[takkaria]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Takkaria,
Let me break it down for you. Macro evolution holds that a dog turns into a cat if the conditions determine that needs to happen. That is not species to species, it is a little higher in the hierarchy for classification of life. Microevolution happens because it is species evolving to species. There is no common descent, natural selection debunks that.

I will here admit that I'd not heard of the terms micro-evolution or macro-evolution much at all, and had never looked at their definitions. As far as I can tell, micro-evolution is where gene frequencies in a specific population change over time, whilst the species remains the same species. Modern science seems to say that macro-evolution is where (for example) a population splits in two, and the two new populations evolve in such that they become unable to reproduce with each other, i.e. macro-evolution is the culmination of much micro-evolution. This would back up the idea of common descent (in that both new species are descended from one old species). I cannot see how you can deny one but accept the other -- though claiming that any evolutionist now would say that a dog turned into a cat makes it seem that you misrepresent the general consensus, either purposefully or because of the sources which you have used.

The fossil record has no validity. They carbon date fossils and date rocks to that period, then they find fossils in that sedementary layer and date fossils by the rock.

Sorry, I do not quite follow you here. When is "that period"?

Scientists are being lazy. If they would carbon date every single fossil they would get frustrated because the fossils would have many inconsistencies and "incorrect" dates. Carbon dating has so many "errors" in its dating system, I don't see how anyone trusts it.

Your accusations here seem completely unfounded. You say that all scientists are lazy, and if they weren't lazy then they'd find things which disagreed with them. You are making unfalsifiable claims, without backing up your argument with examples, which makes it very hard to respond to you in any reasonable way.

I see nothing that would stop carbon dating from providing accurate dates. (Not that they use carbon dating for things that old. You'd radiometrically date something else, because carbon only gives dates up to a maximum 60 000 years old.) Radiometric dating works on the same basic ideas that the nuclear power which probably powers your computer does.

There are so many loop holes in macroevolution that it has become a religion of its own. You believe in it, because no matter how much evidence contradicts your foundation, you still believe in it. No evolutionist will even touch Darwin's Black Book. Scientists are on this mystical quest for knowledge, but they ignore evidence that proves them wrong. It's always nice to be recognized by the ignorant masses, until the ignorant masses aren't so ignorant anymore.

The problem in telling me that I believe regardless of evidence to the contrary is that I've never *seen* compelling evidence to the contrary, and you haven't provided any yourself. Regardless: I don't believe it, but I accept it as the theory which works best right now. If you have a better one that follows the rules of science, then please suggest it. I honestly hold no belief in this: if you can come up with something reasonably convincing that better fits the evidence but which does not invoke unfalsifiable claims, I am happy to examine it.

What book is Darwin's Black Book? Also, characterising the scientist's quest for knowledge as "mystical" misrepresents their position. Practical, bounded by the physical universe, sure, but mystical seems to miss the point a little.