I just want to ask you some questions. I'm assuming you're an evolutionist. By the way, I'm not a Christian
, I'm just arguing for the sake of rationality.
And Rationality said to let you know it enjoyed the belly laugh.
1. The law of Physics says Energy cannot be created or destroyed, how therefore can you justify the Big Bang?
I assume you're referring not to the Big Bang (which was an expansion of the already existing matter/energy), but to the presumed appearance of that matter/energy from nothing, before the Big Bang. First, it's possible that the matter/energy was always present. Second, matter/energy appears from nothing all the time. Google "virtual particles" and "Hawking radiation". Third, we're talking about a mathematical singularity, and the rules as we know them are undefined in such a case.
2.The probability of Earth being created by Chance is so astronomically small, that it is too improbable to count as evidence.
There are approximately 100 billion galaxies in the visible Universe, with an average of 100 billion stars each
. To date, we have already discovered over 400 planets outside our own solar system, and that's just the closest, biggest ones - we've only started looking!
Also, there's the possibility that the observable
Universe is only a small fraction of the Universe as a whole. Reality is so mind-bogglingly amazing, who needs to invent mythical deities?
3.Even Darwin said, If there are not hundreds of transitional fossils found, my theory is incorrect, and today, we have even less transitional fossils than in Darwins time.
How can we have fewer fossils than in Darwin's time? Are they evaporating? As a matter of fact, every fossil dug up is a transitional fossil. Think about it...
4.Evolution cannot create complex objects or facilitate the change from a simple organism to a complex organism because small and random changes are insignificant unless they are part of a whole.
Can small and random collisions of water molecules with a dust speck not form a complex and symmetrical snow crystal? Who are you to decide what the whole is?
5.Evolution is a constant process, so why are things not evolving today?
Things are evolving today. Where did you hear that they aren't?
6.If Evolution is not a constant process, and we have reached the climax of organisms and will not evolve further, what determined our stage to be the last stage?
See above. You are misinformed.
7.The process of Carbon Dating is unreliable because so many assumptions are made that affect calculations.
I bet you don't even know what assumptions you're talking about, or how carbon dating works. Let me help you.
Carbon Dating is based on the assumptions that C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere at a constant rate, that it is taken in by plant respiration at a constant ratio to C12, that those plants are eaten by animals and therefore the same ratio holds in the bodies of the animals, and that when the plants and animals die the ratio begins to change at a constant rate as C14 decays. By measuring the amount of change we can determine how old a dead animal is.
It's true that C14 is not always produced at a constant rate. Solar activity and nuclear testing affect it. It's true that plants and animals can sometimes preferentially accumulate one isotope of an element over another. But these factors can be accounted for, correlated with tree rings, ice cores and other methods, and the resulting scale can be quite accurately calibrated.
Suppose I tell you that according to my watch, a murder occurred 12 hours ago, and you observe that my watch is running fast by about a minute per hour. Does your observation negate the fact that a murder occurred approximately 12 hours ago?
8.Archaeological layers in the earth, as defined by Evolution are incorrect due to the fact that they are based on Carbon Dating, and the process of cyclic layers is not taken into account.
I assume you mean radiometric dating, because Carbon dating is used to date organic matter, not rock layers. And it's only useful up to about ten half-lives or 50,000 years. If a sample is older than that, there's too little C14 left in it to measure reliably. Beyond that, there are many other methods of radiometric dating available. Each one comes with assumptions of course, but then so does any clock.
No conceivable combination of erroneous assumptions could possibly lead all the various forms of radiometric and other dating methods to indicate that the earth is very, very old when it was in fact created 6000 years ago. The very idea is absurd.
"cyclic layers"? What the hell are you talking about?
9.There is not one example of genetic mutations that add and enhance a species, therefore evolution is unfounded.
Genetic mutations in bacteria which confer antibiotic resistance seem to be an enhancement - at least, as far as the bacteria are concerned.
Some humans have developed a genetic mutation that makes them more resistant to HIV.
Also, consider this: a mutation that is actually harmful would contribute to the death of its host. So over the course of countless generations of life on this planet, it could be argued that most
mutations are beneficial, or at the least neutral.
Oh, and by the way, I answered each of your questions. Used logic. Maybe you should consider it. Your main incorrect assumptions were: You know better than God, You know the entire human race and all of their deeds, You are not taking responisbility for what we have done oh and You havn't done your research.
It's been interesting but logically unchallenging.
I can understand why you might feel that way. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect
. If you've read through this thread and still want to talk to us, we're always up for a lively discussion.