The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

Micro evolution is true, everybody should know that, it makes sense and, like you said, it has proof. Macro evolution, however, does not. Macro evolution is almost entirely inference. Darwinian evolution cannot stand on it's own two feet. In fact, it can't even stand up. There is no proof of life coming from non-life, and in order for Darwinian evolution to be possible, the creation of life from non-life must be possible as well. A very commonly cited experiment is the Miller-Urey Experiment taken place in 1953, people always forget, however, that this experiment was designed- Miller and Urey had to create the flasks, the structure of the glass, the correct atmosphere etc.- Their "life" (amino acids are not life) was a result of intelligence, thus providing further evidence for the need of a Creator. Putting the whole "origin of life" away, let's take a look at macro evolution together. You talked a little about how viruses can change in less than a year from micro evolution, but you neglected the fact that they are still viruses. You then go on to talk about the genetic drift over thousands of years and how that- along with micro evolution- is what brings about "a more impressive result." This, however, is incoherent with micro evolution. Micro evolution has shown itself to be a very cyclical change. Darwinian finches and bacteria alike show change over time, but they always have cycles. The finches' beaks: The finches with the larger beaks prospered while the islands were in a drought season, and the trees produced seeds with thicker shells, therefore encouraging a population dominantly of large beaked finches. Then as the wetter season came about, the birds with the smaller beaks prospered encouraging the population to be in favor of the smaller beaked finches. So the population of large beaks to small beaks changed, but it had a cycle. Micro evolution shows the survival of species, not the arrival of species. Macro evolution is also not possible because of genetic limits. Darwinists claim that micro evolution within types proves that macro evolution has occurred- after all, if micro evolution can do that in a small amount of time, just think of what it can do over a long period of time! This is, like I said before, incoherent with life. Dog breeders, for example, have had a tremendous time trying to create new breeds of dogs. They may range in from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane, but they are still dogs nonetheless. Scientist have also conducted many studies on fruit flies. Fruit flies have a miniscule life span and an astronomical breeding rate, making it possible to study generations and generations of them in a short amount of time. Scientists have only found, however, that they are still fruit flies (and usually crippled ones too). Not only have they never seen something other than a fruit fly created, their research is invalid when comparing it to natural selection. Let's take a look- Artificial v.s Natural selection. Artificial- End view in mind Natural- No end view in mind Artificial- Intelligently guided process Natural- Blind Process Artificial- Intelligent choice of breeds Natural- No intelligent choice of breeds Artificial- Breeds guarded from destructive processes Natural- Breeds not guarded from destructive processes Artificial- Preserves desired freaks Natural- Eliminates most freaks Artificial- Preferential survival Natural- Non-preferential survival There are also a slew of irreducibly complex organisms and systems in life that are impossible to have come about by numerous, successive, slight modifications. One of my favorite examples is the Bombardier Beetle, it has 2 chemicals in its body, each in a separate compartment in its abdomen, and when threatened, it simultaneously secrets both liquids into another compartment where the chemicals mix. When mixed, the chemicals create an very large exothermic reaction and produces a liquid almost the same temperature as boiling water. The bug then propels the liquid at the animal that's attacking it. This beetle is irreducibly complex. It would be eaten if it only had one chemical, it would be dead if it had both in one compartment, it would be dead if the compartment where it mixes the chemicals didn't have a heat resistant layer coating it, it would be dead if it didn't have the muscles to propel the liquid etc. Darwinists have had terrible luck trying to discredit this argument against them. This objection, along with many others, has the potential to debunk the whole belief of macro evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org... "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"- Norman G. Geisler and Frank Turek http://www.icr.org...