Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not trying to minimize my response so I apologize for being vague but I estimate that I literally have about 5 minutes to get this response in. In general, I love opposing views so I'm not gonna slam anyone for their objections. I think a lot of people got off track because I do believe that evolution occurs in all species. I thought my objections were to Darwin, but perhaps I need to do some more research on Biogenesis because honestly this post was the first time that I've heard that term. Also, going back and reading my original post, I did a poor job in wording what I was actually trying to say. What I meant to say in a nutshell is that there is no evidence of species changing kinds. By which I mean in the lineage of any species there is no link (that I know of anyways) over the timeline of a species existence that shows that it could've changed from bacteria to fish to a amphibian etc etc that it has just been theorized. I really just want someone to show me that there is proof somewhere of that link in a species lineage. Any species. If somebody did and I accidentally passed it up then I apologize but I'll go back and read all the posts when I have time. But I really do want proof I'm not just saying that to poke at people. I'm not gonna stand in the face of something tangible and choose not to believe it just because I believe in God. My belief is that I should be open to believing everything.

Oh, and thanks for the congrats!

I second those congrats.

I'm glad you bring up 'kinds', because I've long thought it's an unnecessary objection. It's not clear what a 'kind' corresponds to scientifically, but often believers describe it as being roughtly equivalent to a taxonomic family: all bears, all cats, and so on. The modern evolutionary synthesis predicts that evolution of a new family will take place on a time scale quite beyond human history. For all practical purposes, 'kinds' do not change in that we have never seen it happen and likely our civilization won't last long enough to see it happen in the future.

In addition, the slight variation of each generation never amounts do a 'kind' giving birth to another 'kind' and that is what the modern evolutionary synthesis predicts as well.

So it seems to me that evolution is entirely reconcileable to a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis on the matter of kinds reproducing after their kind. It was a simple and obvious observation of the time, and evolution does not contradict that observation. I think fundamentalists are looking for contradiction where there doesn't have to be any on this particular issue.