can we believe this is not, of the bible?

(c) Basic physics

Yet, as mentioned in the begging of my argument, the prediction of the roundness of earth was written in the book if Isaiah, chapter 40, verse 22, which is accurate today.

(Sadly, I'm running out of characters, it will not give me enough characters to write my argument. So I shall write my argument in the next round since Pro didnt state any rules!)

Debate Round No. 2

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Claim: sperm and eggs disprove evolution

Fact: there are a few key problems with this argument.

(1) Even if the argument were true that mutations cannot occur in eggs, mutations in sperm cells caused by environmental factors (like gamma radiation) would be sufficient to explain evolution. For evolution to happen, an individual only needs to inherit a mutated gene from one parent. If the trait is dominant, it will be expressed in the individual. If the trait is recessive, the individual"s offspring will have a survival advantage over time.

(2) The argument wrongly assumes that environmental factors are the only ones that can cause mutations. There are actually two ways that genes can mutate: (a) environmental factors (e.g. radiation, carcinogens) and (b) transcription errors. My source #1 from the previous round says that the vast majority of mutations are from transcription errors, not environmental causes. And transcription errors can and will occur even in the oocytes that are formed in a human female prior to birth. The DNA transcriptase simply makes a mistake when creating the oocytes.

(3) The argument is wrong as a matter of fact. Prior to being born, a woman has all of the primary oocytes in her ovaries that she will ever have. [1] However, during estrus each month, the primary oocytes undergo two more divisions before they form a mature ovum. [1] During these two divisions, additional transcription errors can occur. [1]

(4) Lastly, the argument misunderstands how environmental mutations work. This type of mutation causes changes in *already formed* cells" DNA, without the need for cell division. For example, scientists have used radiation on already formed seeds (the analog to an already formed human ovum) to induce mutations for plant breeding (called "radiation breeding"). It doesn't matter that the seeds have already undergone cell division (meiosis) at this stage and are fully formed. Radiation can still induce mutations.

R2) Claim 2: Biblical "prophecies" prove that the Bible is inerrant

(1) First of all, we need to remember what Con needs to prove here, i.e. that *every word* in the Bible is true. I never claimed that the *entire* Bible is false. My argument was that if the Bible contains falsities, it is not the inerrant word of God, so there is no plausible reason to believe the Creation story over evolution. Some things in the Bible may be true, and Con tries to point to some of them. That doesn"t prove that every word in the Bible is true. Con fails the BOP on that. So there"s no reason to believe that the Creation story is one of the true parts.

(2) Nothing Con said is really a prophecy. The Bible is an enormous work that makes a variety of claims. If you claim enough things, you're bound to be right about some of them (even a broken clock is right twice a day). For example, if you claim both that the Earth is flat (as in the three passages I cited in the previous round) and that the Earth is a sphere (as Con claims of Isaiah 40:22), *one* of those has to be right. That"s not really impressive enough to prove the Bible had knowledge that was ahead of its time.

(3) Now, let's parse these passages. Isaiah 40:22 says the Earth is a "circle," not a sphere. A circle is a two dimensional object, meaning it can still be flat. Isaiah 55:9 says, "the heavens are higher than the earth." That doesn't come close to predicting an infinitely expanding universe. 2 Peter 3:7 says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment." That hardly predicts conservation of energy. That passage is actually saying that on judgment day, the known world will be burned (i.e. a fiery version of the rapture). Jeremiah 33:22's statement about "countless" stars is not impressive given that the vast number of stars is observable with the naked eye.

R3) Claim: Radioactive dating is inaccurate

I'm not sure what Con's argument is here. Carbon dating is used to accurately date objects that are less than 50,000 years old. [2] Uranium-lead dating is used to date older objects because uranium has a slower rate of decay, as Con's own source points out. Con's source also seems to claim that radioactive dating is inaccurate because the decay rate of a single molecule is not known, but the same source concedes that the half life of an entire sample of uranium or carbon is known. So we do known how long it will take half of the radioactive isotopes in a given sample to decay. That's the law of averages.

The accuracy of carbon dating is confirmed by dendrochronology, which uses the size and shape of trees rings to date the age of a tree. Tree rings from a particular year have a particular size and shape based on environmental factors, like rainfall patterns that year. [3] Rings from different trees can be matched together and used to date forests going back more than 8,000 years (which itself disproves that the Earth is 6,000 years old). [3] In addition, using carbon dating on the trees and getting the same result as through dendrochronology proves that carbon dating is accurate. [4]

Lastly, Con described a single experiment done by a creationist on zircon crystals. Basically, scientists had already dated the zircon crystals using uranium-lead dating as being 1.5 million years old. [4] A creationist calculated the age of the crystals based on the amount of helium they had in them as being only 6,000 years old. [4] However, there's a reason scientists don't use helium as a dating method. The diffusion rate of helium out of a crystal varies with temperature and pressure [4], so the diffusion rate assumed in the creationist's calculations was completely wrong. [4] In addition, Creationists all point to this one zircon crystal experiment to disprove radioactive dating. But if radioactive dating were wrong, there should be more than one simple calculation proving that everything we know about chemistry, radioactive decay, and half lives is wrong. It's just *one* experiment, whereas thousands of experiments have shown that uranium-lead dating can date objects between 1 million and 4.5 billion years old with an accuracy of +/- .1%. [5] We generally demand more proof than a single experiment before we jettison an entire scientific field.

R4) Mythical creatures are just allegories

Con says, "Some descriptions are symbolic and . . . were never intended to be taken literally."

(1) The same thing could be said about the Creation story. Perhaps it is also just an allegory that is not meant to be taken literally. If some parts of the Bible are mythical works of fiction (e.g. Leviathans), then there's no reason to believe that the Creation story is not also just a myth passed down through oral tradition. Con's concession here that some parts of the bible are symbolic myths is an enormous concession for this debate.

(2) At the very least, the description of the Leviathan was *not* a mistranslation and *was* meant to be taken literally. Job 41 describes the Leviathan in painstaking detail over the course of 34 sentences as a real creature that is too strong to be caught by a fishing hook, has a double coat of armor, and rows of fearsome teeth. Job 41:12 suggests that the passage is written as a firsthand account from someone who has witnessed a Leviathan.

Con's concessions

Con makes a number of key concessions here.

(1) Con concedes that the Bible was wrong to claim in 6 passages that the Earth is stationary. It actually orbits the Sun. So the Bible is not inerrant. That's cold conceded. Con also concedes that redshifting of light proves that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. So another cold conceded argument disproving the Bible's inerrancy.

(2) Con concedes that Creationism is implausible because we don't know where the story came from or how God "told" it to us. It's more plausible that ancient peoples just wrote down an oral myth story.

(3) Con concedes that a fossil has never been found in a layer of rock in which it did not belong based on evolution's predictions, which proves evolution true and Creationism false, because Creationism would predict that all fossils would be evenly disbursed (since everything was created at virtually the same time).

[5] Parrish, Randall R.; Noble, Stephen R., 2003. Zircon U-Th-Pb Geochronology by Isotope Dilution

So, since I have already rebutted in the previous round, I will now present my argument.

Why Creationism Beats Evolution

There are many big holes in the theory of Evolution, that the Bible can even answer.

For instance:

A) Life from non-life: [1]

These are just a few questions that prove Evolution has a major gap in their teachings. In parenthesis are the answers from the bible.

  • How did life develop from non-life? (You can read the answers to this in the Book of Genesis, when god created all living things, such as creatures and Adam and Eve.)
  • Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from? [1] ( You can read in Genesis that God gave Adam and Eve the right to rule over the earth and their own lives. We are created in God's image) Also in 2 Timothy Chpt1 Vs.7 "For God did not give us a spirit of timidity [of cowardice, of craven and cringing and fawning fear], but [He has given us a spirit] of power and of love and of calm and well-balanced mind and discipline and self-control”.
  • What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

Scientist still do NOT have any answers for the following questions, yet the bible can. As you can see, there are many answers here in the bible that evolutionist can't explain. The bible is the only book that can gives us these answers. This book was written way before scientist even began to make claims about how we, and the earth have evolved.

B) Fossil Records Prove Evolution Wrong!

[1] "One of the most powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms"

Yet, all fossils formed are in complete form, which only leads to one conclusion...Evolution never occurred!

"Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing."

Again, there has not been any fossils re-discovered with transitional forms. Yet, the Bible can answer for Evolution...again "The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn’t it?" A coincidence? I think not.

C. Putting The Book of Genesis to the Test!

For many years, people have disregard the thought of Genesis and how the earth was exactly made. But now, even NASA can even see that the teachings of how the earth was created is accurate! [2] In recent years however, some have challenged the account and say there is no scientific evidence to support Genesis. It appears now that discoveries made by NASA's scientist are confirming that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate" But the NASA "Spitzer Telescopes" have proved that the earth, in fact is the way it was prophesized about in the book of Genesis. "data from these two telescopes is revealing that planets like the Earth are formed in the exact same fashion as described at Genesis 1:2, 3. According to NASA, planets form inside a proto-planetary disc of dust and debris, starting out in a formless and chaotic state in total darkness, as describe in Genesis verse 2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.... NASA's scientists have discovered that as the planets mature inside their dusty cocoon they suck up all the dust between them and the sun so that the planets slowly emerge from darkness into the light as described in Genesis verse 3. "Let light come to be...... After doing a two year study of the data put together by NASA scientist from these two telescopes, Hutchins says he was astonished to learn how accurately this scientific data lined up with the simple description of planet formation recorded in Genesis."

As you can read, even NASA scientist have agreed that the book of Genesis is correct. It is the closest thing that has ever been prophesized about the earth. What is the excuse for this? That it's just a coincidence that our Earth is so dramatically correct to the book of Genesis which was written more then likely between 1440 and 1400. There is no coincidence or excuse for this.

Finally...I will give you one more reason as to why Evolution is wrong..

D. Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

Many Anthropologist claim that there are many missing links. Yet, scientist are lacking scientific proof that we actually came from certain species such as Apes. [3]There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures..... Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture."

So...we have pictures like this that supposedly show our time line:

But yet, there are many missing links. They make up species, put them in a picture and tell us this is how we evolved. Yet, there are humungous puzzle pieces missing, scientist choose to ignore those pieces, and put together other pieces that are just easier.

As you can see, there are so many missing puzzle pieces from Evolution theory, and yet the bible, has so many of theese awnsers, this means Creationism has to be true.

Debate Round No. 3

== Rebuttal ==

R1) Life from non-life

Con claims evolution cannot explain life coming from non-life (abiogensis). However, scientists have simulated the conditions of the early Earth and seen RNA nucleotides form in these conditions. [1] If RNA could form naturally, it would explain life from non-life. The RNA could encode all of the information necessary to create a living single-celled bacteria. Natural selection would have operated on the RNA molecules so that RNA that coded for a living being would have been more likely to survive and be replicated than RNA that didn't code for anything useful. That was Richard Dawkins' main premise in "The Selfish Gene": that natural selection occurs at the level of the individual gene, which wanted to survive and replicate. We wrongly think of natural selection as operating at the species level.

We know for a fact that RNA arose in the early Earth and that it could survive in non-living things because thats precisely what a virus is: a non-living entity encasing RNA in a protein. It's not a very big leap from a non-living virus to a living bacterium.

R2) Human emotions

Con claims that human emotions cannot be explained by evolution. However, this is a pretty easy one to explain. Emotions serve useful functions for survival and replication. Fear is a basic part of the fight-or-flight response that would have allowed us to escape predators. [2] Love and jealousy were ways to motivate us to find a partner and ensure that we weren't being cuckolded into raising a child that wasn't genetically related to us. [3] Pride and embarrassment are relevant to building and safeguarding our social standing, which is important for any animal that lives in social groups. [2]

R3) Symmetry

Con claims that symmetry could not arise by evolution. However, three responses.

(1) There's a fallacy with working backwards from the improbable when it has already happened. Stephen Hawking noted this in "A Brief History of Time." An Earth capable of sustaining life may seem highly improbable, but there are bound to be some such planets out of the hundred billion galaxies in the universe. There's no point asking how we ended up with an Earth the perfect distance from the Sun, when we already know it happened. Highly improbable events do happen (e.g. someone has to win the lottery). The evolution of symmetry might not have been the only possibility, but it happened. There's no point asking "why."

(2) Symmetry actually makes sense from the standpoint of natural selection. Animals with two legs run faster than those with one leg. Animals with two arms can lift heavy things, whereas animals with one arm cannot. Animals with two eyes have depth perception, whereas animals with only one eye do not.

(3) We're not actually perfectly symmetrical. No one has perfect facial symmetry, for example. And some animals are not symmetrical at all. Pleuronectiformes, for example, have two eyes on the same side of their face.

R4) The fossil record

(1) First, it's important to understand that fossilization is an extremely rare event. When organisms die, they decompose quickly. Only organisms that die in very specific conditions, such as being buried in tar, can fossilize. [4] For this reason, the fossil record only gives us a small snapshot of far less than 1 percent of the species that ever existed. [4] In addition, only hard-matter fossilizes, so fossils of everything except vertebrates are extremely rare. [4] So we don't have anything *near* a complete snapshot of every species that ever existed.

(2) We actually do have fossils from transition forms. The skeletal structure of Australopithecus afarensis demonstrates that it was only partially bipedal (i.e. walked upright but also walked using its hands), so it is part-way in between humans and apes. Pakicetids are a transitional form part-way in between modern horses and whales: they had hooves but had special membranes in their ears making them capable of directional hearing under water. It's important to note that modern cetaceans evolved after mammals *returned* to the water, so pakticetids were a transitional form between hoofed animals and cetaceans. Runcaria are a transitional form between non-seed-plants and seed-plants. Their "seeds" lacked a seed coating and they had no mechanism yet to guide the pollen to the seed.

R5) Genesis 1:2 is confirmed by NASA

Con makes this claim. However, remember my argument that if you make enough vague claims (as the Bible does), it's easy to later find confirmation from science. Con never responds to the fact that three biblical passages say the Earth is flat, six passages say the Earth is stationary (as opposed to orbiting the Sun), and three passages say the Earth is held up by pillars (as opposed to being held in its orbit by gravity). The Bible hardly predicts modern physics.

In addition, if you examine Genesis 1:2 in more depth, it is clearly wrong. Genesis 1:2 says, "The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." Genesis 1:2 says that the water of the Earth was already formed, but it was "dark," meaning the Sun had not yet formed. However, modern physics establishes that the Sun formed long before the Earth. [5] Genesis 1:2 also claims that the Earth and Sun were formed in 24 hours, which is clearly wrong based on modern physics. [5]

R6) Missing links: revisited

Con throws up a rather crude drawing showing a modern gibbon evolving into a human. First, here's a more accurate picture of all the intermediate hominid fossils we have.

Second, this "missing link" argument is no different than the "fossil record" argument from R4. Cross-apply my answers. Fossilization is rare and is only a small snapshot of every species that ever existed.

Third, Con's drawing is silly. Our common ancestor with apes would have looked nothing like a modern gibbon. It would have most closely resembled Australopithecus afarensis (pictured above) and as explained above, this species was partially bipedal and partially a knuckle-walker (like apes).

== Underview ==

My suggested weighing mechanism for this debate is to evaluate (1) what side provided more plausible explanations and (2) what side left more questions unanswered, leaving more holes in their explanation. I have answered every question that Con put forward. Con has left key questions unanswered:

(a) If God was the only witness to Creation, how the heck did this story get conveyed to humans? Is it not more plausible that we simply made it up and wrote it down? Other parts of the Bible are from ancient mythology, e.g. Leviathans (as Con concedes). There's no reason to think the Creation story was not also just a myth passed down through oral tradition.

(b) If all animals were created at the same time and humans have had the gift of language since our creation (see Genesis 2:23), why didn't any human ever mention the dinosaurs that walked around eating us (e.g. the T-rex) or the other human-like creatures that were walking around (e.g. Homo habilis and Neanderthals)? Those seem worth mentioning.

(c) Each rock layer in geological time is quite distinct. No modern animal has ever been found in a rock layer from a time before mammals evolved (e.g. a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian layer). Creationism would predict that every species would appear in every rock layer because they were all created at virtually the same time. Why don't we see that?

[Sidenote: debate convention dictates that there can be no new arguments or new responses to these questions offered in the last round, since I have no chance to respond.]

Conclusion. I have poked numerous holes in Con's explanation for the origin of species. Con failed to defend the inerrancy of the Bible: dropping numerous biblical passages that defy modern physics. If we can't trust every word in the Bible, the key assumption underlying Creationism is decimated. In contrast, I have proven that mutations exist (something Con essentially concedes) and that selection occurs in nature (something Con cold concedes), so I have proven that the two mechanisms underlying evolution do exist. Evolution is the sum of its parts, and if the parts are true, the whole is true. Because evolution is the most coherent explanation for the origin of species (that was offered in this debate), vote Pro.

[2] Shariff, A. F.; Tracy, J. L. (2011). "What Are Emotion Expressions For?"
[3] Robin Baker, "Sperm Wars"
[4] Prothero, Donald R. (2007). Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters
[5] A. P. Boss, R. H. Durisen (2005). "Chondrule-forming Shock Fronts in the Solar Nebula

In the last round, Pro doesn't deny the fact that God gave us, humans emotions. He simply states that we do have emotions, then goes on to give their functions. Never once did he explain as to how we got these emotions like I had explained. This is a very big missing piece in the theory of evolution. Emotions and morals had to come up somewhere at some time, yet the only inevitable proof is the bible. The Bible is the only book and piece of Evidence that explains so many different things, that evolutionist can't even explain. The Bible was written in BC/BCE. These accusations and stories and prophesies were told before scientist had even begun to think about evolution.

It is safe to say that scientist only have theories. A theory is [1] "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

It is safe to say, that god had created all things, even the earth. Then scientist began to observe these things and tried to figure out how they came about. Yet, scientist have no scientific idea that is accurate as to how these animals came about, and how the earth was made.

Pro 's response to my NASA argument was "Con makes this claim. However, remember my argument that if you make enough vague claims (as the Bible does), it's easy to later find confirmation from science." Then he goes to say that I never responded to the earth being flat, he never provided any scriptures to prove this. I simply stated a scripture that said the earth was "round". The thing about this assumption made by Pro, is that you can guess at multiple things and some of these guess will be right. It's just kind of dumb statement since so many prophecies in the bible were made, and many of them are correct, such as the following :

  • [2] Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

  • Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

  • Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

  • Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

  • Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

  • Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

  • Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

  • Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

  • Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

  • and many others.

"These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts..... It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible—in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems"

But yet, all scientist do is make assumptions and theories. There are so many questions that haven't been answered by scientist, yet the bible can answer the simplest questions scientist cant answer. Such as: [3]

  • How did behavioral modernity develop? Did it develop, or is John Shea right that anatomically modern humans were always behaviorally modern?

  • We have very few hominin fossils from 3-4 million years ago. What were our ancestors who lived then like?

  • It looks like Homo heidelbergensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens and of Neandertals. We don't know much about H. heidelbergensis.

  • The Denisova hominin: what did it look like? How big was its range? How'd they end up interbreeding with modern humans?

    These are just a few questions that haven't been answered, yet if we read the bible, everything that was made and created all makes sense.

Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 2 years ago
How odd that bluesteel would argue for evolution when she is supposedly a Christian...
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago

Do you type out your arguments in Word?
Posted by Deathbydefault 2 years ago
Well for one evolution has been physically observed via bacteria. Source: Kinda hard to argue that evolution doesn't exist when you can physically watch it happen. But, hey, you can still claim we don't share a common ancestor with apes :) I wonder how long it will be before we can prove that too... Question to creationists: Under the assumption that evolution is one day proven completely true in all regards, what will you do? Not trying to be insulting to anyone, just curious. I know what I would do if God is proven real, do you know what you'd do if he was proven false? Honestly, It's only a question, no motives other than curiosity.
Posted by danzchen7 2 years ago
Generally I tend to avoid these arguments because both cases are just way to different. No matter what sort of evidence you hold against Evolution, and no matter what contradictions Evolutionists make in their arguments (such as that gamma radiation thing, which was horribly inaccurate because gamma rays would destroy, causing a very fatal BAD mutation, not a beneficial one), mainstream science will continue to try and shove Creationism down the toilet because the events depicted are evidently miraculous. Evolution is just about as miraculous, just the miracles are hidden, and when you find one, there"s always those kinds of people who tell you that you didn"t find it over and over and over". f*** it. Nobody won this debate, because Evolution is a hole in the wall + pseudo-science, and Creationism is mostly theological, and therefore no one can make a scientific case in which one is right over the other.
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
You said carbon dating was inaccurate tho...
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Exactly, it goes to prove the bible was written way before scientist had claimed how the earth became about.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
Also just realized this, fyi.

This ("The oldest surviving manuscripts of Isaiah are two scrolls found among the Dead Sea Scrolls; dating from about 150 to 100 BCE") is based on carbon dating the documents. []
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Plz remind me to vote on this ....
Posted by Lee001 2 years ago
Well I sure hope
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro as Con copied major portions of her arguments from AiG and (the entire sperm cell argument). First, Pro uses genetic mutations and selection via. development of survival characteristics and sexual characteristics. Con completely drops this, and moves on to her rebuttal via. ova and sperm proving "evolution is wrong". Pro responds to this by an explanation using mutations in sperm influenced by environmental factors. Pro also shows transcription errors can cause mutations. Con then questions abiogenesis and uses fossil records in favor of creationism, which fail because RNA nucleotides can form in those conditions, as well as amino acids, as Pro shows. Pro shows that fossilization is very rare, and it's impossible to nonetheless find complete fossils, and uses evolutionary examples of fossils. As for the inerrancy of the Bible, Con concedes there are some errors, e.g. the earth being stationary, so upholding Pro's case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: If this was a 7 point debate I would have also granted Pro conduct, since Con C/P portions of her opening round verbatim (especially regarding radiometric dating) from AiG and Creationtoday. I noted that the majority of her round was original, but plagiarism on any level is a surefire way to immediately enter my bad books on voting. Regarding Args - Pro laid down a straightforward case of mutations & natural selection for evolution to occur - Con never challenged this concept, and her only argument against mutations regarding environmental mutations in the female 'X' chromosome was soundly refuted by Pro & dropped by Con. Pro's substantive argument against creationism regarding the age of the Earth was sustained by Pro, and dropped by Con in R3 and R4 (which amounts to a concession in a debate). Cons argument affirming the Creationism's validity with life from non-life, emotions, morals and Biblical prophecies met too much mitigation from Pro to hold any weight. Clear Pro win.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Does John McCain's age have a negative impact on his ability to lead this country as President of The United States?

  • He is senile

    He forgets that he is a Republican most of the time. He spends most of his time supporting illegals, instead of working for America. I don't think he has any idea what he is doing.
    He needs to step down, and retire to an assisted living home. Maybe a recall election could be called for.

  • Yes, I believe that John McCain's age has a negative impact on his perceived ability to lead the country - it makes him seem less of a strong leader.

    John McCain's age certainly has a negative impact on his perceived ability to lead our country. His advanced age makes him seem like a weaker choice against younger candidates, even though he brings valuable experience with him. Also, it makes his running-mate seem even more important, which certainly hurt him in the last election.

    Posted by: NeedlessOctavio75
  • I believe John McCain's age negatively impacts his ability to lead the United States, because it subconsciously implies that he is too old.

    Despite his credentials and military background, it is justifiable to doubt John McCain's ability to effectively lead the United States because of his age. Being President is considerably stressful, with lots of information to remember and be on top of. John McCain's age makes one doubt the capacity in which he could effectively do that job. With increased age comes the increased chances of health problems, along with forgetfulness and confusion. We do not need that chance in the White House right now.

    Posted by: ShowRace
  • Yes, I believe John McCain's age would have negative impact for our country, because we need a president less likely to have health issues.

    I believe we need a younger candidate for president because he isn't fit enough to be president. We need a president who is in good health, and one who will not possibly have health issues while in office. Our country could appear weakened if our leader is weakened. A younger, more fit president would look like a stronger leader in the eyes of other nations, as well as in the eyes of our citizens.

    Posted by: EdgeI4w
  • Although McCain appears quite capable presently, he will be 76 the next election, and by then may be more mentally, physically diminished.

    John McCain appears to be in good health and has not exhibited any signs of forgetfulness or instability. He can probably do a good job in the senate for many more years if his health continues. However, the presidency is a high stress, highly demanding job, and it requires someone who is at the top of his/her game. With the next election he will be 76 and that is just too old to be dealing with the constant intake of information and clear headed decisions needed in running one of the most powerful nations on earth.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • I believe that there is a point at which advanced age becomes a handicap in terms of likely deterioration of health.

    Although age brings much experience, there is a limit. A man of McCain's age is at significantly increased risk of sudden death or significant health deterioration. Despite the fact that we have a system, in this country, to handle the death or incapacitation of the President, it would still cause disruption.

    More worrying, however, would be subtle mental degradation that might impair his judgment without being obvious to those around him.

    Posted by: C0urtIight
  • Senator John McCain is too old to be President.

    The Average American lives for about 70 years. McCain is over 70 now. Imagine had McCain become President and died in the first year of his term, then we would by default have Palin as President. Palin, politically, has a lot of baggage and inexperience. That is one reason why Obama is president. I would be concerned having a elder President with an ethically questioned Vice President soon to take over.

    Posted by: EWeston
  • I think he is too old to understand the issues that are important to younger generations.

    Our country and the world changed rapidly in the last several decades. John McCain hasn't had to look for a job or health insurance in the last several decades, doesn't know how to use a computer, and doesn't know what the average American's life is like. His background is in the military and in politics, which is not "the real world" for most people.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • He seems out of touch and living in the past.

    He flip flopped on immigration and pandered the religious right. His issues are no longer his issues. He is not a maverick; he is a hack. Picking Palin showed a lack of common sense. He truly is a disappointment to the centrist republicans. He had potential in 2000, but alas, his time has passed. The GOP needs young fresh and new ideas. McCain is not the answer.

    Posted by: CheIBurke
  • His age is a detractor mainly because he can't identify with the problems we and future generations will face.

    Yes, age brings wisdom and perspective but within reason. At some point, it is a conflict of interest to decide, for instance, whether to grant universal insurance when you are in Medicare years. I know it isn't PC to have this view, but it is unrealistic to think that an 80 year old has the same investment in the future as a 35 year old.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • I disagree that John McCain's age has a negative impact on his leadership abilities, because age is just a number.

    Age is just a number, and should not be used as a tool when determining who is or isn't a fit leader. This would be like saying an African-American or a female is a questionable leader. It doesn't come down to age, when determining how fit someone is as a leader.

    Posted by: AnnoyedDong77
  • Age does not, in and of itself, determine the ability of an individual to provide leadership.

    John McCain is not a young man, but he enjoys very good health, especially considering what he went through in Vietnam). A much younger person could easily be in far worse health, which would impair his ability. The bottom line on this is that age is not the most important factor in determining the capability of an individual to function properly in a leadership position. That said, because age brings with it the potential for degeneration of cognitive abilities, it is important for a person of advanced age to be monitored and receive proper care and nutrition. One might also mention proper rest, but individual requirements vary. The much younger George W. Bush apparently was quite unhappy if he had to miss his afternoon nap, whereas McCain rarely indulges in one.

    Posted by: N0thingRaIPh
  • His age only signifies that he has more years of experience to bring to the position.

    Many people gain experience and wisdom as they age. This would serve to make an older gentleman or lady more valuable in the seat of the President. An oft-associated argument decrying a person's age is their associate health which, in John McCain's case, could be an issue. These health concerns are not brought up, and to undermine his ability based solely on his age has tones of ageism.

    Posted by: NimbleCharley33
  • John McCain's age does not have a negative impact on how he can lead this country, because he brings a lot of experience with him.

    John McCain's age does not have a negative impact on the type of leader he could be. He has a lot of experience, so this is actually something that he has going for him. Because of his experience, he would actually be a better leader then someone who is significantly younger with very little experience.

    Posted by: eyeslikethat
  • John McCain's age makes no difference in his leadership abilities.

    Age, whether young or old, makes no difference in terms of one's leadership abilities. Some people are just born leaders. There are teenagers and children who make huge contributions to society just as there are people in their 80s and 90s who make a big impact. Age should not be a factor in determining presidential ability.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • John McCain's age in no way negatively affects his ability to lead the country as President of the United States.

    What does age have to do with his leadership abilities? All age does is give him more experience in how to lead and get things done. Only in the event of an age-related illness, such as dementia or Alzheimer's, would it affect his ability. If anything, having more years of experience would make him a better candidate for president.

    Posted by: 5h4tAnkI
  • No, it would not be an issue at the time of election.

    The oldest president that we have had in the United States is Ronald Reagan. He was 69 - just one year shy of John McCain's age. And, everyone loved him. And, I don't remember people regarding him as the President that was older than dirt. The sickliest president that we have ever had was Kennedy, and he was also the youngest. And, one who didn't live out his term. So, age is not an indication of much when it comes to the Presidency. If the candidate is shown to be, by the people's vote, the best man for the job then he is. If, after office, something that could be attributed to his age begins to negatively effect his performance, the people do have options. But, McCain should not be discriminated against because of his age. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • John McCain's age doesn't hinder his ability to lead the country, because with age comes a certain amount of wisdom and experience, which he possesses both.

    McCain has went through experiences that give him character, wisdom and empathy toward his fellow citizens in certain circumstances. His age takes nothing away from these experiences or what he has to offer his country, he is healthy and his mind is as sharp as ever, making him a valuable leader for the USA.

    Posted by: Z Frye
  • Other countries routinely have leaders who are past 80.

    In Asia, age isn't viewed in the same light as the USA. For instance, in China, real political power doesn't start until you hit 70. At eighty, you are considered ready for top leadership. This cultural attitude doesn't seem to inhibit the Chinese. For John McCain specifically, he is in great shape, in full mental capacity, and has a great deal of experience with the right temperament. No, his age isn't a factor

    Posted by: BWade

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-149-109-157.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-05
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
What People Are Saying

"We changed to DLS in 2003. Our previous delivery company unfortunately provided numerous service issues in our Oklahoma market. DLS was a savior for us in Oklahoma. The professionalism they handle our customers with is beyond compare. The employees of DLS go the extra mile to ensure that our customers get the best delivery service available."

— Garry Castles,
V.P., W.M. Automotive

About Dedicated Logistic Solutions

Our Mission is to provide unique, efficient, cost effective local and out-of-town delivery logistic solutions that will not only surpass our competition, but will meet and exceed our customer’s expectations. This will be done with the attitude and spirit of a true servant.

Our Vision: Dedicated Logistics Solutions will seek to be the industry leader with consistent quality service and to be on the cutting edge of innovative ideas and concepts for an ever changing market. We will seek to perform at the highest level achievable today, tomorrow, and in the future.

Our Values: We will honor our customers, associates, and partners by being driven by the will of the Holy Spirit. We will be a company driven to provide outstanding service based on integrity and solid stewardship of our resources, talents, and relationships.
Website by Levant Technologies, an Oklahoma Web Design Company


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Fallan Soldier

$7  (including HST and Postage!) Special Limited Edition Fallan Soldier T-shirts.  In white or black.   Get Yours Today by emailing robyn@robynallan.com

MOVE THE MOUNTAINS TOUR 2010 now complete.  An awesome tour and thanks to everyone who came out to the shows!!!

Tour Poster

Harris Allan is Fallan Soldier, “an exemplary singer-songwriter…specializing in hard-hitting beats and genre-mixing tracks…with inventive lyrics and unique vocals” (AnE Vibe). His debut album “Above The Call Of Duty” is “fresh, upbeat and exceptional…Overall, a great piece of work” (NXEW).   “If you haven’t heard of Fallan Soldier, you will…” (Kamloops This Week)

Allan’s music career started at 16 as a songwriter, lead singer and guitarist for Square9.  In 2007 Allan began his solo career as hip hop/rap recording and performing artist Fallan Soldier.  He writes and produces all his material. Fallan Soldier’s debut album—Above The Call Of Duty—was released in 2009. Featuring 12 hip hop/rap songs, including  “Fights”, released to video, the album, with clever lyrics and layered soundtrack, also exhibits strong rock and pop elements.

Allan is also an actor whose tv credits include Queer As Folk series regular,  James “Hunter” Montgomery, as well as guest roles on Cold Squad, Smallville, The 4400, and Masters of Horror.  His film credits include A Home at the End of the World, with Colin Farrell and Sissy Spacek,  Final Destination 3, and Spectacular!

Performances - Past

June 19, The Cobalt, Vancouver
June 18, Lucky Bar, Victoria
June 17, Spice Lounge, Nanaimo
June 12, The ARTery, Edmonton
June 11, Marquee Room, Calgary
March 25, Pogue Mahone’s, Kamloops
March 26, Habitat, Kelowna
March 27,Voodoos, Penticton
November 14, 2009 Pogue Mahone, Kamloops
October 14, 2009 Backstage Lounge, Vancouver
June 14, 2009, Pulse Nightclub, Vancouver
July 24 2009,  Boss Nightclub, Vancouver
April 2, 2009 The Media Club, Vancouver

Media Interviews and Reviews

Saturday, June 12, 2010, interview with Dragon Fli Empire and Fallan Soldier for Daybreak Alberta CBC Radio 1 with host Chris dela Torre

Tuesday, March 30, 2010, Province Playlist, download “Fights” MP3 wins Reader’s Poll

Saturday, March 20, Fallan Soldier interview on The Hip Hop Shop, The X radio Kamloops - 92.5 FM, with hosts Jory and Shane

Monday, February 22, 2010, “Fights” added to CKRV 97.5 FM The River Kamloops Local Licks

Monday, January 11, 2010, Interview for Fights Video, The Interview Show, Scott Wood

Monday, January 4, “60 In The Tank” added to Streetz FM, Winnipeg

Wednesday, November 11, 2009, Preview,  Music’s In Fallan Soldier’s Bones, Kamloops This Week, Melissa Lampman

Saturday, November 7, 2009, Interview, The Hip Hop Shop, The X radio - 92.5 FM, with hosts Jory and Shane

Wednesday October 15, Performance Review “Last night @The Backstage Lounge..” by Jade Sperry

Monday October 26, Artsindy Crossroads Show with Nick Pannu 3:00 - 4:00 pm, CJSF 90.1 FM Burnaby or stream www.cjsf.ca

Thursday, October 13, 2009, The Express, Peter Kim, Shaw TV Vancouver, Cable 4, 3:00, 6:00, 8:00 and 10:00 pm

Thursday October 8, 2009 On-air interview “Arts Rational” with Megan - CFRO102.7 FM or stream live www.coopradio.org

Monday August 24, 2009 On-air interview “The Interview Show” with Scott Wood - CJSF90.1FM or 93.2 Cable or stream www.cjsf.ca. (Rebroadcast).

Thursday July 23, 2009, CD Review in North by East West, by Jade Sperry

Wednesday July 8, 2009, Noon - 3pm, On-air live interview “The Vinyl Spinner” - CIVL88.5FM Abbotsford, BC or stream www.civl.ca With host Johnny Komitoudis

Monday June 22, 2009, 4:30 - 5:00 pm, On-air live interview “The Interview Show” with Scott Wood - CJSF90.1FM or 93.2 Cable or stream www.cjsf.ca.

Wednesday June 10, 2009, On-air live interview “No Apologies Necessary”  2:30 - 3:30 with Kenan and Joe CFRO102.7FM Vancouver, BC or stream www.coopradio.org

Wednesday May 27, 2009, On-air live interview “Jumbalaya” 3:00 - 4:00 with B-Sac CJSF Radio 90.1FM - Burnaby, BC “This album is so hot I can’t even touch it…ouch!” B-Sac

April 12, 2009 Print Interview and Album Review
AnE Vibe Interview and Review by Alex Hutt

Above The Call Of Duty available at the following locations:

British Columbia

Zulu Records 1972 West 4th Ave., Vancouver
Red Cat Records 4307 Main St., Vancouver
AudioPile 2016 Comerical Dr (@4th), Vancouver
Scratch Records 726 Richards St., Vancouver
Dipt Clothing, 819 Hornby St., Vancouver
Vancity Scateboards, 421 Abbot St, Vancouver
212 Clothing,454 W Cordova, Vancouver
Fascinating Rhythm 51 Commercial St, Nanaimo
The Art We Are, #201-322 Victoria St, Kamloops
Grooveyard, 239 Main Street, Penticton

Megatunes 10355 Whyte Avenue, Edmonton
Megatunes 932 - 17 Avenue SW, Calgary

Sonic Boom 512 Bloor Street West, Toronto

Lou’s Records, 434 North Coast Hwy, Encinitas (just north of San Diego)

Waterloo Records, 600A North Lamar, Austin

Best Music in Manly, 43 The Corso, Manly, NSW

CD Baby
Fallan Soldier on My Space
Kerf Music - Western Canada’s Online Independent Music Store

Merchandise including t-shirts, dawg tags, cds at Nimbit

Release: Above The Call Of Duty
Date: March 31, 2009
Label: Dedication Entertainment

Download Fights
Download Onesheet
Download Album Cover
Download Promo Photo 1
Download Promo Photo 2

  1. A Big Front
  2. The Edge Of Disaster
  3. 60 In The Tank
  4. Suppressed
  5. Fights*
  6. Hands Up High
  7. Blood On The Pin*
  8. Fallan Soldier
  9. Morning
  10. Against Me*
  11. At Night*
  12. You Were Alive*

* - suitable for radio play

Fallan Soldier on MySpace
Fallan Soldier on CDBaby

Media Inquiries:
Robyn Allan
604 685 4160

©2009 Dedication Entertainment


text:
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Breaking News
Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P Pro CORE (Competition Optics Ready Equipment) Combat/Tactical/Competition Pistols: Good to Go and Ready to Beat Glock Pistols?

Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P Pro CORE (Competition Optics Ready Equipment) Combat/Tactical/Competition Pistols: Good to Go and Ready to Beat Glock Pistols?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

The following article is property of (DR) and is copyrighted material. If you are reading this article on another website other than, please email us the website address/URL (where the unauthorized DR article reprint is located) at defrev (at) gmail (dot) com. Thank you.

December 7, 2012
Last updated on 12/10/12.

On November 7th (2012), Smith & Wesson issued a press release on the S&W M&P Pro Series C.O.R.E. (Competition Optics Ready Equipment) series pistols, which are being built by the S&W Performance Center. The guns look good, and (DR) writer/contributor Jeff Gurwitch is chomping at the bit to run test samples of them at the range. While Performance Center guns tend to be terrific, and every Performance Center gun DR has ever owned or fired has been both accurate and a pleasure to shoot, we would still like to see how the new CORE pistols do at high round count under adverse conditions in military-level/grade reliability, accuracy and durability testing (combat optics aside) before we sign off on them.

We're also interested to see how the all the M&P CORE models perform against the Gen-3 and Gen-4 Glock pistols, and we're most interested in how the Smith & Wesson M&P9L Pro Series C.O.R.E. performs against the standard Glock 34 (G34) "practical tactical"/competition pistol with a comparable combat/competition red dot optic on it. In my conversations with Mr. Gurwitch, he's told me that the Glock 34 pistol fires "smoother" than the standard S&W M&P9L, in his experience, so the question is whether or not the S&W M&P9L Pro CORE will change that dynamic, and how it compares to both a standard G34 and a custom modified and tuned G34 pistol, as well as the price point difference between a M&P CORE and custom G34 with comparable features and optics. Understand that Gurwitch is both a military Special Operations Forces (SOF) assaulter/operator AND a competitive 3-Gun shooter, so his opinion on how various pistols he uses stack up to each other carries A LOT of weight with us.

The Gen-3 Glock 34 pistol is pretty terrific, and the latest Gen-3 and Gen-4 Glock pistols are, according to another competitive shooter contact of ours, "the best pistols Glock's ever made" in terms of accuracy. He says they're the most accurate Glock pistols ever, except we can't remember whether he said this is due to the barrel-to-slide fit, slide-to-barrel fit, or both. This same person dislikes a number of M&P aspects: the loaded chamber indicator hole, the extractor design, and the accuracy of 9mm Parabellum/9x19mm NATO and .40 S&W M&P pistols. We'll go through them one by one:

He doesn't like the fact that Smith & Wesson has placed the M&P pistols' loaded chamber indicator hole right where dirt, sand, etc. can cause trouble, i.e., right at the case rim/primer area, if it manages to get in there. He told us there was some TV show (Guns & Ammo TV?) where guys with lab coats ran some kind of sand/debris test and experienced failures with the M&P pistol because sand or dirt got in that hole. If this hole indeed lets debris into the action and can lead to malfunctions, then, in our opinion, it constitutes an inherent design flaw that should be removed. Since the hole is half carved into the barrel hood and half carved into the slide, both the barrel AND the slide would have to be retooled to fix it.

Another problem with this type of chamber indicator is that you can't perform a tactile chamber check in the dark like you can with a Glock pistol. Assaulters/tactical operators and civilian tactical shooters should even be able to feel the Glock's chamber indicator/extractor while wearing tactical gloves, since we were able to accomplish this while wearing Line of Fire (LOF) Stryker Extraction Gloves with the index finger pad portion of the glove intact. A lot of people, including me, prefer to cut out this section of the glove on either their primary/firing hand or both hands (for ambidextrous shooting capability) to achieve a better trigger pull. So that's always an option, as well.

LOF tactical gloves are currently DR’s favorite tactical shooting glove, by the way, and we really like the way the LOF Stryker Gloves look and perform.

Next up is the M&P pistol's extractor versus the Glock pistol's extractor. The Glock's extractor can be quickly and easily replaced in the field at the operator/end-user level with a little (basic) knowledge (or by using a Glock armorer's manual) and a Glock armorer's tool. It's DR's understanding that the M&P's extractor currently cannot be likewise field-maintained/replaced, and instead must be replaced at the armorer's level due to the difficulty/complexity in removing and replacing it. So, if you're running an M&P pistol and your extractor fails in the field, chances are, you're done using that pistol operationally or competitively until you can get it back into a M&P armorer's hands.

Finally, Defense Review has received reports from contacts of ours that the 9mm and .40 S&W S&W M&P pistols have had some accuracy issues. However, we don't know whether these issues have been caused by a barrel quality problem, barrel-to-slide fit, slide-to-frame fit, a design flaw, or a combination of those. Back in April (2012) Hilton (Yam?), writing on the 10-8 Performance blog, blamed the M&P 9mm pistols' accuracy problems on the combination of the barrel's slow twist rate and extremely fast unlocking time:

The main downfall of the M&P 9mm is the wildly varying accuracy thanks to some QC issues and design flaws. The M&P 9 barrel uses a tragically slow 1:18.75" twist, which does a poor job stabilizing heavier bullets. To add insult to injury, the M&P also unlocks extremely quickly. This early unlocking tends to negate any conventional wisdom on what bullet weights should shoot well with the M&P, and you'll want to do a bit of experimenting. The Glock is inherently more accurate than the M&P, and will shoot 3" or better at 25 yards with a wide range of ammunition. I feel that 3" or less is a good measure for service pistol accuracy at 25 yards. My 3 primary M&P 9mm's will all shoot 3" or better at 25 yards with any 147 grain ammunition that I feed them, and two of them have printed 2 5/8" standing offhand at 25 yards with 147 grain. That works for me. However, all three of the guns shoot about 6-8" at 25 yards using 115 and 124 grain ammo. My solution at this point is just to stick with 147 grain.

Having to limit one's defensive 9mm ammo choices to 147gr ammo is unacceptable, in DR's opinion. So, let's hope Smith & Wesson has since solved the twist rate and unlocking time problem,s if "Hilton" is correct and those are indeed the the problems, and the only ones.

By contrast, the S&W M&P .45 ACP pistols are, according to information we've received from sources outside Smith & Wesson, significantly more accurate, since they had to meet a military accuracy spec for the U.S. military's Combat Pistol requirement awhile back. However, even if there were accuracy issues with the standard 9mm and .40 S&W M&Ps, the S&W M&P Pro CORE pistols, being S&W Performance Center pistols, are most likely all very accurate.

DR is anxious to see how good the triggers on the various M&P Pro CORE pistols are, and how they compare to the latest Apex Tactical Specialties aftermarket M&P trigger kits.

Taking this a step further, we'd like to see how the new S&W M&P Pro CORE pistols stack up feature-wise, performance-wise and price-wise versus the Bowie Tactical Concepts (BTC) custom M&P pistol packages that look curiously similar to, and predate, Smith & Wesson's factory-produced CORE guns. Perhaps the BTC custom M&P pistols served as some inspiration? The latest BTC custom guns also utilize an interesting red dot combat optic (mini red dot sight)/rear fixed sight setup where the rear fixed BUIS (Back Up Iron Sight) is placed in front of the red dot sight, as opposed to behind it, in order to provide an unaccluded view of the red dot sight picture. The rear BUIS, now sitting in front of the glass, co-witnesses the bottom third of the red dot sight. BTC appears to have an affinity for the Trijicon RMR Sight (LED) (RM02) and Leupold DeltaPoint Reflex Sight. BTC also customizes Glock pistols. They can re-contour the Glock's grip to what appears to be a 1911 pistol grip angle, and they can add an extended beavertail grip tang. By the way, BTC is run by David Bowie, of course…who else?

Speaking of an extended beaver tail grip tang, most of the S&W M&P pistols feature an extended tang, which is a feature that I personally really wish Glock pistols also featured, since I've always experienced slide bite on the inside of my primary/firing hand thum knuckle when doing a lot of fast shooting during training. An extended tang also aids if fast shot-to-shot recovery and control during fast multiple-shot strings on multiple targets. While the Glock 19 (G19) pistol is still my primary concealed carry (CCW) gun, it could still use a little "perfecting", in DR's opinion, and an extended grip tang is a feature we'd really like to add to it if we can find someone we trust to do it right at reasonable cost. Perhaps we can trust Bowie Tactical Concepts to do it. We've never spoken or dealt with them, but their work certainly looks good in the pictures we've seen. We'll try to reach them to find out their pricing and turnaround time.

Finally, DR would like to see how the S&W M&P Pro CORE and Glock pistols are able to handle Atlanta Arms and Ammo 9mm Major loads (match ammo) for competition. We're guessing that a KKM Precision barrel with fully-supported chamber would be required for any Glock pistol firing 9mm Major. Disclaimer: DR would advise our readers to check with all companies involved to make sure that 9mm Major ammo is safe in the S&W M&P and Glock pistols (or any 9mm pistol, for that matter), even when using barrels with fully-supported chambers. Frankly, we're not sure.

The following is a Smith & Wesson press release on the S&W M&P Pro Series CORE pistols:

"SPRINGFIELD, Mass.– Smith & Wesson Corp. today announced that four new models have been added to the Company’s premier line of M&P® polymer pistols.

Based on the popular Pro Series line of competition ready firearms, the new M&P C.O.R.E (Competition Optics Ready Equipment) models offer consumers a specialized platform for adding accessory optics to their personal handguns. Engineered to accept six popular styles of competition based optics, the M&P C.O.R.E models are easily adapted to meet any demand. At the foundation of the new M&P C.O.R.E. resides a specialized mounting platform on the slide of the pistol that can be conveniently changed to match the desired optic. Through the use of removable brackets, consumers are able to simply install the corresponding mounting screws to achieve the precise fit and height required. Designed to work in conjunction with the Trijicon RMR, C-More STS, Leupold DeltaPoint, Docter, Insight MRDS and JPoint, the M&P C.O.R.E. offers quick and custom sight installation for the industry’s top aftermarket red-dot sight manufacturers.

The new M&P C.O.R.E. models will be available in both 9mm and .40 S&W with either a 4.25 or 5-inch barrel configuration. Engineered as a true competition platform, each model will retain original design features including a polymer frame with a through-hardened stainless steel slide and barrel, ambidextrous operating controls, striker fire action and Melonite® finish. For improved handling the M&P C.O.R.E. models feature a new textured interchangeable back strap with prominent stippling. Three patented palmswell grips are supplied with each pistol, providing shooters the ability to tailor the grip size to their personal preference.

For improved accuracy and precise shot placement during competition, the M&P C.O.R.E. pistols are standard with a Performance Center sear. The specialized sear allows for a crisp 4.5 pound trigger pull along with a faster, defined reset in between shots. On top of the slide, Smith & Wesson has added higher sights that can be used in concordance with the mounted optic. Other standard features of the new pistols include a crowned muzzle for improved accuracy, picatinny-style equipment rail and reversible magazine release.

Internal features of the new M&P C.O.R.E. remain consistent with the original design and include a stainless steel internal chassis designed to reduce flex while also providing a stable shooting platform. The M&P pistol’s low-bore axis helps maintain ease-of-use and a comfortable feel and the passive trigger safety prevents the pistol from firing if dropped regardless of angle. A sear release lever eliminates the need to press the trigger in order to disassemble and the simple take down lever is located on the left side of the frame. A loaded chamber indicator is present on top of the slide and rear scalloped slide serrations enable easy firearm manipulation. The 9mm M&P C.O.R.E. is standard with a 17+1 round magazine capacity and the .40 S&W variant features a 15+1 round capacity. Without a mounted optic the 5-inch barrel models have an empty weight of 26 ounces while the 4.25-inch pistols measure two ounces lighter. For more information on the new M&P C.O.R.E models, please visit

About Smith & Wesson
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC) is a U.S.-based leader in firearm manufacturing and design, delivering a broad portfolio of quality firearms, related products and training to the consumer, law enforcement, and military markets. The company’s brands include Smith & Wesson, M&P and Thompson/Center Arms. Smith & Wesson facilities are located in Massachusetts and Maine. For more information on Smith & Wesson, call (800) 331-0852 or log on to"

© Copyright 2012 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without receiving permission and providing proper credit and appropriate links.

Images Credit: Smith & Wesson

Company Contact Info:

Smith & Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104
Toll Free: 800-331-0852
Phone: 413-781-8300
USA Fax: 413-747-3317
Intl. Fax: 413-731-8980
Email: [email protected]

Glock, Inc.
6000 Highlands Parkway
Smyrna, GA 30082
Phone: 770-432-1202
Fax: 770-433-8719

Glock Ges.m.b.H. P.O.
Box 9 A-2232
Deutsch Wagram AUSTRIA
Phone: +43 (0) 2247 – 90300-0
Fax: +43 (0) 2247 – 90300-300

Apex Tactical Specialties, Inc.
2055 11th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402
United States
Phone: 805-528-5250
Email: [email protected]

APEX Customer & Technical Services
Phone: 805-528-5250

Line of Fire, LLC
5482 Oceanus Drive, Suite E
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone: 323.899.3016
Fax: 562.424.1562
Email Contact Form:

Bowie Tactical Concepts, LLC (BTC)
Phone: 937-544-4606
Email: [email protected]

KKM Precision
25 Cygnet Dr. #200
Carson City, NV 89706
Phone: 775-246-5444
Fax: 775-246-9182
Email Contact Form:

Atlanta Arms and Ammo
721 Vine Circle
Social Circle, Ga 30025
Phone: 770-464-2203
Phone/Fax: 770-464-2846
Email: [email protected]

© Copyright 2012 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without receiving permission and providing proper credit and appropriate links.

Related Articles:

Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P SHIELD 9mm/.40 S&W Single-Stack, Striker-Fired Compact/Sub-Compact Pistol for Concealed Carry (CCW) Applications

Line of Fire (LOF) Introduces Grip-Enhancing Tactical Gloves with Revolutionary TEGS (Technology Enhanced Grip System) Technology: Assault Gloves Go Gecko

Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P High-Capacity Tactical Pistols for Competition and Personal Protection: An In-Depth Military Operator/Competition Shooter’s Analysis (Photos and Video!)

Taran Tactical Innovations (TTI) Glock Firepower Magazine Basepads: Badass Basepads for Enhanced Glock Pistol Firepower!

Walther PPS (Police Pistol Slim) Single-Stack, Striker-Fired 9mm Compact/Sub-Compact Pistol for Concealed Carry (CCW) Applications and Covert Missions/Operations

Salient Arms International (SAI) Custom Pistols, Rifles, and Shotguns for Competition and Carry Displayed at SHOT Show 2011

Springfield Armory XDm-45ACP and XD(M)-9mm 5.25″-Barreled Competition Series Long-Slide Tactical Pistols: Developed by Rob Leatham for Rob Leatham

Springfield Armory XDM-9 3.8 “Short Barrel” High-Capacity Compact 9mm Pistol for Concealed Carry (CCW): 20 (19+1) Rounds of Immediate Firepower!

Springfield Armory XDM Pistol: 16+1 Rounds of .40 S&W Firepower

Steyr C9-A1 Ultra-Low-Bore-Axis 9mm Pistol with 17+1 Ammo Capacity for Concealed Carry (CCW) and Tactical Applications: Full-Size Polymer Frame, Short Slide and 3.6″ Barrel

Beretta Nano Sub-Compact Pistol: 9mm Parabellum (9x19mm NATO)/.40 S&W Polymer-Framed Sub-Compact Pistol Goes Up Against the Big Boys in the Concealed Carry (CCW) Arena

Can a Combat-Reliable Production High-Capacity Tactical 1911 Pistol be developed for U.S. Military Special Operations Forces (SOF) (including USMC MARSOC) and Civilian Tactical Shooters? Meet the Production Polymer-Framed Modular/Multi-Caliber .45 ACP/9x23mm Double-Stack Tactical/Combat 1911 Pistol Concept.

Sandbox Field Report Part 1: Marvel Custom Tactical 1911 Pistol (Single Stack) Perform Downrange

Marvel Custom Tactical 1911 Pistols for Special Operations and Concealed Carry

Smith & Wesson M&P (Military and Police) Pistol Debuts at IACP 2005 Miami (Pics)

Smith & Wesson M&P Pistol: The Next Evolution in Polymer-Framed Combat Pistols?

Smith & Wesson (S&W) M&P Pro CORE (Competition Optics Ready Equipment) Combat/Tactical/Competition Pistols: Good to Go and Ready to Beat Glock Pistols? by

About David Crane

David Crane started publishing online in 2001. Since that time, governments, military organizations, Special Operators (i.e. professional trigger pullers), agencies, and civilian tactical shooters the world over have come to depend on Defense Review as the authoritative source of news and information on "the latest and greatest" in the field of military defense and tactical technology and hardware, including tactical firearms, ammunition, equipment, gear, and training.

  1. Do these CORE models come with a red dot sight as pictured on the S&W website? (I highly doubt it, but I’ve been surprised before)

    Also, the sights on this are standard 3-dot, but are there any aftermarket “high rise” night sights available to use as backups to the red dot?

Leave a Reply


text:
Institute of Trading and Portfolio Management Hire Ross Williams as Senior Trading Mentor

November 24 21:20 2017
The Institute of Trading and Portfolio Management (ITPM) has today announced a significant addition to their global trading operation: Hedge Fund Manager and Proprietary trader Ross Williams has joined the Institute of Trading and Portfolio Management as a Senior Trading Mentor, covering the Asia Pacific region.

London, United Kingdom – 24 November, 2017 – Ross Williams is a Professional Trader / Hedge Fund Portfolio Manager. He started his career in 1998 in London at CIBC World Markets in Fixed Income, trading Derivatives and Credit products. He then moved to work for Bear Stearns on their Proprietary Trading Desk from 2001-2006 and was promoted to Managing Director in 2005.

He cashed out at Bear Stearns and joined Hedge Fund (Peloton Partners) in 2006 with other partners from Goldman Sachs, trading all Asset Classes (Rates, Equities, Currencies and Commodities). The fund had the backing of many of the world’s pre-eminent investors.

Peloton quickly grew to USD 2.8 billion in Assets under Management (AUM) due to an 87 per cent performance in the mortgage fund in 2007. Peloton Partners was named Eurohedge Hedge Fund of the Year in Europe in 2007. In 2008, the Global Financial Crisis took its toll and forced redemptions at the fund. The partners agreed to return investors capital and close the fund down.

Ross then returned to his native Australia where he joined the UBS Proprietary Trading operation in Sydney as a Prop’ Trader, Trading across all asset classes. Ross now works for Peninsula Strategies in Sydney (a private investment firm) as a Portfolio Manager specialising in Long / Short Equities Portfolio Management and tactical asset allocation and also as a Senior Trading Mentor and asset allocator at the Institute of Trading and Portfolio Management, helping Retail Traders get consistent profitability in their portfolios.

With immediate effect Ross Williams will be replacing Tristan Edwards at the Institute of Trading and Portfolio Management as a Senior Trading Mentor covering Australia, New Zealand and South-East Asia. Tristan Edwards has co-founded Life Biosciences in Boston Massachusetts USA and is now full time CEO. Specifically, Life Biosciences is an investment platform dedicated to aging and longevity research aiming to extend human life in good health.

Commenting on today’s announcement, Institute Managing Partner Anton Kreil made the following statement:

“Ross Williams is bringing a wealth of experience with him. He has seen it all and done it all in the last 20 years of trading Financial Markets. Our students in the Asia Pacific region are going to benefit massively from his Mentoring. Tristan Edwards is leaving us to become CEO of a biotech firm which he co-founded in the US. If anything, this is testament to the pedigree of the Mentors we bring into the Institute and shows that, given their talent, they may not always be with us. We wish Tristan good luck in his future endeavours and congratulate Ross on joining the Institute in his new role.”

For more information about ITPM, please click the following links:

Institute Mentoring Program with Ross Williams
ALL Institute Mentoring Programs
Institute Online Educational Video Series Information
Institute FAQs

For all Press Enquiries, use this contact form:

Media Contact
Company Name: ITPM
Contact Person: Anton Kreil
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 18001454545
Country: United Kingdom


text:
More Views

Junior Crew Tee - Retro Sunset

In stock

size chart

* Required Fields

Relaxed Fit

• 4.5 oz., 100% preshrunk combed ring-spun cotton jersey
• Soft, short-sleeved crew neck
• Topstitched ribbed collar with taped neck
• Double-needle sleeve and bottom hems
• Longer length; hits below hips
• Machine wash cold, inside out with like colors, non-chlorine bleach only, tumble dry low, do not iron the design

The best view comes from the sandy shores of the beach. With the sunset and palm trees in sight, watch this color-changing shirt transform from a picturesque blue and white palm tree design to an explosion of sunset colors in the sun. So go ahead, take a deep breath and relax along the water. But don’t be surprised when everyone on the beach is amazed at this one-of-a-kind shirt.

Size Chest Length
S 30" 25.5"
M 32" 26"
L 34" 26.5"
XL 37" 27.25"
2XL 40" 28"

How Color Change Works:
It's magic! Seriously, it's the magic of Del Sol's proprietary Spectrachrome® Technology. Spectrachrome crystals reveal their hidden colors when exposed to sunlight. NASA invented it for their space program, and Del Sol enhanced it for everyone under the sun! It's not rocket science, but then again, maybe it is. Learn more here!

WOW Guarantee:
All Del Sol products are guaranteed to change colors in the sun for the life of the product, through normal use. Wash and dry it as many times as you'd like! (Follow specific washing instructions on product labels.)

Contact us with any questions or feedback.


text:
Dentist Prices in India

Indian Dentist Prices

The table below gives some example dentist prices for Private Dentists in India.

Note that these are examples only, and if you have your own prices then please let us know by emailing

We can then generate a table of Dentist Prices in India from data produce by the citizens of India itself.

All dentist prices are given in India Rupees

Apiectomy Braces - 28,000 to 50,000

Dental Bridge -

Dental Crown Gold - 10,000 - 20,000

Dental Crown Composite - 12,000 - 20,000

Dental Examination - Free to 5,000

Dentures Full - 12,000 - 24,000

Dentures Partial - 8,000 - 16,000

Hygiene Clean - 5,000 Implants - 40,000 - 60,000

Large tooth filling - 1,200 - 2,000

Root canal - 5,500

Small tooth filling 1,000 - 1,500

Tooth Scale and Polish - 8,00

Veneer - 11,000

Whitening 4,500 - 11,000

Wisdom tooth extraction

India offers fairly competitive dentist prices, especially when compared to the Western countries. Some people from the USA, or Europe actually travel to India in order to get their dentistry done. This can be a good way of saving money as long as you very carefully check out the dentist before you go and make sure that they will give you a high quality service.

Syndicate content


text:
Founder Shivangi Surana started Dessertlane in 2015, baking 10 hours a day in her home kitchen and selling her delicious creations to Boston's student population. After graduating college, she moved to New York to train under renowned Chefs Dominique Ansel and Jean-Georges Vongerichten. Dessert Lane's cakes, tarts, and pastries owe their exceptional look and flavor to carefully-sourced raw ingredients, crafting bold combinations of flavors and textures.

Shivangi is a self-trained pastry chef. Growing up in Jaipur, Shivangi baked for family members, neighbors, and large community events. Baking became an important part of Shivangi's adult life as well; a way of honoring her roots and the recipes that shaped her youth. Dessertlane's mission is to inspire and touch every person, neighborhood and city with our experience and through our food, our passion, and our culture.

You can reach Shivangi directly at chefshivangi@gmail.com