Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now you are ignoring all of the evidence that is out there. You are asking for the smoking gun; don't throw out the crime seen.
...All the evidence there isn't any at all...
EDIT: No transitional forms.
No proof of natural selection creates new species, no proof of mutations create species, no proof of common ancestry no nothing nada zip all they have are hoax's( Piltdownman, Fossils from china, pig tooth.)
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
...All the evidence there isn't any at all...EDIT: No transitional forms.
No proof of natural selection creates new species, no proof of mutations create species, no proof of common ancestry no nothing nada zip all they have are hoax's( Piltdownman, Fossils from china, pig tooth.)
🙄
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I'm Not a creationist so I wouldn't know but ID makes more sense then evolution.
I did not say "creationist."
I did not refer to anyone in particular who might be.
In any event: Why does I.D. make more sense? And what proof would you accept that would show evolution "makes more sense" than I.D.? If you don't know, then, IMO, you don't understand either position well enough to take an informed stand.
The other possibility is that, no matter what observations regarding evolution are made, an ID proponent would accept nothing as proof. In which case, there is no point to this thread.
Needless to say, you are entitled to your opinion.
Originally posted by Mindship
I did not say "creationist."
I did not refer to anyone in particular who might be.In any event: Why does I.D. make more sense? And what proof would you accept that would show evolution "makes more sense" than I.D.? If you don't know, then, IMO, you don't understand either position well enough to take an informed stand.
The other possibility is that, no matter what observations regarding evolution are made, an ID proponent would accept nothing as proof. In which case, there is no point to this thread.
Needless to say, you are entitled to your opinion.
Are you serious what proof those evolution have name one please so I can refute it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Gaps in the fossil record are not evidence of ID.
Yet evolution with it's magic claims can't find one valid transitional form despite the fact that logically if creatures evolved slowly there should be millions of forms.
EDIT: In truth, it doesn't matter whether the fossil record is complete or not. If it is complete, meaning a large percentage of fossil life has been preserved, then the fossil record does not support evolution. If, however, the fossil record is very incomplete, meaning a small percentage of past life forms have been preserved, what right does science have to fill these gaps with imaginary animals for which there is not the slightest material evidence of their existence?