15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Of course then they complain about the missing link between these new fossils as well.

 

I know of a handful of controversial "transitional" fossils, some of which have been proven hoaxes. All the rest I see is clever artwork made by people who imagine what they would look like if they truly existed, but aren't actually there. Remember, if Darwin's theory is true there should be literally *billions* of transitional forms, which is why I always ask evolutionists to point me to the nearest natural history museum where I can personally view these subjects in person. But as always I get dodges, or the ole "every fossil is a transitional fossil".

Remember, most scientists in the world today start with a philosopical presupposition: naturalistic materialism. The dominant tragedy in our educational systems. Children aren't taught how to think, they're taught what to think.

 

You're saying cats are evolving to have six toes now?? Is this an evolutionary advantage as well:



Sounds more like a eff up in the genetics and a harmful mutation to me. (mutations are almost always a negative thing, and certainly don't magically create new genetic and DNA information)

 

So the future for cats is six toes then? OK. Were they at the threat of extinction with 5? Do you have any citations that cats are undergoing a process of evolving six toes and that is going to be the standard for the future? And fish evolved lungs? Interesting, but another baseless assertion. This is crucial for Darwin's theory, but of course there is no actual evidence for it.

 

Like I said, a six-toed cat is a eff up in the genetics of the cat, just like that two headed snake I posted. It's not proof that it evolving in any sense that fits Darwin's theory. Unless you think Medusa will exist someday.

 

And does that sound like a positive thing to you? Mutations usually lead to the death of the host. They are not a good thing.

 

Billions, huh? And where are these located? Like I said before, "every fossil is a transitional form" is a fallacy evolutionists use.

 

Interesting. Well the first subject you posted still exists today, so that's basically moot. And if a dinosaur were to evolve wings over millions of years of the evolutionary processes, wouldn't it become a bad leg far sooner than it would become a good wing? How would such a species survive in the wild over millions of years? Do you know how complex a wing is? It has it's own lubricating system for God's sake. Its aerodynamics are things people are still trying to emulate to this very day. Stuff like that does not happen by "chance".

It's like an explosion at an ink factory creating a stack of encyclopedias. Utter nonsense.

 

Lol, you've disproved nothing, just pointless rhetoric. Okay, at what point did those cats supposedly evolving six toes ever show signs of being anything other than a cat?

 

Ok bro

 

Your ignorance on the very thing you're critizing - science - is breathtaking. If you're really interested in answers to the questions you're asking, read a book or watch a tv show in its entirety.

Mutations happen all the time and are random accidents, and obviously therefore are often detrimental to the organism... but the natural selection of which mutations will last and get handed down to future generations are anything but accidents. Those that prove advantagous for survival will often survive, those that don't, don't.

Whatever you decide to do, just know that if you're disputing evolution, you're disputing scientific fact. You can dispute the origin of life, but not evolution. Not if you want to be taken seriously.

You should watch the entire video I posted, but at least watch the 4th segment explaining the evolution of the eye. If we didn't evolve from creatures of the sea, then please explain why our eyes originally evolved to see under water..?

But by the way, I don't think evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive in the least. Like everyone else, I came from the church of I don't fucking know.