Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

He/She has started numerous debates with Intelligent Design as the topic. I assume my opponent enjoys debates of religious, scientific and social complexity. SCIENCE My very simple point, scientifically speaking, is the foundations of evolutionary theory hinges on approaches which are debatable. Evolutionary theory requires two debatable things. 1. A very old Earth, over millions of years. 2. Simple life forms changing into more complex life forms. They are not debatable because of God or religion. They are intellectually and scientifically debatable. I understand that many of the individuals debating the accuracy of many of the scientific approaches are Christians or Creationist, however should we discredit their research because of this? Lets attack the scientific validity rather than the scientist beliefs. This is why Evolutionary Theory is a mockery or farce; I have given my opponent scientific facts that support possible problems with Evolutionary Theory. My opponents reply is that "I don't know the meaning of the words I am using" and that "I copied and pasted from a creation site", which I have not. Further my opponent has failed to demonstrate why it would be bad to copy and paste information from a creation site. Micro and Macro are entirely different and my opponents analogy of micro evolution and macro evolution is incorrect. . http://www.exchangedlife.com... . http://www.yourdictionary.com... . http://www.yourdictionary.com... A) The age of the Earth No intelligent person would or can argue against tree ring dating. Colony trees can not be dated with tree ring dating. Colony trees are dated with radiometric dating techniques. No tree has been dated over 5000 years old with tree ring dating. You must concede that no tree, using tree ring dating, has been found over 5000 years old. As I said prior I find it a laughable coincidence that this very indisputable dating technique can not offer any evidence of a Earth over 10,000 years old. You can not rebuttal with colony trees because radiometric dating is in dispute and unreliable. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The fact is Radiometric dating is in dispute for sound reasons. Radiometric dating is only reliable for maximum ages, not minimum ages. Here are two references that support problems with radiometric dating. One is a secular wikipedia reference and one is a study done by several PHD scientist. Note: the wikipedia reference supports some old radiometric dating techniques, however the other link addresses each of them. . http://www.icr.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... I noticed my opponent did not address my Geological Column and Index Fossils section. C)Genetics Positive genetic mutations are necessary to support Evolution. Its obvious that most mutations are not good. This is why I have asked my opponent to name a positive genetic mutation. My opponent suggest primates have evolved into humans, but this doesn't make since. We see constant negative mutations. It is more plausible to accept that primates came from humans. Imagine mentally retarded humans being cast from the tribe of "normal" humans. Then the mentally retarded humans cast yet another less intelligent mutation out of the tribe until finally you arrive at a primate. Of course this doesn't make since either because if that is the way evolution occurs then everything keeps getting less complex. Can my opponent name any positive mutations that have been observed? SOCIAL My opponent makes a good case that we should not blame Einstein for a discovery that lead to the creation of nuclear bombs. This is true, we should not blame Einstein for his scientific discovery. Evolution is entirely different however. No one ever used Einstein's, Newton's, or any other practical scientific discovery to support racism, but evolution is racism. Evolution is a religion and requires one to look at the natural causation of existence with-out a God. This would be fine but it is not scientifically supported and has enormous social implications. It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion. Michael Ruse says "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. " Reference; Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3. My opponent says Hitler was not influenced by Evolution, this is simply not true. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.straight-talk.net... Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. .. .The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins. .. ." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it. ) Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be. " Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival. My opponent ignores this quote from Darwin's Book "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. " Reference Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co. , 1874, p. 178 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Evolution suggest that humans evolved 200,000 to 400,000 years ago. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Definition of Abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter . http://www.merriam-webster.com... MY REBUTTAL Scientists not only have been unable to find a single undisputed link that clearly connects two of the hundreds of major family groups, but they have not even been able to produce a plausible starting point for their hypothetical evolutionary chain (Shapiro, 1986). The first links -- actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life -- still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154-156)