neither of my posts, containing anything offtopic, were spam.
"roflmao"
"and i thought american kids were poor students."
"your point of view, in this instance, is not worth viewing"
Spam is usless information usually posted to raise post count.
Look at all your posts in this thread, give me an example of one thing youve contributed to this thread.
roflmao. you'll come back for more 'pictures'? how any of you have put up with this for some 20 pages is beyond me. send him to talk origins, or any other site, and have him do his own homework.
i was actually hoping that youd just leave and i wouldnt have to reply to your messages but since you refuse to leave i will explain to you.
you mocked my reply to this statement:
Evolution can withstand substantial amounts of refuted evidence, because there would still be so much left!
he claimed that theres such an excessive amount of evidence for macroevolution...i beleive otherwise. When i requested for him to post this "vast amount of evidence" it was more of a test to see if hes actually telling the truth. Ive tried looking evidence up in the past and it seems scarce. No im not just using these guys at my desire to find lovley pictures of how the world came to be...its a debate thread, more serious then that. You think i havnt done my own homework on the sitaution, you are sadly mistaken. Heres an essay i wrote on the topic:
"
Nov. 30, 2006 (// - ive been discussing evolution 2 weeks prior to this date and up until now.)
Macroevolution: True or False?
One day in Smithers B.C., my Dad, Ken de Wit, hiked up a mountain in search of adventure. Once he reached the top of the mountain, a unique rock caught his attention. He peered down at the historic stone with excitement and brought it home. The object contained an embedded fish on its surface. Initially I, his son, found this very interesting but once he told me where he got it from, I became confused.
Biblical references describe that a flood, higher than mountains, once took place (Genesis 6:1-8). This would explain how a fish could die and be fossilized on top of a mountain. The Bible is a contradiction of macroevolution, each having a completely different view on how life began. After pooling together all this data I thought that I had proved the Bible to be true, thus resulting in macroevolution being false (or so I thought at the age of seven). I looked into the view an evolutionist had on the subject. Plate tectonics is a process in which the Earth’s crust moves. In some situations two Earth plates collide together, thus splitting upwards and forming a mountain, carrying fossils from ground level upwards. My inexperienced logical reasoning had been proven wrong. Is macroevolution actually true, or are there other flaws in it that have yet to be proven incorrect?
Macroevolution is a theory initially created by Charles Darwin that attempts to describe how life began. The theory states that all types of living creatures
came from a common ancestor. It says mutations, a fault in genetics, might cause an organism to be more successful. This would result in it having the possibility to survive longer than others of its type, enabling it to pass on its genes to future generations. An organism having a longer life span than normal due to a beneficial change in its characteristics is also known as “survival of the fittest”.
Charles Darwin concluded that through evolution, apes evolved into humans. If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes living today? If evolution results from survival of the fittest, monkeys should’ve died off by now. One may disagree and say that in certain parts of the Earth, it was necessary for apes to evolve where as in other parts, it was not. This statement is logical however it has yet to be proven accurate.
If this statement was true, isn’t it odd that only the initial stage, apes, and final stage, humans, still exist. If an improved version of an ape was created, why did it die off before its primary stage? Although this may seem extremely odd, it is still possible with a series of fortunate events. If we consider this series of fortunate events, monkeys only evolving in a specific part of the world without ever changing location, then fossil records of the intermediate stages should be easy to find.
Darwin said, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain... The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”Darwin agreed in his statement that macroevolution should be proven correct through fossil records showing that animals had transitional stages.
During 1867, Darwin said that scientists had not discovered, due to lack of archaeological techniques and equipment, enough fossils to be able to find these intermediate stages.
It has now been 139 years since then and, despite the large amount of ancient bones uncovered by scientists, not a single intermediate fossil stage, proving evolution, has been discovered. If macroevolution was true, we would be able to find millions of intermediate bones. Unfortunately, for evolutionists, only a dreadfully few, controversial, sometimes fake, amount of intermediate fossil stages have been revealed. The only fossils that show evolution has occurred includes changes in the species itself (larger horses, smaller snails), this is known as microevolution. Not a single fossil shows one type of species mutating towards a different type of species.
Rather than looking narrowly at evidence behind macroevolution, flaws can also be found in the concepts behind this theory. Take the human eye for example. The human eye is dysfunctional unless fully developed. A single flaw with the human eye would cause it to not work.
If stages prior to a fully devolved eye are useless, then the evolutionary process of “survival of the fittest” would not apply. Therefore a transition from an organism without an eye, to an organism with an eye is impractical. Even if an organism managed to get a light sensitive section on their body, a brain and nerves would also have to be created simultaneously in order to make the light sensitive section useful. This would mean that a very large computation of connectable mutations would have to take place all at once. The chance of a single mutation taking place is 1 out of 8,000,000. The chances of this are so slim that mathematicians say it surpasses the threshold of impossibility (1
times 10 to the 50th)! Even though these chances are so slim, evolutionists say that these odds can be met over a large period of time.
Is the Earth’s timeline evolutionists have pronounced actually real? They have defined the Earth to be four and a half billion years old. This assumption is what a majority of macroevolution is based off of. Currently the best dating methods use radioactive decay in order to place an age on fossils, rocks, and even Earth. These methods are very inconsistent, unproven, and questionable assumptions. Scientific research has proven that decay rates can vary according to the chemical environment.
Not only are the dating methods inaccurate but the concepts of its effects on Earth contain flaws. For example, according to evolution, life has existed on earth for approximately three and a half billion years. The soil layers on Earth consistently build up with the accumulation of dead plants and animals, as well as volcanic activity.
The amount of soil layers on Earth does not back up the theory that the world is billions, or even millions of years old. People may argue and say that the soil could have fallen into the ocean. If this were true, we would have no ocean because the dirt would cover all the water. We know this because the Earth builds up about an eighth of an inch of soil every year. This would mean that in one-hundred million years, two miles high of dirt would build up (equivalent to four times the height of Mount Everest)!
If the Earth is considered to be four and a half billion years old, the solar system in which it resides in must be equal to, or exceed this value. Flaws in this date are also shown by the current contents of space. Every day, the sun pushes approximately one-
hundred thousand particles of dust from space away from the solar system. If the solar system is this old, then why are there still billions of particles of dust in space?
Evolutionists say that the first living organisms were created when rain fell on the earth. The rain caused rocks to turn into a soupy mixture, which eventually turned into bacteria. Randy Alcorn explains,
“Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.”
Despite the sarcasm and over exaggeration used in this statement, it brings up the point of how illogical it is to have a non living material convert to a living organism. How could something as simple as a wet rock develop abilities such as walking, thinking, feeling, and loving?
Macroevolution has many flaws in it leading to the assumption that there is a very good chance it is false. There are no intermediate stages of evolution living today, or shown in fossil records. Evolutionists base the theory of macroevolution on the assumption that the age of the Earth is billions of years old yet there way of determining this assumption has many flaws. Geographic layers of soil on Earth and the contents of particles in space contradict this theory. The mere concept of how non living things progressed into living things with complex body parts and human like emotions is absurd. If macroevolution was such a huge historical event, why is the only hard evidence we discover point against it? The main concepts I have presented are enough to convince one that macroevolution is unproven, and most likely a false theory. I think it is time that humans start looking beyond this fragile theory and move onto discovering other theories of how life came about. Is the only reasonable explanation for our existence that God created what we have today?"
note: because of this thread, some of my views on these areas have changed now that i have a wider perspective of the theory.
