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.
Here we have it. All those fossils we've been digging up for hundreds of years are unreal and not actual fossils.
This is such a mess that it cannot be straightened out. It ripe for the dungheap.
My 5 year old used to think he knew everything and would explain it ad nauseum. It included some entertaining stories. It was funny in a 5 year old.
Since I assume NZ is more than 5, then this is just pitiful.
Whales am not a "completely unique" (as in there's only one) species
And NO actual real motion picture frames show evidence of motion. Ha! We just disproved the movies!
There are NO actual real fossils found that show evidence of evolution
Then what is your explanation for all of these hominid skeletons that have been unearthed in the last 150 years? Many of these have characteristics of both humans and apes. What are they in your expert opinion? (I am really curious to hear your answer here).
Man did not evolve from monkey and apes. The DNA is completely different and cannot support that theory at all.
Both genomes have been sequenced. I know this has little to no chance of sinking in, but for anyone else interested: The current sequences of the human and chimp genomes are directly comparable over approximately 96 percent of their lengths, and these regions are 99 percent identical.
Seriously now, do you really think you do anyone any favors by proclaiming such blatant falsehoods? Do you do it to make yourself feel better?