How many times have you heard an atheist say that "there are no credible scientists who do not believe in evolution"? If you aren't deaf, plenty. It's not any more true than when we were told that all credible scientists believe in man made global warming. Why the pattern of prevaricating? Here's over 500 credible scientists that are willing to sign their names to a statement disagreeing with the Darwin theory. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 Shutting down the debate is part of the atheist playbook. When their playbook is exposed, they don't look quite as smart as they would like you to believe.
There are plenty of problems with evolution. Not the least of which is the fact that man is at the end of his evolution and cannot evolve any further under Darwin's theory. The only thing man has to look forward to are breakdowns in the genetic code.
By "Darwin's theory" do you mean the the theory of evolution? Because they're not the exactly the same thing...Darwin formulated the basis for the theory, since then it has been modified and built upon. Also, humans are not the end of "his evolution", we're merely and currently the end of one phylogenic branch. I suggest reading the wikipedia's high level overview about the theory of evolution so you can get a better handle on what it entails.
Correct. Man cannot evolve any further in a positive way. However, genetic defects can be introduced into the gene pool. It's a fact. One only has to think for a while about what must happen for evolution to take place. EDIT: Well, there is one way man could evolve. If a superior being was in control of the evolution process, changes could be made in the overall population through manipulation by that being. Also, some changes could occur through widespread sexual selection but I don't see how that could happen. But it could happen through sterility of certain members but that would effect little more than sexuality.
How do you know that we can't evolve any further in a positive way? There could be an extreme environmental pressure that stresses our population, then an inheritable trait, whether it be derived via mutation or recessive inheritance (read: non-prominent gene) could become dominant in our population, thus causing us to evolve to increase our survivability. Man, as we stand now, are somewhat outside these environmental pressures as we can control most of them to some extent...which in itself is a form of evolution via technological progress. Currently being at the end of one phylogenic branch does not necessarily mean it's finished growing. Learn anything from wikipedia yet?
Primarily because the population is too large, too mobile and we don't kill or let die the weak and handicapped.
True, but I don't really see how any of your claims are evidence against evolution. Man has simply reached a level where the normal environmental stresses of evolution don't necessarily apply. We'll still evolve, but our definition of "survivability" has changed from that of other species. "Survivability" might better be defined as intelligence, looks, or companion stability instead of camoflauge or physical strength. Future generations will be the result of this...
I didn't really say it was evidence against evolution except that most people and scientists think we can still evolve. Maybe we can after the asteroid strike and the poplulation shrinks to 10 or 20 thousand. Then survival of the fittest might come into play again. But, in today's world, I don't see how we can't go any further.