Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

Quote:

Quote:

And please don't give me some garbage about the fossil record. Evolution scientists have already admitted this imaginary ancestoral tree, where every plant and creature alive today is at the outter branches and can be traced back inwardly to other branches and so on all the way to the trunk, the first life form, they've admitted this is not what we find in the fossil record. Rather, its more like a bunch of parallel straight lines. Every species is the same from its earliest finding until its extinction. Even though Darwin was convinced the fossil record would be full of transitional forms. Its not. So don't mention the lie, sorry, hypothesis of the fossil record.

I'm wondering as to who these scientists are who said this. Knowing that they are "Evolution" scientist even further makes me wonder. Sounds like lying propoganda to me. However if you provide a link (to obviously a non-Creationist-"Hey look this scientist denies evolution; he's right" site) I will retract what I said and your argument will only be further strengthened. I also ask that this "scientist" not be some college student or "Aliens killed Dinosaurs" type guy wanting himself on the front of a newspaper.

Starman, not to be rude, but I am stilling waiting for a response.

What the? Why am I listed as flunking the Hitler/Darwin test?

Portal Star wrote:

If you look at "creation scientists*," sure. But evolutionary theory is the basis of modern science, and every class I've had (botany, biology, oceanography) is supportive of evolution studies.

Portal Star wrote:

Try reading somthing that has nothing to do with confirming your beliefs - it will do you good.

IZL may be the biggest J_rk, but no one makes me want to puke as much as you do.

patiodog wrote:

Did somebody say fossil record?

Quote:

The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were misidentified as belonging to that group. However, the teeth of pakicetids are more like those of whales from middle Eocene rocks, about 45 mya, than they are like the teeth of mesonychians. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were.


In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means "walking whale that swims," was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.


From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

Edit (Moderator): Do not post links to your site

IronLionZion wrote:

you have ended the evolutionary debate ON AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD

Anyway, this whale thing is just a bunch of paleobabble like all the rest has been. But wait, the best is yet to come…………………………………………………………….


"…where the wind won't blow,
really shouldn't go,
it only goes to show…"