Evolution is a lie

Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution " A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring. " Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them. " Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened: Natural selection is not the only variable in a species genes making it to reproduction to pass on to the next. Yes we know that the environment determines what makes best use of the whole gene pool, but it does not explain luck. Luck in the animal kingdom works when a snake arrives to Darwins finch nest, and sees a few eggs and eats one. Natural selection did not determine which egg the snake would eat, just as when a whale eats a school of fish, the ones who survived had no advantage, just luck. I would also like to mention that there are limits we can observe in natural selection, a roach may appear to build a resistance to poisons, but it will never be resistant to a hammer. When the roach that eats poison dies, his genes are lost. He may have had resistances to other poisons that other roaches do not, we don't know though, the information is lost. This is how Darwins finches work, no new information was added, actually information was lost. Its vital for the evolutionist to believe that new information is added, its the corner stone for macro evolution. This cannot be observed. What we can observe is a fossil of a trilobite, an organism that lived "520,000,000 years ago". I would like to point out this organism had the most advanced eye ever found in nature. Why did natural selection not keep this eye? Now the newest hypothesis pertaining to macro evolution {1}Eugene McCarthy has written a hypothesis that humans are the offspring of pigs and chimps cross breedig. His idea is genetically possible, but it is not possible in nature. Every known hybrid animal has only been made with human intervention, and almost all are sterile. Like a mule is bred from donkey and a horse. Or the liger or tigon, a hybrid of lions and tigers (and bears oh my!) I have few problems with his hypothesis though. He is using the genetics from farm animal pigs to make this possible, which have, like many other domesticated animals been selectively bred over many generations, the data couldn't have matched up from pigs millions years ago. This is what i was referring to in my rose sunflower example. I have personally hunted pigs, and a chimp would never have enough time to have babies with a pig, wild pigs are super mean! This is the direction science is moving into, i think it is insulting to our intelligence. Apparently a lot of people on Eugenes site are converted, but, he is also the curator. I cannot see gravity. I don't trust gravity, i have fallen hard, but not seeing something is not the final word on proof. I experience gravity every day, but I take certain claims {1} with a grain of salt. I believe the world is less than 30,000 years old, and here is my proof. {2} The earths atmosphere is about 300 miles thick and is protected by a magnetic field. Some radiation from the sun goes through and hits the earths atmosphere and creates Carbon14, which is radio active. C14 is unstable, and is decaying at a rate of 1/2 every 5730 years. That means if you had a pound of it, in 5730 years you would have a half pound, 5730 years after that you would have a quarter pounder. The other half become nitrogen. During photosynthesis, plants absorb some of this C14, which is then also eaten by animals, which is then eaten by us. It is a reasonable assumption that the carbon 14 that is in the atmosphere is the same in our body, the ratio is the atmosphere is .0000756%. The assumption then has to be made(so carbon dating can work) that the earth has always had the same amount of C14, that it has reached equilibrium, which means that there is C14 entering our atmosphere at the same rate it is decaying. The rate of decay is still increasing, the amount brought in by the sun stays the same. With a fresh new earth, it would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. Earth has not reached this equilibrium, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere is higher now then 10 years ago which means carbon dating of any sort can be dismissed, and that earth is less than 30,000 years old. Our earth has a way to go before equilibrium, we are at around 33%. I believe that Macro Evolution is not possible based on this evidence. I believe that our universe was created by God 6000 years ago, that the bombardier beetle can only be explained by Genesis. 1 http://www.macroevolution.net... 2 http://www.talkorigins.org...