Evolution is a lie

The first argument (although the theory had been suggested prior) for the Theory of Evolution first came on the scene in 1859 when Charles Darwins book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." was recognized by the scientific community. In this book, Darwin makes many proposals, some are still widely taught today in grade school and colleges across the world. Variation in species is one of those ideas, and is easy to translate into what we see. A dog with certain traits that mates with another variation of dog will create a new variation. A rose with certain colors and characteristics will pass its genes to another rose of different traits. This is called micro evolution, and is observable and true, however, the dog is still a dog, and the rose is still a rose. No new species was born from either. Con will try to convince you that evolution can breed a rose with a sunflower (or possibly another rose) to create a new, better plant, that does not share characteristics with either parent. This is called macro evolution. This process is how many of the species on this planet originated, according to evolution. Con will suggest that {1} mitosis, a process where a cell divides to create a duplicate, is some how responsible for {2} meiosis, a process of cell division found in sexual reproducing animals and fungi. How can an asexual organism, that has no problem duplicating itself to be in great number, (germs are everywhere) have any need to force itself to evolve into sexual reproduction? Wouldnt the bacteria want its genes to stay in the gene pool? It would be foolish for the germ to comprise its heritage! Not to mention all the non beneficial mutations we have from sexual reproductions, diseases ect. If we go back further than 1859, 13.8 billion years "approximately" we come to an event known as the Big Bang Theory. This event that was theorized in 1927 by Georges Edward Lemaitre, he suggested that the matter that created the "big bang" was 12 trillion miles across. In 1965, it was taught that number was actually 275 million miles, in 1972 it was reduced to 71 million miles, in 1974 that was further reduced to 54,000. In 1983, that number became the trillionth the diameter of a proton! Now, it is believed that number is nothing at all, that somehow, something was created out of nothing. This theory is closely tied to evolution; these two theories are taught side by side religiously. If Georges was incorrect in 1927, how do we know scientist are right today? You cant go less than nothing, so i suppose that's where the game of plinko ends. In the theory of cosmic evolution it is taught the galaxies were formed, all the stars, elements and our lowly blue planet from the big bang. Once the earth cooled from all this energy, it began to rain and the earth cooled. Over the next 13.8 billion years, dirt became germs, which ultimately became people. It is also taught that a big bang happens every 80-100 billion years. Now we have a problem. If the big bang came from nothing, (No time, space or matter) where will the next one occur? We have time, space and matter in our observable universe, the next one could not possibly happen within our universe. Con does not how the universe began, con was not present. Con will suggest that evolution is science, so we must define science Science- the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Evolution cannot be tested in a lab. Evolution cannot be studied, it is only SPECULATION. It is clearly not intellectual, since i cannot observe it in nature, therefore, evolution is not science. Since evolution is not science, it would be blasphemous to call it truth. 1-- http://en.wikipedia.org... 2-- http://en.wikipedia.org...