Evolution Creation Debate part 4/5

Evolutionists & scientists speak out against Darwin. Darwin was wrong! The Cambrain explosion proves a sudden appearance of fossils billions of years ago, they did not evolve as Darwin theorized. The fossil record supports a Creator. There is change within a species, but this does not prove we evolved from a common ancestor. There are many breeds of species & many differences within a particular species (change within a kind) - All dogs for example belong to the dog family.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• creation
• fossil record
• cambrian explosion
• evolution creation debate
• Darwin
• creation musium

[Balabaw2]

What a crock. The Cambrian slow fuse took place over tens of millions of years, there's no problem for evolution. We have transitional fossils before it, as well as during it.

What does this moron think the Cambrian was since he thinks the earth is 6,000 years old? There are no mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, nor even any insects or land plants. Which day of the creation week is that?

[TruthPurposeLife]

Oh yeh.. we have tonnes of "transitional fossils" in our museums all over the world don't we?? and our museums & text books are full of these "pictures" or is it an artist rendition? hmmm..In May 2009 Sky News reports, Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwins theory of evolution, Ida - while evolutionists commented that the missing link is no longer missing. So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)? look it up...

[Balabaw2]

@TruthPurposeLife

Just shut up about "proof," it doesn't exist in science so by referring to it you are just making known your own basic ignorance. Science deals with EVIDENCE, and testing theories and hypotheses. There are a great many fantastic transitional fossils, but there is no such thing as "the missing link."

watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8

watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

[TruthPurposeLife]

Well thanks for at least admitting that science has no proof! Since science only deals with evidence I guess that explains why many atheistic scientists are now calling this a "religious" following. It is a cult within itself. And the last I checked if you have evidence you have proof.

[semitope]

@Balabaw2 bDuIHx7yltE wasn't that long. That is a documentary on it

[squirreljester2]

Evolution doesn't even need fossils, genetics pretty much solidifies the fact of evolution. You can disbelieve it all you want, but scientific progress will keep moving forward, as it always does and pretty much leave you and your antiquated way of thinking behind.

[squirreljester2]

@TruthPurposeLife Actually the scientific community was very skeptical over Ida, and their initial thoughts were that it was an extinct lemur, which is what it turned out to be. It also fit nicely into an open spot on the tree of life.

[Tylonous]

@TruthPurposeLife

Yes Sky News is a respected scientific journal, just like Fox News is a respected News organization. It's science.

[Balabaw2]

@TruthPurposeLife

What exactly are you talking about? Do you not even understand basic science? Science allows you to test hypotheses and form explanatory theories, but no matter how much evidence is found that supports a certain theory, it can never be proven. This is science 101. If you don't understand this you have no business even entering into a discussion on it.

Proof is for mathematics and logic ONLY - not science.

If you want a basic Christian introduction;

watch?v=O12WqVKuUaM

[frogscott68]

@Balabaw2 We do not have sufficient data to prove evolution regardless of who wins an arguement via having more data. You see science is overturned and proven wrong many times in history.

Does this prove anything? No... and thats the point isn't it?

An arguement which has more evidence that is incomplete is not an arguement. We do not know the answer via science yet. We just think we do because we have collected tons of data. There are still various interpretations of much of the data.

[Balabaw2]

What an imbecile Menton is too. Of course we can't tell that one certain organism is the definite ancestor of anything else, BUT THAT IS NOT THAT TRANSITIONAL MEANS, and it never has been. It's just a straw man argument. The fossil record contains transitional fossils (properly defined) at all sorts of taxonomic levels.