This is the problem with your logic. I have presented evidence to the contrary yet your mind is still set.
1. No dating method has ever worked. Carbon dating, potassium dating, geologic columns, have all been proven wrong. They do not work on things that have a known age, yet scientist claim (with no actual evidence or way to back it up) that the dating methods DO work on things that have unknown ages. If you believe that, fine. But it's faith, not science. If something is proven to be wrong, you can't say it's right.
2. There is nothing without life that can produce life. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you cannot. We have never seen a rock turn into a dog. This is what evolution and big bang theory clearly rely on but that cannot be done.
3. No form of evolution has EVER been observed except for micro-evolution which is the variation within a kind, which as I've said before, is also stated in the Bible. Scientists have only observed that and that has been known since the Bible was written. Scientists try to lump all other forms of evolution in with micro evolution, but it doesn't work that way. If you want there to be macro-evolution, you need to prove it. So far there has been no proof. If you read through this thread carefully, people have brought up all the major "proofs" that scientists have told them, and I've explained how the evidence is incorrect and is all a product of micro-evolution, nothing else.
Those are the 3 biggest debunks of evolution that I've seen although there are many many more problems and flaws in it. If you want to believe it, go right for it, but you cannot call it fact or common knowledge. It doesn't work that way, if it isn't proven right, and all the testing methods are being proven wrong, then at best it's faith.
Watertarg, WoW offtopic 11 Comments
[8/31/2008 7:02:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Worldsend
Okay, this is old ground, so I'm just going to hit all the points in succession.
1) Prove your assertion. Carbondating, argondating, potassiumdating, they all rely on known radioactive halflives that are woven into the fabric of the universe and thus are completely and totally infallible within their useful limits.
2) Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory. Scientists cannot speculate as to the origins of the hypersingularity, so we do not try.
3) Macro-evolution is accumulated micro-evolution.
9/5/2008 10:52:32 PM
A rock cannot turn into a dog. Neither can a monkey turn into a human. No one says one can. We and apes had a common ancestor. And evolution does not include the origin of life, just its nature of progression since. Try the Primordial Soup theory.
9/4/2009 3:22:17 PM
Keep this up and no dating method will work for you, either.
9/4/2009 3:23:01 PM
Above poster, he is posting on the WoW offtopic board. No dating method has worked for him for a llooonnnnggg time.
4/27/2010 8:19:29 PM
1. No. Or rather; please produce all these studies that show them to be wrong.
2. Evolution is diversity in nature, one living thing producing another living thing.
Big bang is matter expanding, nothing living there at all.
One is biology, the other is cosmology, astrophysics. They have less in common than the Big Bang and Gravity.
3. A lot of micro-evolutions after each other equals macro-evolution, there's no either/or, it's both at the same time.
It's walking to the store on the corner and running a mile - both are done through placing one foot in front of the other, one step at a time.
"Kind" is a Biblical term, outside the Bible, in the real world, we talk about species or families.
There are no "other forms" of evolution.
What kind of education do you have, that makes you qualified to debunk 150 years of highly skilled scientists working to perfect the Theory of Evolution, reaching new conclusions, finding new evidence? What do you have that they lack?
We don't "believe" in evolution, we laymen take it for granted, just as we take gravity and water freezing into ice for granted.
Haven you proven the existence of God yet?
4/28/2010 8:04:50 AM
4/28/2010 9:27:04 AM
We have never seen a rock turn into a dog.
But we have seen a similar far-out claim. Creationists say that clay turned into man.
4/28/2010 11:24:20 AM
If sandstone can't turn into a border collie, dust can't turn into a person.
8/10/2010 11:19:12 AM
1) On the contrary, Carbon dating has proved exceedingly accurate and has been verified by dendrochronology. Yes, there are certain circumstances where it cannot be applied (such as marine organisms) but scientists are aware of these restrictions.
2) The creation of life is the field of abiogenesis. The big bang theory is the field of cosmology. Neither has anything to do with evolution. The ToE has never claimed that rocks turn into dogs. You are the only one doing that, which simply displays your ignorance.
3) Your so-called 'micro' evolution is merely evolution within a short period of time. Lengthen the time-span (let's say,,, 4.7 billion years) and you have neither micro nor macro,,, just evolution.
Your 'debunks' of evolution are based upon your own false presuppositions, strawman arguments and downright willful ignorance, and are hence not worth considering in any serious way.
8/10/2010 11:41:11 AM
"There is nothing without life that can produce life"
A self-sabotaging argument. Try to get over this hurdle: If life is a prerequisite of life, how did god create himself?
3/2/2011 10:28:34 AM
> If something is proven to be wrong, you can't say it's right.
Young Earth Creation has been proven wrong, so unless you want to believe in some sort of Last Thursdayism, I suggest you heed your own advice.
> This is what evolution and big bang theory clearly rely on
Thanks for so plainly proclaiming your ignorance regarding the positions you believe you can rebut.
> If you want there to be macro-evolution, you need to prove it. So far there has been no proof.
The fossil record, observed evolution, the principle of parsimony and a little bit of common sense.
3/2/2011 11:10:14 AM