Do you ever pause and think that these people had spent their lives learning about the universe via observation and came to these conclusions on their own?
Yes, because anyone can just go back millions of years and actually observe and test those things which evolution professes to be true. This is idiotic. Evolution has never been observed. It is a wild guess, made because the humanist needs some explanation of life excluding God in order to make himself sleep well at night.
Do you ever notice that you fit the description of an indoctrinated apologetic?
Yes, because I've looked at both sides of the issue in detail, have read reports and books by both sides, studied the issue for myself, asked questions to people on both sides, weighing each answer, etc etc etc.
You just keep bringing out these already-disproven assumptions about anyone who disagrees with you in an attempt to "ad-hominem" your way out of actually having a logical argument.
You won't bother refuting because you can't.
I won't bother refuting because I already have, but you conveniently ignore that in your quest to become the most unreasonable and idiotic person ever to support evolution. You are acting like a religious fanatic. Perhaps, because you are a religious fanatic, where Darwin is God, the geologic column is your Bible, everything is relative and life has no meaning. Why you feel like you must force this horrid worldview upon everyone you meet is unfathomable to me.
You set up a strawman and refute that, and then panic when your strawman is exposed.
Excellent description of yourself, bravo.
You won't give up the claim that evolution requires spontaneous creation of life because it goes against the strawman argument you've held so dear for so long.
So, life somehow becomes half-of-a-life, and then maybe a third-of-a-life until finally becoming life? Are you kidding me? Your view has rocks, soup, and then bacteria. It's not rocks, soup, and then half-of-life. Non-life to life is spontaneous. Your view is just desperate to find some sort of beginning of life without God. Pathetic.
Let's think about this for more than five seconds, shall we?
A change versus no change. Is a change more than no change? Yes. Therefore, if no change is decided as the numerical value "0," then a change has to be a numeric value greater than 0. 5million times something more than 0 is not zero, but rather, something even more than zero.
If you would rather have a metaphor for evolution, fine.
Lets take small picture of a circle on MSpaint. You send the picture to 1 person, and he adds a dot. He sends it to someone else, and that person adds a square. Then that person sends it to someone else, who adds a line. Eventually, you get the picture back. All the changes to the picture would make it something that is not a circle. Now, do not take this as a perfect metaphor. Generally evolution will not create a worse species (aside from maybe humans devolving due to medical advances) due to the fact that those with defects generally die off. But, nevertheless it is an adequate example that can be used to explain how small changes can add up to large changes (since this concept was clearly too complex for you to comprehend).
Many small changes can add up to bigger changes. The only conceivable way evolution would not work the way they say it works is if changes in DNA cannot be hereditary.
Did you even read what I said?
"Natural selection selects genes, it doesn't create them".
Your metaphor is totally invalid, because natural selection is taking from a pool of genes in the parent, giving each of them to each child, and the child with the most profitably selected genes survived. No one was adding genes.
Your metaphor SHOULD be this:
You make a picture with a bunch of dots in it. You send it around, with your instructions to remove up to 10 dots and then send it around again. At certain points (10 pictures created, 100, 1,000), you take all of the pictures, and the ones that judges say are ugly are destroyed and not allowed to be sent out again.
Now imagine each species at the beginning as the original pictures, and you've got it. Natural selection does not create genes.
