Quote (Anal_Destroyer @ May 18 2010 03:48pm)
Why do you continue to believe in such an outdated and cruel ideology? I'll be the first to say that, at the time, Darwin's theory was a brilliant attempt at explaining the diversity of life without the need of a creator. I will not state my religious affiliation because I do not think it is relevant. I'm a rational, reasonable, sceptical person and any theory that is sufficiently supported by evidence, I will believe in faster than you can say hot potato. I believe in almost all of the ones generally accepted within the scientific community. The reality is that this theory, the theory of evolution, doesn't hold up to the arguments against it.
I'm not even going to get into the fact that belief in evolution strongly correlates (and is causative in my opinion) with immorality within society, as it has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims it makes, so let's just examine the main problems with evolution.
Let's just say the history of life on earth, about 4 billion years (I don't believe the earth is that old but I'll grant it for the sake of argument), took place in 1 day. The beginning would be at 12:00AM and the present time would be 11:59PM. At 12:00AM, evolutionists claim that life arose in the form of single celled organisms. So surely the life, distributed across the planet (in the oceans, evolved proportionately, right? Wrong. You have to wait all the way till 10:30PM for life to evolve beyond single celled organisms! In the span of roughly 1 minute, BOOM!, the Cambrian explosion. All the life we see today, in their current form, evolved, from single celled organisms, in the span of 1 minute? Is that not the most ridiculous claim ever to be made?
The process of fossilization is very common, in fact, it's likely. Why, then, have darwinists never been able to present ONE transitional fossil? When I say "the" missing link, I'm being very generous. There are millions of missing links and evolutionists (should) know it. There's just no evidence in favour of this theory.
I'll give credit where credit is due, though. There are some fossils, within the record, radio-metrically dated with results that support evolution (if you get to cherry pick, which evolutionists always do). That is, IF radiometric dating was reliable. It isn't. There have been LIVE squids, otters, and other animals that carbon dated to be thousands of years old! How do scientists keep getting away with using these faulty methods?
If you look at any organ in any human or animal, you'll see that it was clearly designed. How could a nub of skin evolve into an eye or a pimple into an arm? If you came across a statue, say the statue of liberty, would you assume it evolved over time? NO! It's clearly designed and so, of course, you would ask who designed it. Why can't people use logic towards evolution like they can towards pretty much anything else?
Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics posits that organized systems will, with time, become disorganized. This completely contradicts and refutes thermodynamics, so take your pick. Thermodynamics or evolution? Charles Darwin even admits this in a letter "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
Lastly, although these arguments aren't scientific like the rest, Charles Darwin was a bitter man his entire life who tried to fight God with his theory. On his deathbed, however, he realized the error of his ways and actually CONVERTED to Christianity, denouncing his theory, saying he got it all wrong. WHY did people keep believing in it? He even also alluded to how heinous his theory was in his own book! "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin
Sorry I seem to have rambled on a little bit but there are just mountains of evidence against this theory and it infuriates me that it keeps being suppressed by the scientific community, pushing their evolutionist agendas.
1) you made up a random scale with no evidence and then suggested 1 minute being an extremely small amount of time, which it obvious is but its not to scale nor accurate.
2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Examples @ second part, don't even have to look past Wikipedia to find you to be wrong
3) lmfao obvious troll
4) trolling becoming more obvious
5) what does? ROFL
6) rly scientific arguments so far
7) seems 'seems absurd' doesn't mean its wrong
3/10 on trolling