But your just touching base on one part of evolution. Micro. No one is refuting that. Its the serious lack of answers, and evidence to the contrary, regarding the rest of the theory is where the problem is.

You dont have the slightest Idea how old the earth is, and neither does anyone else.

The world was not created in 7 days well 6 days actually because on the 7th day God sat about doing jack which he has been doing ever since as far as anyone can tell..

and The complete lack of humor in the Bible is the weirdest thing in literary history..I have way to much respect for the concept of God (even if I don't believe there is one I like the concept) to think he has anything to do with the absurdity of the humorless bible.

Well I really dont like talking about the bible while talking about evolution, but since you asked, in some ways yes, and in some ways absolutly no. God said he created man from the dust of the earth. That could be taken to mean that he evolved man. But even that negates the possiblity that the dirt itself made man, without intelligence. Also, in evolution its claimed that both male and female counter parts were made at the same time, and evolved together. While the bible clearly stats that God cloned Eve from a full grow Adam, by removing one of his ribs. And in 2008, that doesnt sound as silly as it may have just 70 years ago.

Also Adam is the only creation that was created from dust, the rest God just called forth, plants, animals, insects ect ect. That obviously goes against evolution.

I think the biggest misconception man has is understanding time.

So the bible cant be true, cause it doesnt make you laugh?? Well at least your original.

Sense we have so many "scientific minds" that present "pseudo intellect" as superior to common sense. Please, would someone explain the scientific reason that a week has 7 days in it, not 5 that would produce 6 weeks in a month, not 6 that would produce 5 weeks in a month. Just what basis of science is the 7 day week based on? (R)

How do you know, more theories stacked upon more theories? You do not know anything of the such, you just speculate such. The theory of radiometric carbon dating, has no standard of calibration as a constant, and does not take into account the many variables that must surely be accounted for. Thus it is "theorized" as accurate only, not proven to be so. We have only what we can observe in todays world to base this theory upon, yet it is claimed to be constant throughout the history of the earth....really? If that were true, then the age of the earth must be proven to be very young by the simple math that any high school kid can perform. The population of the earth, now has 6.5 billion people, this population has been exponentially grown from the proven 200,000,000 people that existed in the time of Christ. Do the math, if throughout the entirety of the projected age of man by pseudo science....some several hundred million years, "IF" this reproducible and observed scientific fact were to remain constant as pertaining to population expansion.....we would after several hundred million years of a standardized method of calibration due to what is observed today.....have 150,000 people per every square in. of dry land on earth. Really? Yet we are expected to believe that a method with no standard of calibration other than what is observed today (radiometric dating) is absolute and no variable need be considered? Really? Now empirically prove to me just how old the earth is, and make me believe it. (R)

Why of course by the evidence presented as a statistical probability based upon the available information of our current age. World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The point of course is that the "pseudo intellectuals want their cake and eat it to. They hold the radiometric theory of radioactive element decay as presented in the parent/sister relationship of certain elements and claim that it has been "calibrated" by a standard that can be held to a constant throughout the history of any subject dated via this methodology.....WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY EXTERNAL VARIABLES, and claim an "absolute" standard has been established. Yet on the other hand as with the information that was presented as fact in calculating the population expansion of the world population due to the fact that it was deemed both "repeatable" and "observable"---the yard stick by which they wish to present their claims, the very first thing they will retort with is---"you must consider "ALL" variables----with just a "small" amount of chalkboard tweaking, the formula presented can be altered to project the stats we want to establish and project an old age of the earth". In other words their constant which has been observed and validated by empirical facts gathered in our current time is all that is needed to present their "ideology", but all other speculations of conclusion must consider all variables and "must" be approved to their standards. Yeah right. This is simply what they do, they have so much invested in concluding that the earth is of a very old age, they start with the assumption that this conclusion must be right and mold all evidence to fit that theory----no matter how much caulk board "tweaking" has to take place---instead of letting the evidence lead them, they always steer the evidence toward their wanted conclusion.

This only proves that----simply because one starts with an "empirical fact" that fact does not conclude that all speculative hypothesis that follow are also factual. One can present a lie and wrap it around a truth...thus we have a half truth presented as "empirical". (R)