1,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + + + + + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 16:06, December 17, 2006
, 16:06, December 17, 2006no edit summary
==no...==
==no...==
1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
'''No''': 1. No credible transitional forms (fossils reflecting evolution between species) have ever been found.
2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
: 2. There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal. Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!
3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
: 3. Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.
4. All mutations are harmful.
: 4. All mutations are harmful.
5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
: 5. Species have being going extinct rather than being generated.
6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
: 6. All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.
7. There is vast beauty in the world, such as brilliant autumn foliage, which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world.
: 7. There is vast beauty in the world, such as brilliant autumn foliage, which would not exist in a purely evolutionary world.
8. Abiogenisis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
: 8. Abiogenisis is impossible. Even the simplest life form possible would be way too complicated to spring from nothing.
'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>
Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. For example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools! This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)