You shout "circular reasoning" everywhere on this forum. Yet you fail to demonstrate how you think it has been employed. Your assumption, as I explained, is that life must have "assembled itself" for a goal in the same way that a child assembles blocks to make a building. Does a hand of cards also assemble itself? Whatever hand you are dealt from a deck, the odds are astronomical that you will have received that exact combination out of all the possible ones. According to this line of reasoning, this is virtually impossible, so your card hand must also have been designed by God -- particularly if you win with it and decide this was somehow meant to be.
You can see the way that life has changed, step by step, through the fossil record. It's these in-between steps that creationists leave out when they claim it's impossible to get from a single-celled organism to something like a human being. 3.5 billion years is a very, very long time for evolutionary processes to be operating. It hasn't taken us long just to get dogs from wolves, to use one of RAZD's favourite examples.
What's more, evolution isn't a linear process. For every evolutionary line that succeeds, there are many dead ends which do not; and the vast majority of organisms which have ever lived, have become extinct. It would be beneficial for you to look at the
link I gave to Jeanie which briefly explains anagenetic and cladogenetic speciation, because most creationists seem to assume that the only kind which is possible is anagenetic -- that is, a straight progression from A to B. (More detail on this
here.) The effects of environment on the organism are also ignored -- if the environment has changed little in millions of years (say, at the bottom of the sea), then there's little reason for an organism to change much either. It tends to be when the environment changes, that a species is forced to adapt or become extinct. I'm sure RAZD could give more details about the various understood mechanisms of evolution, not to mention a good Google.
The whole picture is more complex than A to B, with B as a "goal,", which shows why claims that single-celled organisms could not have "become" human, or any other complex organism, is a strawman argument based on ignorance of the way evolution actually works.
It's common knowledge that there are many methods of dating things, and evolutionists don't use methods which don't give them the results they desire. This is called 'cherry-picking'. Do I need to provide further rationale beyond the obvious?
No it's not common knowledge, and yes you do need to give evidence. Anyone can claim anything they want without giving a scrap of proof to back it up. I suspect you don't know the first thing about dating methods and will avoid discussing this like you avoid discussing most everything else here, including the topic of this thread you began.
The hypothesis was tested and failed. I tested the hyptothesis by following the link and looking at what was there. According to the hypothesis, this should have proven evolutionism to me. It didn't.
As I said, you simply decided "I don't believe that." The fossil record shows millions of years of foraminifera evolution, with no gaps anywhere. That's pretty solid physical evidence. Instead of attempting to engage with that information in any detail, you simply come here and say you don't buy it. Hot air again, unless you can give any actual evidence for your own ideas.
Pwcca, I don't think you'll be shaving your legs any time soon. I'm quite tired of reading the same unfounded claims here again and again. Is there a creationist in the house who is willing to do more than say, "You are all wrong but I'm not explaining why"?
