Take a guess. If you are honest I'll bet your first one will be correct.
Active things use energy to be active. That energy should have run out within the time frame claimed for the solar system.
Why do you think this is the case? Why do virtually all scientists disagree with you?
Have you ever thought that gravitation is a force that does not stop and provides continuous energy for "active systems"?
The fact that a smart person like you couldn't figure out such a simple concept betrays your bias.
It isn't about figuring out a simple concept it's about figuring out what you mean, which is not necessarily clear at all. I don't expect your viewpoint to be rational, since past experience hasn't shown that you always produce logical statements and ideas.
If the main mechanism for evolution is claimed to be mutation plus NS, but most mutations are not subject to NS, then something else is the main mechanism. Simple logic should have told you that. But again, your bias overrides logic.
Sorry, you just posted a major logic fail. Most mutations don't provide material for evolution at all. That has been well understood for a long time. Natural selection isn't about "most" mutations, it's about *selectable* mutations. The fact that many aren't is totally irrelavent. The point of selection is it SELECTS from among many. But that obvious point apparently escaped you.
Sure I do. But when experts disagree, as I've just shown, we have to weigh the evidence.
We can do that. But you're not actually weighing evidence. You're cherry picking.
All you have for evidence is radiometric dating (which can't give us a consistent answer), starlight (which is as big a problem for you as for me),
I'm not accepting your assertions that any of these are "problematic" since I haven't seen any scientists complaining about how horrible radiometric dating is or how problematic starlight is.
and comparative lists (that cherry pick the weighting factors). It isn't much and it has big weaknesses to boot. It's our side that has the greater evidence.
Organisms fall into natural groupings which are a nested hierarchy. There is no reason for this to happen aside from evolution. Would you like to discuss some of the clear nested hierarchies? Do you agree that humans are primates?
You're also missing another huge area of evidence that was available to Darwin, and that is biogeography.
Perhaps you could explain to me how orchids, the family plants with the largest number of species, which has seeds the size of dust which must be invaded by a particular species of fungi within a few weeks after being shed to germinate, which must also be pollinated by particular species of insects which have incredibly intricate relationships with them. Relationships that include mimicking the signals for a female wasp or fly or bee to fool males into mating with them which transfers their pollen. Or orchids that produce perfume that a particular species of male bees must use to attract females of their species.
Here's a more detailed description and more species
How did they manage to survive a worldwide flood which was supposedly so amazingly catastrophic as to move continents, but no plants are named as being taken on the ark other than food?
And orchids are just the beginning of the story. Very few plants and seeds can survive being drowned in saltwater for a year. Many seeds must germinate within a few months to survive. Some can survive long periods, but they are the exception rather than the rule. If there had been a catastrophic worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago, we should have much lower plant diversity than we have.
