A dentist?
Half of these guys arent even professional scientists.
The other half are probably out of work post-docs.
A dentist?
Actually, I heard this guy speak somewhere (can't quite recall where)...anyway he gave an in-depth presentation on his analysis of the dental remains and skulls of human fossils. I thought it was pretty interesting, but, since I'm not a scientist, and he's not a scientist (at least you think he's not a scientist) that should be enough to totally dismiss anything he would ever have to say about the "pure science of paleontology".
They wear white coats don't they? Doesn't that make them scientists?
If you take note, evolutionists also study teeth in their efforts to establish evolution theory. So why would a person who studies biology of teeth and draw his conclusions on the side favoring creation be disqualified and the other not?
The >phossal< record link posted by our local evolutionist on this thread shows a study by a dentist as well. Another thing to note on this so called 'fossil record link, is that there are no actual fossil records, Rather just hand drawing explaining the THEORY of fossil records they hope to some day find. Again, there is no actual fossil record that shows even a HINT of evolution.
So far, the argument presented by so called "rational thinkers" defending evolution on this thread have pointed out 1). A spelling error. 2). My neglect to repeatedly post the same link over and over again. 3). Attacking people on my list of pro-creationists in order to discredit their work which I have not even made reference to on this thread as of yet, while ignoring that many on the list of pro-evolutionists share either the same professional qualifications or do not even have a doctorate but some how that doesn't matter if they are on the evolution side of things.
My statement is 100% correct. There are NO actual real fossils found that show evidence of evolution, only drawings of a theory which has yet to be proved.
My other statement is correct, and the corresponding proof I posted is correct- that carbon dating is flawed and useless and cannot prove anything is millions or billions of years old.
The universe did not start out with a big bang. Nothing cannot explode into something. Nothing cannot explode into something for no reason.
Man did not evolve from monkey and apes. The DNA is completely different and cannot support that theory at all.
Whales did not walk into the sea. Whales have been found to be a completely unique species.
Fossils do not form over long periods of time. They are formed during catastrophic events, such as flash floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. This is proved by geological evidence which shows the 'fossil record" to be is specific layers at specific times. Otherwise the fossil record would be spread in all layer in all time periods.
Scientific observation supports creation, not evolution. The earliest known trilobite fossils show very advanced eyes. This is only possible by creation.
And just how many of the Nobel laureates that have no scientific background related to biology/chemistry do the evolutionists parade out in support of their position?
Nathan Zachary's list is pretty impressive when one considers their specialties.