The thing is evolutionists will go around saying the current understanding is proof of evolution. Yet new discoveries come along which dispute this and they still persists that this is how it is. They had transitional evolution and when it was hard to find all the transitional fossils it became punctuated evolution. They denied that catastrophe had much to do with the process and now they are saying it maybe a big part of the process.
I have never heard any evolutionist make that claim. Perhaps you misunderstood them. New discoveries come along and we are better able to hone our points. New discoveries so far have always supported evolution. They may have been wrong on some minor points, but the science itself has always advanced.
How do you prove creation when it is a miraculous process. You can only look at what the evidence says in the fossil records and the earth itself as opposed to what evolution says. Many say the evidence for creation fit better in that there is evidence of wide spread flooding, that creation fits the genetics as much as evolution.
No, if creationism was true there still should be some consistent scientific facts that point to it. So far there are none. The evidence in the fossil records does not support creationism. Again, if creationism was true a creationist should be able to predict what we would find in the fossil record using a creationist paradigm. No one had managed to do so yet. Without a theory or hypothesis you cannot claim that a scientific fact supports your belief by definition. The people that try to say fossils support creationism are not honest, or too terribly bright.
The proof is more to do with how the theory of evolution doesnt fit and the evidence they use is always found wrong. They are finding more and more evidence of flood catastrophe and still after 140 years we have very little fossils showing transitional changes. What they have put forward can easily fit into variation with a species. They have turned what were variations into new species and turn what is an old fossil that is hard to put the flesh on into something else.
No, there is no evidence at all that supports a flood. Not one little bit. If you have any I would love to see it. Show me how a fossil that was a mere variation was turned into a species. Don't just make baseless claims. If that is all you have all it takes to defeat you is a wave of the hands.
There are anomalies such as soft tissue found in dinosaurs bones, trees up to 80 feet found going through supposed million year old layers, sudden fossilization rather than long age fossilization, evidence of skin, feathers, fluid movement in the layers that are suppose to be millions of years old and no signs of erosion between layers.
The so called "soft tissue" was not soft. You do realize that don't you?
And please, exaggerating is a form of lying. Where can you find these 80 foot tall trees that go through millions of years worth of fossils. You do realize that the so called problem of "polystrate" fossils was solved over a hundred years ago, don't you? Once again, don't listen to lying sources.
They have found whales with baleen still in tact with incredible detail in a layer between an upper and lower volcano ash layer which are suppose to be 12 million years old and the whale take up a fair amount of they layer. They have found living fossils that were suppose to be extinct and used as a transitional fossil. The sudden appearance of many complex creatures in the Cambrian period with no preceding fossils and then the disappearance of many and then their sudden reappearance. many with no preceding fossils showing where they came from. None or very little evidence of fossils below the trilobites which are complex creatures as though they come from no where.
Someone is believing creationist sources that are not accurate. So called "living fossils" do not harm the theory of evolution in any way. They may be the same genus as species that existed many millions of years ago, but they are not the same. And now you are just throwing nonsense against the wall to see if any of it sticks. The same old creationist claims that have been shown not to be true time after time.
There are many others but i have covered some in other forums and so have others. at the very least you have to say the theory is in question even if you say there is no god. Quite often i say what point is there arguing these facts when a person will believe what they believe.
No, all you have is nonsense from lying sources. You may have the luxury of being ignorant. The sites that you got that nonsense from don't have that luxury. They know the stuff that they spread has been debunked thousands of times and they are lying by spreading them. Lastly the existence of god has nothing to do with evolution. Worldwide most Christians accept the theory of evolution. It is only in the U.S. where we see a lot of believers in it and that even bigger joke the Flud!
I often use the example of how we are today as people. The so called highest level evolved creatures who is destroying their own environment and every other co creature on this planet. When we finish doing that and there is nothing left, what shall we do go and live on mars. No we know its wrong and we know we should be doing something but we dont. The very purpose of evolution is to adapt to the environment but we are actually destroying it and not adapting.
And you have shown that you do not understand evolution. There is not "highest level evolved creature". I can ignore the nonsense that follows.
This site will tell you what other anomalies evolution has to answer.
The Fossil Record
Sorry, but I have better ways to waste my time than another lying creationist site. Evolution does not have to lie. It can be shown that all creationist sites lie. That should tell you something about the two arguments.
