First off, this isn't a flame war.
Second, I'd really like to see some evidence for creationism that doesn't involve the Bible or some other holy book. We've all provided evidence for evolution, now it's your turn to back up your view.
what evidence? yes you might have proven that bacteria changed but how does that prove that humans came from single cell organisms? it doesn't even really prove its possible, and even if it did, that doesn't prove it happened that way, you presented inadequate circumstantial evidence that may or may not apply and expect us to count it as proving anything?
as for evidence proving creation, the best way is to ask, even if evolution exists, where did the first thing come from? there isn't any proof that life can come from nothing or any chemical reaction we know of, and the most basic rule of matter is that it cannot be created nor destroyed, so some thing must transcend regular physics rules, aka some thing "godlike", now what you think that "godlike" thing is, is up to you
EDIT: not a double post, J.T. deleted his post...
Darwin never actually recanted. That's a myth.
Fail. "Theory" does not mean "we took a guess that made sense". It's basically "we have tons of evidence to support this, so it should be taken as fact, but it could theoretically be disproven". Yes, evolution is a theory. So is gravity. Are you going to deny gravity because it's "just a theory"?
I'm pretty sure there are missing links. Also, how would a lack of missing links disprove evolution? If anything, I'd think it supports it.
There could be plenty of geological reasons for that. A mile isn't particularly far.
It's hardly flaming to expect someone to back up their claims.
from your own words, back up your claims
no, gravity is a theory because there is undeniable evidence that something exists that preforms in that way, but we can't prove what it is, evolution, however, hasn't had any undeniable evidence
well, first, again prove your points, second we can all agree that evolution slowly happens right? then there should be plenty of little changes between ape and man, but there isn't
couldn't find the exact distance but i found this, google is pretty easy to use btw
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):
‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2
Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3
meaning that they are a different species all together, and who is to say it wasn't a physically mutated ape or human? which is why one "link" doesn't prove anything
2 Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.
3. ibid.
also
Although only 40 percent of the skeleton was recovered, bones from both sides of the body were present, allowing paleoanthropologists to reconstruct approximately 70 percent of her skeleton by using mirror imaging.
so the other 30% was a guess? 30% is plenty to change a human into 30% ape
