Give us some for evolution then we'll talk.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Still no pics of it happening.
But of course certain genes are going to recur in the same types of species.
Common descent does not mean evolution.
In the Bible it says that "God created them each after its own kind." So yes, different species of felines are going to have a common ancestor. Different species of canines will too. That does not show evolution either. The common ancestor for canines was likely to have all the genes at once, but certain offspring may have lost the genes and produced young without those genes and such, hence different species of canine. Not evolution, however.

Evidence is the same of pictures of it happening. Stop using pathetic strawman arguments.

There are right now animals evolving before our own eyes, genes recurring in the same types of species IS EVOLUTION the only difference is that over time the species will have gone through so many different transitions and mutations of the genes that it no longer has the form of the species it ones was thousands of generations ago.

You clearly have no idea what evolution is nor have you studied it. Transitional fossils, DNA sequencing, the fact that animals evolve before our own eyes are all pretty much even MORE evidence than pictures. Evolution is a fact and giving it different names to defend your magical homophobic sky fairy is not going to change that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Transitional fossils have already been disproven, read up on that. DNA sequencing is not evolution, animals do not evolve, blah blah blah.
Give some real evidence instead of saying "You're stupid, evolution happens."

No there's not, transitional fossils are pretty much evidence of evolution, there is literally no scientific method used that disproved these fossils, in fact there is no scientific method that disproved ANY of evolution.

I gave you real evidence, how about you give ME some evidence instead of saying "hurr durr it's not evolution it's a different name"

Transitional fossils haven't been disproved by scientific method, they've been disproved by the fact that they were completely different animals, not transitional stages, and there was no evidence to say that one changed to another.
And my point is not "It's a different name" my point is that it's not evolution. Evolution is not mutation or the loss of genetic data. Evolution claims that things are evolving to a better state, but mutation and the loss of genetic data says otherwise.

Explain the Archeopteryx (The form which stands between Dinosaur and Feathered Bird).
Explain the Prehistoric form of a horse (Which had multiple toes and gradually evolved it's modern day hooves)

O my god. You just went FULL FUCKING RETARD. The ignorance is astounding.

Evolution does NOT say that things evolve to a better state, where the hell did you get that bullshit? Evolution is a random process that goes either way, an animal does not become automaticly better with every generation in fact most animals end up being imperfect which is why 99% of species are now fucking dead.

It's true that we can't prove this in the strictest sense, but transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship rather than proof of it. As is so often the case, this is an example of creationists demanding proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence then claiming that the absence of absolute proof demonstrates that evolution isn't science at all.

However, even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitional fossils fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory.

Combine that with all the other massive amounts of evidence support evolution and NONE opposing evolution and well you'd have to be retarded not to believe in it.

Fail.
The evolutionary process does claim to produce negative results, but those results do not last, hence only keeping the positive ones. Figured it out now?

Transitional fossils have no evidence that they are transitional. Just showing some trait that is similar. Not proof.

There are massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution, but most of it is guesswork. There are also massive evidences opposing evolution.

You completely ignored my points, you know what forget it. This is like playing chess against a pidgeon. I'm not wasting my time with a delusional retard making strawman arguments.

I'm just simply saying that your arguments are very weak.
It's like you're saying "I think that watermelons are blue, and there is evidence for it." Without giving the evidence, without giving a point. Just stating it as a fact for no good reason.
If I'm honest, you seem pretty retarded too.

All animals are "transitional stages"....

How?
Transitional stages, by the way, do not necessarily prove evolution either. There may be transitional stages of genetic loss, but not from one animal to another.

it literally hurts to read what you're writing.

Too complicated for your stupid mind?

Man just stop the stupid coming out of your mouth is something even a mentally retarded sea slug couldn't compete with.

Because every animal is an inbetween form.
You're not gonna find a crocoduck. EVER.
Every animal is its own, but at the same time a transitional form.

This is not a difficult concept. Neither is evolution.
But you don't seem to grasp it

It's not a difficult concept, but it's an unproven and illogical one.

What's "illogical" is the concept of God.

The rest of science seems to disagree with you.

Why do we have an appendix? Why in the inner corners of your eye you have a (supposed) nictitating membrane? There are so many useless traits and features to animals that could only have been created through natural selection and evolution.

Well, not necessarily. It's not that they could only have been. There is the possibility of loss of genetic data, so that the appendix may have been useful at some point, but the genetic code that made it work could've been lost on the way. Which, by the way, is not evolution, but rather devolution.

Exactly, the appendix was useful when we were fish (or somewhere around that stage), but it just never got removed from our genetic build as we evolved.

No no, you've missed my point. A fish turning into a man is not genetic loss.
Man may have had a use for an appendix, but genetic loss rendered it useless.

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals."

Alright, you get a point there.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urey_Miller

It's not much, but it's a start.
Your turn.

That's all incredibly vague. That was an experiment on what some guys thought earth might've been like [not definite] billions of years ago [which we have no way of knowing].
Carbon is present in almost any life form. Amino acids are not life forms, just organic materials. The experiment does not show evolution. This article does not show actual digital pics of evolution at all.
I'm afraid that's a very weak argument.

But of course, there can be digital pics for neither, as Creation was thousands of years ago before photography was invented, and evolution is supposed to have been millions of years ago.
So in general the original argument was very very weak.
But I imagine it was mainly a joke.

I said it's not much.
It does however prove that anorganic molecules can spontaneously combine into those we refer to as organic ones, ergo proves once and for all that there is no such thing as substantial "life force" that would require a kind of primordial creator of life.

That bit is already much more than you have.

That does not prove evolution or disprove creation. That just says that things can combine to form other things.

Yes, the game's not over yet, but the score is 1-0.

Not really.

Yes, you're right.
There's the universality of the genetic code as well.

2-0

We have no way of knowing 100% accurately. We do, however, have ways of predicting what the earth was like some 4.54 Billion years ago.

We also have many forms of Radiometric Dating, which measures the decay of radioactive materials, which can confidently and accurately determine the age of the planet Earth to be 4.54 Billion years.

How does that prove anything? How do you know how accurate your Radiometric Dating is? You cannot confirm that it is correct in saying that the earth is 4.54 billion years old because there is no other evidences of that exact number, and nobody would've been there to see the start of it.
Again, that's vague guesswork.

As opposed to the young Earth theory? How can you say that a scientific dating method is more vague than primitive anonymous documents?
Answer: You can't.

I will not try to explain myself to someone that will just shrug off any form of evidence as false or vague, regardless of how much it explains.

Your scientific evidence doesn't explain anything. The young earth theory actually has people that were there who recorded historical documents. What's the point of history books if you're not going to believe them?

So you believe in a bunch of magic believing idiots living in the year 1 yet you don't accept the fact that there is hordes of evidence for evolution backed up by experiments and which is accepted as a fact by 97% of the scientific community?

I very much prefer modern scientists with understanding of genetics rather than primitive people living in mudhouses.

Well yes, genetics. I'm talking history. Different subjects.
I believe scientists on genetics that actually happen.
I believe historians that were there.

Dude, how do you know they were there? The documents are "ANONYMOUS."

Anonymous (An-on-im-us): The term used when someone hides their identity in an attempt to avoid unnecessary attention or unwanted hatred.

Therefore, you cannot know that those people were there, because those people may not even exist.

Not all documents were anonymous. But I'd rather believe someone who was at an event than someone not specifying in that subject speculating what possibly could've happened if something else might've happened.

But there inlies the contradiction to your claim. These people may not have ever existed. You cannot prove that they did, because they lived in a time before a Census was required by law.

Also, if The Earth was 6000 years old, why did the Egyptians have a thriving civilisation just 1000 years later, with several different Gods? Wouldn't they still have primitive thought patterns?

Your claims also don't explain the existence of Dinosaur fossils, which are several million years old, and doesn't explain why God allowed the Egyptians to have Jewish slaves.

The Young Earth Theory was made by people that lived during the time of Dirt/Wood floors, Bleeding people to cure them of their illnesses, and burning witches at the stake.

It was invented during a time when science was still primitive. Your theory is unreliable, and cannot be used as evidence against atheistic theories. It is poorly based, and is most likely poorly translated as well.

I'm not talking science books from that age. I'm talking history books. You're trying to merge the two subjects which doesn't work.

Actually, you are. I never said "Science Books," I just mentioned that Science was at a primitive stage at that time.

Don't put words in my mouth, because that's a defense method, and it doesn't work. What's next? Are you gonna blame my behaviour on the Nazi's?

How does that even make sense?

You started on the history thing. Saying that science had proofs better than history.

You obviously do not understand the words I am typing. I cannot understand how anyone can not understand what I'm saying.

All I am talking about is Science's primitive state during the time of the Young Earth Theories conception. Science has evolved exponentially since then.

Try ignoring God for 5 minutes when you read my comments. That way, you can focus on what I'm trying to say and possibly, you'll understand it.

Nope.
He's gonna blame the Nazi's behavior on you.

Lol. You are my new best friend now. That was brilliant.

I couldn't pass up that golden opportunity. I just couldn't.
Glad you liked it. :)

i think

That's exactly what mine looked like.