[[Your childish taunts do you and your cause no credit, but that's pretty much all we see from many of you lately]]
Wow! And htis coming from someone who liberally sprinkles his posts with childish taunts himself? Seems you don't like seeing a projection of yourself in others eh? Dish it out but can't take it sort of hting eh?
[[But here is some evidence for you to chew on:]]
Evidence? Lol- yup- "Here we show you a nice ne3at graph of how man evolved from fishes- Evidence? Stop asking us for actual scientific evidnece- We've said it happened that wauy, and by golly that is hte way that happened and if anyone dissagrees, why hten they're nothign but haters and deniers!!!!"
Evidenc-e- Give me a break!
[[The reason is that the rabbit, which is a fully formed mammal, must have evolved through reptilian, amphibian, and piscine stages and should not therefore appear in the fossil record a hundred million years or so before its fossil ancestors.]] [LINK]
And htere you have it folks! They said it, therefore that's the way it must be DESPITE any evidence to corroborate their claims! "We can't state with anuy credible certainty how old somethign is because we can ONLY accurately date back some 10,000 years- and anythign beyond that is PURE guesswork based on ASSUMPTIONS and an a priori belief, but b6y golly we're going to tell you that 'precambrian ages' date back some 3.5 billion years, and noone better dissagree or we'll be on you liek a pack of rabid wolves on a gutwagon!"
To see just how deceitful Macroevo folks are when discussing fossil evidnece, and to see how they twist and distort claims made by Creationists- note the following claim from Talkorigins- a 'major' site for Macroevolution claims, and note the response!:
Talk Origin false claim against Creationists: Some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.
Response: Talk.Origins' reference to many millions of years assumes the accuracy of uniformitarian dating methods. This shows how incapable they are of breaking from their evolutionary mindset to discuss these topics even remotely objectively. A more objective way of stating it would be to say that these animal phyla appear over several layers of rock.
The fact that the fossils found in Cambrian rock differ from living animals of the same phyla only shows the living forms were not buried in Cambrian rock; the reason is just theory.
Once again Talk.Origins is missing the real point, which is that there is no fossil evidence connecting multicellular life with single-celled life, nor is there any fossil evidence showing the development of animal phyla.
Talk Origins claim: 2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
Response: 1: This just an excuse, trying to explain away why evolution theory does not fit reality. It does not change the fact that there is no fossil evidences connecting multicellular life with single-celled life, nor is there any fossil evidence showing the development of animal phyla.
2: There are plenty of examples of soft parts being fossilized, so the excuse of a "lack of readily fossilizable parts" does not explain the total lack of evidence.
3: Even if Precambrian rock were as old as evolutionists claim, there is still a lot of it, such that statistically some of these fossils should have survived. However, compared to the odds against some of the statistically impossible events needed by evolutionists, having all the rock containing the fossils they need to connect complex multicellular life to single-celled life just happens to have eroded away does not seem so unlikely. [LINK]