The following is an example of the ‘evidence’ that evolutionists consistently use for attempting to substantiate their faith:
“I'm pretty darn sure there's a heck of a lot of evidence that supports evolution. Since you seem to not be aware of any of it, let me point you to some:
Now, if you're saying there's no evidence at all, then I'm afraid you've got a lot of explaining to do, becuase those links above carry a LOT of material - well researched, peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community.”
Yes, first PLEASE go to Berkeley’s interesting examples of ‘evidence’:
Horse evolution – This has been disproved decades ago:
‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.
Thicker shells? Wow, now there’s a big leap in evolution …
Antibiotic resistant bacteria evolution:
Why is it that NO bacteria have been discovered that possess more complexity and … why are they still bacteria?
Chirpless? So losing features is now evolution at work?
That’s a new one … Why doesn’t this even surprise me?
As far as the talkorigins link, again why is it that you guys are silent when I ask for ONE specific ‘transitional’ fossil?
Here are just two in the last 10 days: