Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

Once again, and all modern science agrees with me, there is no meaningful difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a larger timescale (think: Big changes [macro] are nothing but lots of small changes [micro]). The only people who disagree are creationists who lack knowledge of even the most rudimentary scientific concepts. Giving me definitions from a website does nothing, because I have already said that they are used arbitrarily, which isn't to mean that the definitions are pointless, they are used for clarity when defining different aspects of evolutionary theory. http://www.talkorigins.org... Ok, the thing about trees and your perfect 'ring dating' technique is that the trees' rings decay after an extended period of time, making ring dating useless for longer periods of time. Also there are many species of ant that get inside trees and ruin the ring structure, making it difficult to get an accurate reading for old trees. Am I saying ring dating techniques are unreliable and useless? No. I'm just saying it is a pointless ploy on your part to try and get me to get a tree that has been ring-dated to be tens-of-thousands of years old. Radiometric dating is perfectly legitimate and you've presented nothing to suggest otherwise. So on to radiometric dating which you still insist is 'in dispute for sound reasons' despite my thorough rebuttal on all of your points. You haven't even responded to my points regarding constant decay, and closed system, rather, you have decided to totally ignore them and just post a pointless link by a fundamentalist christian, which just repeats everything you have already said and I have addressed. I haven't ignored your geological column and Index Fossils section, they are related to radiometric dating, which I have already addressed. I have answered your attacks against radiometric dating, and re-showing me your exact points in a 600 page report that someone else wrote doesn't constitute a rebuttal to MY points, it just makes me repeat myself, which I don't like doing. Either make your own points or don't, but don't claim to rebut me by just using someone else's arguments, while I have no problem addressing that guy's points, I'm not debating him I am debating you. Now I'm going to throw you a curve ball in regards to your young-earth idea. The age of the universe. The commonly accepted age of the universe is ~13.7 billion years. How do we know this? One way is to observe the distance that light travels in a year (a light year), and calculate how many light years certain things in the universe (such as stars) are away from us. Take for instance the closest star to us (besides our sun), Proxima Centauri. It is about 4 light years away, this means that it would take four years travelling at the speed of light (~300*10^6 m/s) to get there. Now look, you get stars that are 10 billion light years away, meaning that our universe is AT LEAST that old. I realise you are talking about the age of the earth and not the universe, so this is really more of an aside note but you have to ask yourself, what sort of God lies in wait for at least 13,699,990,000 years doing NOTHING before deciding to create the earth. Those judging don't need to take into account this paragraph and my opponent shouldn't feel compelled to answer it, as it has little to do with evolution. Now on to genetics. First off 'It doesn't make since (sense?)' is not an argument against humans evolving from primates, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. Speaking of not understanding, I am befuddled at your suggestion that somehow primates evolved from retarded humans but I think you are as well. The quest you are thrusting upon me to find a 'positive mutation' shows a distinct gap in your scientific knowledge. Mutations in a scientific sense are BY DEFINITION both detrimental and beneficial to an organism. It is the mechanism upon which natural selection acts. Mutations produce things such as different colours in flowers, different coloured butterflies, birds, cats, dogs...etc. If a mutation proves to aid the survival of an organism, it will reproduce itself to the point that it becomes dominant in the species. This is essentially the basis of natural selection and evolution. Now pretty much all of what I have mentioned before has been observed in a lab, mutations are clearly seen in the lab and in the field. From observing insects growing resistant to pesticides, to microscopic observations concerning chromosomes and their mutation. On all levels, positive mutations (although I cringe at the term) has been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.talkorigins.org... Once again I have to sigh at your 'social' section. I agree that Einstein's mass energy equivalence and evolution are entirely different cases. The atomic bomb resulted in the DIRECT and CORRECT interpretation of a theory, while evolution was INDIRECTLY and INCORRECTLY interpreted by Adolf Hitler. You really cannot compare the two. It is like saying that Newton's second law (F=ma) directly inspired all bombs in the world or that the periodic table directly inspired the creators of the gas chambers to use hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz. You can dig up all the quotes you want about supposed racism but at the end of the day, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The social implications of a theory has NO influence on whether the theory holds true or not. None at all. Think if suddenly it was discovered without a doubt that the acceptance of the Bernoulli equation was directly correlated to raping small children in bath tubs. Does this mean that Bernoulli's equation is false? Is the mass flow rate at two points in a fluid flow not constant because of someone's social actions? No, and double no. It has no bearing at all. This isn't even to say that evolution CAUSES racism, it is clear it doesn't. Nearly all of the scientific community accepts it, and yet what percentage of scientists make up the prison population? I don't have the figures but its safe to assume it is very low. Even if it was proved, it would be a total non-issue in relation to the veracity of evolutionary theory. Talking of 'modern humans' I thought this was assumed knowledge but it is clear that 'modern' humans of 200,000 years ago were much different to the humans of today. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that these people were 'modern' in the sense that you mean, ie with the ability to communicate and record history. It wasn't until 50,000-75,000 years ago that we actually started seeing the very basics of 'modern' human activity. I'm still a bit confused as to how this is evidence against evolution. Ok, so you've defined abiogenisis, the first thing on my list. You're still missing my point totally, explain to me WHY your hypothesis (whatever that is) explains my list better than evolutionary theory. This is the process of the scientific method, you want to meddle in the world of science? Go for it, but be prepared to show why the evidence is better explained by your hypothesis, it isn't a one way road, if you're serious about this then go about it scientifically. I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now you want to talk about 'missing links'? Does your evidence just consist of 12 and 22 year old sources? I can only assume you're talking about the 'tree of life' which is, of course a work in progress. But here's some reading material. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.tellapallet.com... (picture) You've still not even come close to answering my points regarding why your explanation (whatever that is) explains the phenomena better than evolutionary theory. As such, my points remain.