Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[pocaracas]

Opening Statement

I maintain the position that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of macroevolution. In order for my opponent to claim that there is, he needs to provide observational evidence for the theory. In biology text books, students are taught evolution as if it is a fact, when it isn't.

"a fact"... awesome. Cant' wait to see how you can back that up...

I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

Kent Hovind?!
"Residence: Currently incarcerated at the Santa Rosa County Jail, Florida"
Yeah... I wouldn't take this guy's side, if I were you.

It is based on faith, speculation, and relies on the unseen. No one has ever seen macroevolution occur, but we are told that long ago, when no one else was around to see it, these things happened. The reason why no one has ever seen it occur is because "it takes so long for it to occur". Evolutionists use "time" to fill in their gaps of knowledge, and if the God hypothesis is taken out of the equation, evolution is the only game left in town, so it must be used by naturalists as a way to explain why there is so much diversity in living organisms.

The problem is, there just isn't any evidence to support it, and I will make that evident (no pun intended) in the debate.

So I guess you don't know about dating of materials by radioactive decay, also known as Radiometric Dating, huh?
This combined with the discovery of fossils with specific structures in rock strata dated to a particular age, gives us the evidence that different animal species have existed on this planet at different times.
Very roughly:
First bacteria,
Then Arthropods,
Then dinosaurs,
Then mammals.

So, as has been told so many times: go learn!