What evidence have the biologists ever produced for us. They know nothing!
Well, there is the biogeographical distribution of the fossil record.
Yeah, Ok, but apart from that, what OTHER evidence have the biologists ever produced?
Yeah, pretty much nothing, apart from loads of startling predictions of the location of fossil finds, what strata they'd be found in, and subtle predictions of their morphology.
......
......
OK, apart from ERV predictions that precisely match the assumption of common descent, Linneous' observation that all life falls into a nested hierarchy, the continuing confirmation that the fossil record also falls into the same nested hierarchy with modern forms at the tips of the tree, the neatly arranged location of fossils in appropropriate strata so that they appear in sequences, numerous geographical predictions of fossil finds that match the assumption of modern descent and plate tectonics, the numerous successful predictions of modern species behaviour and distribution that bear out the idea of natural selection, the discovery of ring species in the actual act of speciation, startling detailed predictions like the baleen transitions and fresh-salt water transitions in the sequence leading to modern cetaceans, the marvellous sequences of recent fossil hominids, the correlation of numerous dating methods with all of the above, what evidence have the biologists ever presented that the theory of evolution is true?
I'll tell you. ABSOLUTELY NONE!
300
Well, there may be some evidence, but the trick is in the interpretation, and those demented Darwinists are always interpreting it to support their diabolical theory. But two can play that game. So if you take their "evidence" and lay out all their "fossils" in chronological order, and then look at the creatures in that sequence, what you see is ...
Well ... I mean ... it's all in how you interpret it. You know what I mean.