Why evolution is bogus.

ok what about the evolution going on right now???

I'll bite. What evolution?

Well, if they were found, they wouldn't be missing, now would they?

Duh.

But your statement is in foact incorrect. There have been million of formerly missing links found just in the last hundred years alone. 

And more being discovered every day.

Or am I supposed to ignore those as well?

Ok so this is a fact. 

When the international ban on the trade of ivory took effect in 1989, there were about a million elephants in Africa and about 7.5 percent of those were getting poached to death every year. Today, less than half of them are left, and we're still losing about 8 percent of elephants to ivory poachers. Pretty much everything we've done to protect our wild pachyderm friends has failed.

So elephants have decided to take matters into their own hands ... or trunks or weirdly rounded three-toed feet or whatever. To make themselves less appealing to their greatest enemies (poachers), elephants all over the world have begun selecting against having tusks at all. For example, it used to be that only 2 to 5 percent of Asian male elephants were born without tusks, and you can believe those few were the belittled Dumbos of the group.

By 2005, it was estimated that the tuskless population had risen to between 5 and 10 percent. And it's not just happening in Asia, either. One African national park estimated their number of elephants born without tusks was as high as 38 percent. It's natural selection in action: either lady elephants are deliberately choosing tuskless mates, or the only boy elephants surviving into breeding time are the ones born without tusks. Either way, that tusklessness is getting passed on.

Which is incredible, because it's not like tusks are the elephant version of wisdom teeth. They're weapons and tools, and they're needed to dig for water and roots and to battle for the love of a lady. Which means nature decided poachers are a greater threat to the elephant's existence than its diminished ability to forage or to score.

if you want more example just tell me...

Correct. Let me know if they're 'found' okay?

Which have been 'discovered'? And I'd say that more being discovered everyday is a streach... I'm not asking you to ignore anything. Just look at the world, look me in the eye (proverbially speaking), and tell me it evolved.

I am looking at you in the eye and telling you that it evolved... anyway please provide a counter arguement if you are not willing to look at the facts....

Here is a graph of all the excinct species (Just marine ones) that have been identified so far, of which Jellyfish has not yet been informed, apparently.

The blue graph shows the apparent percentage (not the absolute number) of marine animal genera becoming extinct during any given time interval. It does not represent all marine species, just those that are readily fossilized.

There is 542 eons worth of missing links, all pieces of one giant evolutionary puzzle.

Any more questions?

Just an inquiry, but does that mean that monkeys are just as good at surviving as us?

I look, I see species. Species which existe today, did not exist seveal million years ago.

Yet a million years ago, there were other species, which existed then, which do not today.

And going back further, species dieng, new species replacing them. Call it Evolution. Call it Genesis. Call it whatever you feel comfortable with. It happens.

Species have come and gone. I can only assume they will likely continue to come and go.

I guess I am not seeing the point of disagreement here.

Monkeys have many advantages. Including faster gestation rates, and stronger digestive and immune systems. and thier climbing abi;lities make them more elusive.

But humans are techcicallly descended from apes. Who have all those advantages, plus stronger muscle strength.

But that's okay. We have a few tricks of our own.

That is a very interesting debate!

If you guys bother to read I am posting some comments and a couple articles, but I believe evolution is a religion and a bad one, because is not true and its taught in schools as fact.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Too bad folks try to bring religion into it instead of sticking to science where evolution don't have a leg to stand on. It keeps being pushed despite amounts of evidence against it and very little to no evidence in favor of it, because otherwise the religious folks may have the "microphone" for a second.

1. The earth cannot be millions of years old; 14 scientify facts against it: http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

2. The only way a bird can become a fish or a monkey can become a human is if there are changes in the DNA (impossible without destroyng the species)  DNA alone is a death sentence to natural selection.

3. The mathematical impossibility: one living single "cell" coming from nothing (what in itself sounds absurd) is the equivalent of one person hitting the power ball lottery 257 times in a row without missing it once.

4. There are NO fossils of any kind where animals were in their "evolutionary" state. So the atheists "scientists" invented the "missing links" whitout a single evidence for it other than don't want to let go of their beiliefs. Where they can't find evidence they produce some by using computers and a lot of imagination: "if this bone was a toe what the rest of this animal would look like?" and there you have a new "discovery".

Evolution is a religion, science no longer applies and any scientist who dare to oppose it is put down immediatly and that's why you can't find a contrary review of the theory.

" A little bit of nothing came to gether to another little bit of nothing and this connection became unstable and explded bring life to all we see and know"    You must leave your brain out of the door if you want to believe the bing bang theory, without which there's no evolution.

Every time a missing link is found, creationists are delighted as they claim that whereas previously there was one gap to explain, now there are 2.  That is the sort of logic we are dealing with.

Has anyone noticed that the OP is gone? He got what he wanted.

I TOLD you not to reply to this fool, and now look where we are.

Yep, plenty.

#1 How do these scientists know the species are extinct?

#2 Where's the steady stream of fossils in the process of evolving?

#3 How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged over a period of millions of years?

#4 Where's the evolutionary break-through that they've been contemplating since Darwin's time?

#5 If the solar system evolved, then why do three planets spin backwards relative to the rest?

#6 Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?

#7 Before life apeared, was there oxygen in the air or not?

#8 Which came first: DNA or the proteins needed by DNA...which can only be produced by the DNA?

#9 Since when has an explosion produced order?

#10 How did random chemical reactions produce information, knowledge and meaning?

 EDIT

knightmight! Finally someone who knows what they're talking about. Well said. :D

Knightmight

I will have more time to look over your tommorow.

Just a quick glance at your lottery analogy. Closer would be, it hits millions of times, while missing even millions of time more than that.

Anyone who has even spent signifigant time in a casino will attest to how realistic that can be.

You don't have to go from nothing to a living cell in one step.  In chapter 2 of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explained that the first step could have been replicators, which are just simple molecules which happen to duplicate themselves.

The planets in the solar system did not evolve through natural selection.  Who is arguing that they did?

A huge number of transitional fossils have been found.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils