Evidence for macro evolution

You said Thiest_1998, let me first start by saying that it is not a strong argument to say everyone else is wrong expect you or everyone else is wrong except you and your small group of followers. Still, I will answer your argument and point out your flawed reasoning. My response I didn't say that and so what if I even said it wouldn't be the first time the minority was right eg nazi Germany, people in the 60s who said smoking cigarettes is good for you the list goes on. You said In K-Ar dating, they can be sure that samples millions of years old are accurate because the decay of potassium-40 at 1,250 million years or other elements found in igneous rocks is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical answer or assumption being made. The sequence of the radioactive decay of isotopes in rocks is predictable and never changes. How long these sequences last is also not speculation as the same amount of time passes every time that isotope is decayed into another isotope. Feel free to do your own research on this. My response How do you 'know' that it decays at 1.250 million year, it can't be k-ar dating because if you can't accurately date a rock or a chemical with an age that we have observered (By that I mean a rock or chemical that we have seen formed and can be repeated) eg the dacite from Mt st Helens we know how and when it formed but, if it can't even do that with the rock with an age that we do know how can we use k-ar with the rocks we don't know the age of. You said In your opinion of the Earth being 10,000 years or younger I would like to ask you if you believe that God made the Earth and Adam and Eve in 6 days, which would make the Earth about 6,000 years old. Or if you are just taking a guess partly based on this and what you know about life and the Earth. You state in your argument, "human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people" I'm sure you can come to a conclusion based on these facts along the lines of more readily available medicine, less large wars, easier to travel, huge natural disasters, more free time, etc, and that 7 billion is actually ALOT. My response Yes I do believe that and the fact that you said Genesis isn't to be taken literally is quite confusing because it clearly states Genesis 3-5 KJV 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Just like today the greater light we call day and the lesser light we call night I don't understand why this verse isn't to be taken literally. But 'if' we've been here for 200,000 years there should be alot more people You said In response to your claims about Earth's magnetic field I must state that Earth's magnetic field is helpful and harmless. By this I mean that it doesn't affect things on the crust of the Earth yet it teams up with the atmosphere to protect life on Earth. Earth's magnetic field also has not lost about 5% every decade. It has been on a downward turn in the last century losing about 10% of its strength, but it ebbs and flows and cannot be succesfully predicted. This also has minimal effect on carbon dating. You cannot dispove scientific facts with speculation. My response I was giving facts I even gave an article to backup the information I stated at the bottom You said Your claims about the mammoth and whatever else that you didn't want to put in for times sake are also simply invalid. As we saw in the last round, you cannot disprove science by the flaw of one man. I encourage you to keep reasearching and pursuing the truth. My response I did do research and I would kindly ask you to at least view the links that I put at the bottom of my argument and I personally believe the things that I said and would appreciate it if you would take the time to at least view my sources also you stated that you didn't answer everything for times sake yet you posted your argument in less than 48 hours. You said In conclusion I must ask you: If you believe the Earth is 10,000 years or younger but have no definitive proof whatsoever, then isn't that just a random lie that you are trying to persuade yourself to believe? Also if you think the Earth is 10,000 years or younger than how would you explain the formation of fossil fuels? Where is your proof? Thank you for debating me and please research THEN try to disprove my beliefs with verifiable facts and not speculation. My response I wasn't speculating I personally believe that the evidence points to a young earth but doesn't in the slightest to a earth millions of years old, there's a video by a former science teacher called Kent Hovind, I would like to ask you or anyone else to just watch 20 minutes of the video This debate was a pleasure thank you and also if you believe in a God, do you know what a born again Christian is? Please dm me it won't let me dm you.