Macro evolution 3

OK. Although carbon dating can't go very far back in terms of the Earth's history, Pb/Pb dating can. Pb/Pb dating is the most consistent form of dating, and has predicted that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, give or take 1%. When you state that this type of dating is inaccurate, what do you assume the cause is for that? If you mean to point to one specific example where a rock was found to be 6000 years old, then I ask you to think of a wristwatch. If one wristwatch out of ten kept the wrong time, would it then be feasible to ignore the entire group? And, mind you, saying that 90% of dating tests are wrong is an extremely generous estimate. You also seem to be refuting the fact that the entire universe is young, but I'm not sure on the exact age you think it to be. How then, do you explain, the ages we get when we test meteorites that have fallen to Earth, rocks that have interacted with nothing else in the known universe for billions of years? Anyway, you still left your point about the speed of light slowing down unanswered, a point which I looked forward to seeing you proving. I also have no idea what you mean when you say "my star argument says that they would have been a different size because they would have filled up the universe next since there was no millions of years for them to form how did they form", although I think you're asking how stars can form and grow in the thousands of years old you think it to be. Well, the only way to answer that is simply by stating that stars cannot form in thousands of years. You assume that these stars have been the same size ever since the universe was created. But, I digress and will now try to bring this debate back to the original point you made on evolution. Basically, most rational human beings accept that the universe, and the Earth with it, are billions of years old. That gives evolution plenty of time to happen, it gives creatures plenty of time to grow bigger, better, faster, stronger, smarter, or whatever else their environment demands of them. You seem to have completely abandoned your initial argument after your first response, and instead began to focus on the age of the Earth, something which there should be no question about. And, if it is religion you are so concerned about, please keep in mind that in 1950, Pope Pius XII took up a neutral stance to evolution within the church. Pope John Paul II, who I consider to be a personal hero of mine due to his actions in modernizing the church, would later reaffirm this statement. On October 22, 1996, the Pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and stated this... "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical ['Humati Generis', the work by Pius XII], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact, it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." So, although this stance is the church's view on macroevolution, you never really stated whether you were addressing macro or micro evolution, and the church also firmly asserts that microevolution in continuously happening. Really, that cut-and-paste argument you provided ticked me off a little, because you seemed to think this group of debates were not important enough to warrant a personal response from you. But, really, I would like to thank you for allowing me to experience a very enjoyable first debate. Thanks again.