There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

I am aware that I will not change Pro's veiw with this approach, but those who read this debate. I am also sorry that I did not exstend my last round to it's greatest and have a hair on edge, spine tiggerling conclusion. Sorry Skeptic. Anyway alway I go. Fossils are also proof for Noah's flood and more so than evolution. No dinosaur could really climb a tree and when the flood struck the earth the creatures that were mostly mamales could climb trees with much more of a attitude compared to dinosaurs. With nible limbs and claws in such to clumb to higher spots, mamales would seem to have evolved last. Where as the dinosaurs were not agile but were fast runners and also fairly show. Take a look at the Carnotaurus, it has short arms, stronge muscular legs, grew 9m long and 3m tall, not really suitable for climbing at all. To climb anything really, a creature needs to be taller than it is longer. A cat, when standing on its back legs is just that alike with most other mamales such as dogs, bears etc... Birds can simply fly. Now you maybe wondering why some lizards which according to evolution lived around 300 million years ago? The young could climb very well up trees, away from their parents which would eat them, so why did they die in the flood? Well maybe they didn't, the Komodo dragon is very similiar, and its young once hatched climbs and even lives up in the tree tops. And once when they are large enough the lizards will return to solid ground. You did not reply that well back to my bones analogy, in that it make complete sense (some spelling) yet you did not have even a decent come back. Alot of your science is based on possibilities and probabilites, not definite facts or any believable science. And neither am I, however I take creation as a belief where as you take it as scientific. You bluntly commented back to why my philosophy on bones did not work out, I can see it understandably logical, it makes sense that if one bones is a type of creature with in a kind and one fossil is another kind that must result in a different kind from another in real life plays role as another planet. With extraterrestral life of some sort. All alien means is, foreign, from another country or land, planet or universe, whatever. The analogy works, you now need to prove alien life on another planet to suggest all the creatures on earth a related. Therefore making fossils a proven fact that evolution occurs. Unfortunately since this is the last round, you may have to reply in the comment section. I for one do not believe in alien life. In that there is intelligent beings. Since there will be no way to get any signals from unadvased organisms like kittens and puppies, the chance you will prove evolution is very, very slim. The nearest star to our sun is thought to be 5 light years away. I have talked about why carbon and radiomatric methods are untrustworthy (look back to round one, my round) Pro did not reply when I found that scientists who were evolutionists carbon dated dinosaur fossils to find out they were only 1000's of years old. So the scientists scrapped the results. - Still no word from that? I never suggested or thought that the whole feild of science is invalid in the slightest. I will not be obvious and state that I think evolution is not science. Science needs to be tested (micro evolution has) evolution has not been, that being the over millions of years evolution, were it is far too slow to really witness. You base what you find such as fossils and then you plant an imagenation around the facts to support a perfect world to be allow to commit sin in. "You have failed to give me the links for the inaccurate dating" - I do not take notice of dating methods, only when dating methods go wrong, then I use that as proof for dating methods to be untrustworthy. Here is a link so that you can see what I am speak of. http://www.godrules.net... So for example, if a scientist predicts an age for a fossil by how deep it is in the dirt, then returns it back to the lab for anaylsis. Say the fossil was prosumed to be 27 million years old, and the dating method tell the scientist the fossil is actually 9 thousand years old. Who do you trust? The scientist or the dating method? So I ignore them both and turn to the Bible where it says, in Romans 1:25, "The thruth of God will be exchanged for a lie, where people will start to worship the creatures and not the creator. The Bibel also states to turn away from what man says about the truth. You should flee, as in run and not look back, from lies and sin. Conclusion: Good debate, thank you. Evermore you failed to bring forth proof of any valid reasons but only mere suggestions in why I as a individual should believe and take evolution as science because there are fossils in the ground. Fossils (Like I said eariler) point more towards Noah's flood rather than evolution, that it makes much more sense that the less nible creature drownd first as they could not reach high ground. And small mamales which have been known to live amung dinosaurs simply drownd based purely on their size. Dinosaurs are large and were not good climbers in the least, even Scoody Doo and the Phantom Menis agrees with me. (Parshly a joke) Thank you.