Rocky.C versus evolution science: what is his best argument?

We have had a string of posts from Rocky.C on the Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder thread, a Links and Information thread rather than a thread designed for discussion. That means that not only are his posts off topic (regardless of their validity) but so is any response to his posts.His latest post, Message 35, is almost entirely an argument from authority and personal opinion (Science is not done by quote mining people).So far I haven't seen any real argument that challenges the processes of evolution nor the theory that the processes of evolution are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. If you disagree you can look through his posts from the thread.What I have seen so far is mostly undereducated opinion, some argument from ignorance, and a bunch of typical creationist PRATT's (points refuted a thousand times).So I suggest\invite Rocky.C to provide what he thinks is his *best* argument against evolution here, in a thread where discussion is permitted if not encouraged (and where replies to those responses is also encouraged).Suggested for the Is It Science? forum, noting that this is in the Science Forums and thus evidence supporting claims can be requested, and when requested must be supplied by the claimant.For the purpose of this thread biological evolution will be defined as: This is often called "microevolution," and it is a FACT that this has actually been observed to occur in virtually every living species.And the Theory of Evolution (ToE) shall be defined as: Where both anagenesis (phyletic speciation) and cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies) occur via the processes of (biological) evolution (defined above) over a series of generations (this is what evolutionary scientists call macroevolution).Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .

Thread copied here from the Rocky.C versus evolution science: what is his best argument? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'll be looking for a specific topic to emerge shortly after Rocky.C joins the thread. Until that happens feel free to respond to any of Rocky.C's messages from the Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder thread.

While this is a tempting offer, I don't think you should have made it or that we should take you up on it: if we did, we could actually derail his thread before he makes his first post. Let's step back and wait for him to give it his best shot.

The strongest proof I have of creation and design is that that are no viable alternatives. There is absolutely no other way that the universe; the stars; the galaxies; the planets; and, life could have come about. Physical matter doesn't just materialize from nothing. It doesn't work that way. And, life never comes from non-life. With all of our technology we cannot create life. Why would we expect blind chance to do what we can't do?Before evolutionists even begin to discuss evolution of life, they must fully and completely explain the following:***Cosmic Evolution: "Time, space, and matter" must have come into existence in the same instance, at precisely the same time. For instance: if there were time and matter without space WHERE would we put it? Or, if we had matter and space without time WHEN would we put it?Evolutionists who talk about the "Big bang" must explain How (without information, direction, and/or intent) all this took place.***Stellar & Planetary Evolution: Evolutionist must explain how all the vast galaxies; solar systems; suns; planets; and moons came into existence from nothing. Where did the laws that govern these bodies come from?***Chemical Evolution: This requires that all elements on the periodic table must have evolved from hydrogen. Hydrogen cannot produce all know elements.
Much like when evolutionists rely on circular reasoning for dating fossils and rocks (they date the fossils by the rocks they were found in, and they date the rocks by the fossils that were found in them), they rely on circular reasoning with "chemical evolution." Their theory is that the stars made the elements and also that the elements made the stars.***Organic Evolution: This states that all life appeared from nothing. Evolutionists assert that nonliving matter wrote its own information, whether they admit this or not. Scientists cannot create even the most simple life; yet, they have at their disposal abundantly more than nonliving matter.***Macro Evolution: Is change from one "kind" of animal into another and different "kind" of animal.
The Biblical explanation defines a "kind" as being able to bring forth--its own kind. A "kind" can never (and has never been shown to do so) bring forth an organism that is not of its "kind."
Dogs, coyotes, wolves, and foxes have been known to successfully interbreed, but they are the same "kind" of animal. The Bible separates animals into "kinds" not species.
Operational science verifies that the Bible is correct. We observe "kind" coming from "kind." We have never observed a "kind" bringing forth a totally different "kind" of animal from itself.***Micro Evolution: is not really evolution at all; a better term would be "adaptation" within the parameters of the "kind." No new information is added to the gene pool. Most adaptations occur because of climate changes.Never, never, never does "micro evolution" involve new information to the gene pool. It simply selects from the information already in the DNA. No new information is created and without adding new information it is not evolution.

Hi Rocky.C,The Forum Guidelines request that threads focus rather narrowly on a topic:

3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.

Listing the topics you mention in your message:

• Big Bang
• Origin of galaxies
• Origin of stars
• Origin of planets
• Origin of elements
• Origin of life
• Macroevolution
• Microevolution
• Information theory

Please choose a single topic and compose a thread proposal for it over at Proposed New Topics. I'm closing this topic down.