Evolutionary Theory is a Farce

I Affirm: Modern and Past Evolutionary Theory is a Farce. Note: So as not to get into a semantical argument Farce could easily be replaced with "not true" or "incorrect". The motivation of the Pro is to ascertain evolutionary theory, with current knowledge, should not be accepted as true or a plausible explanation for existence. Macroevolution is what is being contested not microevolution. Evolutionary Theory implies macroevolution. Definitions(more definitions to follow if the desire or need arises) Farce: A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery Circumstantial Evidence: is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. Evolutionary Theory: evolution;theory of evolution; macroevolution; Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. Macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. Microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. I intend to present 3 general topics of debate to support my position. 1.Scientific...Empirical Facts and Finds 2.Social/Political/Religious/Ethical implications 3.Circumstantial Evidence 1.SCIENCE A) The Age of the Earth. For evolution to occur it would require a very long time to do so. In order for evolution to have any weight a several billion year old earth is necessary to support the theory. At this point it would be very easy for my opponent to rebuttal if he/she could offer one proved dating system that supports our Earth over 100,000 years old. I intend to prove there is not one accurate dating system that can support this notion. i.Tree Ring Dating, Dendrochronology. It would be nice if my opponent could find a tree over 10,000 years old just to throw the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd out of the mix. Tree ring dating is not disputed and very accurate. What a humorous coincidence, if one tree was found to be older than the age many literal bible interpreters hold to, the faith would be easy to dispute. Such is the case no tree has been found over 5000 years or so. Even finding a tree over the supposed flood would probably suffice. ii.Radiometric Dating I won't deny this can be an accurate form of dating if the unknowns are known. The problem is several aspects are not known. The limits and assumptions of isotope dating have become known since their discovery, but are often under emphasized. Radiometric Dating has been known to give varying ages to the same specimen. There are 3 major weaknesses of radiometric dating. You must assume there is a constant rate of decay through-out the entire age of the sample, not possible to determine. Second you must assume isotope composition has not been changed by fractionation. Third it is assumed that samples have been closed systems over large amounts of time, which should be challenged. All of these assumptions can change radiometric dating by billions of years to the younger. I will agree that Radiometric Dating is fairly accurate of determining if one thing is older or younger than another, however the actual age requires to many assumptions to be reliable. Further there are many radiometric dating systems, some support a very young earth. iii.Geological Column and Index Fossils The geological Column is dated by Radiometric Dating now. Before Radiometric Dating they just guessed. Index Fossils were used to date the layer, but the layer also dated the Fossil, and this for years was how Geologist and Archaeologist dated Fossils. Is that not a fraud or just pure ignorance? The age of the Earth can not be proved to be older than 10,000 years old with accurate and reliable dating techniques. It can be proved to be at least 10,000 years old. All the accurate and reliable dating techniques used only support a young earth and are primarily used to date artifacts made by humans with accuracy. B) Common Decent I can see how one can look at the animals and living things on this world and see their similarities amongst each other. I concede that a monkey and human look similar. I see how we have quite unusual animals that can swim, fly, run, and sometimes do all at once. I believe this to be the only solid evidence for Evolutionary Theory but it also could evidence a common creator or intelligent design. Common Decent supports Evolutionary Theory in as much it supports all other theories of our existence. C)Genetics I understand this is often cited by evolutionist as a way to establish closer common decent. I would like to use Genetics as a way to support my view. Genetic mutations are more often than not negative impacts. I can name several genetic mutations that are not supportive of evolutionary theory. Sickle cell anemia, Cystic fibrosis mutation Cholesterol-related mutations. Can my opponent name several positive genetic mutations with in humans. Remember Evolution would have less complex life forms going to more complex life forms. Considering the massive amounts of life we have on Earth we should have at least a few higher life formed animals getting better. 2.SOCIAL Despite the outcome of the scientific debate one must ask what are the social implications of evolutionary theory. Intelligent Design, God, Aliens, and other Creation Theories have with out a doubt a better outcome socially, as most demand accountability for actions to fellow man. Evolutionary Theory has impacted society negatively, not true for other "scientific discoveries". Even Darwins first influential book was titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" . Notice the favored race? If you bring evolutionary theory to the logical conclusion one must concede 1.Some men are more evolved than others. 2. Certain rights and responsibilities are given the more evolved, naturally speaking. Hitler used evolutionary theory to commit genocide. Intelligent men could justify throwing a jewish baby in an oven, why? Because they thought of it as nothing more than a monkey. If evolutionary theory is correct what argument will you give why he was wrong. Is he not just like any other intelligent animal that exercises his rule over who he wishes? Shall we exercise our morals on the animals? If evolution is correct what basis do we have for morals? Communism, Marxism, Nazism, and modern racism is influenced heavily from evolutionary theory. 3.CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE A)Ancient Documents and Civilizations Evolution fails to explain the lack of written human history or evidence of large civilizations beyond 10,000 years ago. Evolution takes a very long time to occur, one would assume that modern humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact scientist who subscribe to evolution believe we came around approximately 400,000 years ago. Thats a long time why don't we have more historical proofs of this? Remember these are normal humans like you and me, I'd like to think we are a little more intelligent than just to sit around for 390,000 years with out any population increases or large civilizations until about 10,000 years ago. What about the species that we came from, were they that much stupider than us they didn't populate and have large civilizations? B)Extinction The inevitable end to species is death, not evolution. The Whales, Elephants, Tigers, Dolphins, will not evolve they will go extinct. This is observable with past animals. Thousands of animals have gone extinct that once roamed this Earth.