Evolution

Thanks for that argument Con. I also like how you can "disprove" evolution without the bible. Nice job. Now I'm going to look into your argument.Fossils..." If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true."This part I really liked. However you aren't right about it not evolving. I'm sorry but this statement, is. While there isn't much evidence to prove of an ancestor there is proof it evolved. How? Because it is the ancestor! There is evidence the trilobite evolved, with new eyes, different shapes and different thoracic segments. Sorry, but that is NOT true the trilobite never evolved.[http://en.wikipedia.org...][http://www.trilobites.info...]"When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions."That's kind of what science is about. Assumptions! Make a hypothesis then test it. To be a scientist, you must assume."If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else?"Dogs turning into something else? They have. The link to this website has a charthttp://www.evolutionevidence.org...However I'm going to explain it as well. The modern dog you see today has evolved from the "Canid". They are very similar, however evolution has taken course. Then there is the "Leptocyon, Eucyon and the Dire Wolf". The start of the modern dog. These three evolved into man's best friend over a course of 40 million years.[http://dinosaurs.about.com...]So saying dogs never evolved is also not true."You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?" I read the whole argument and it really doesn't bring up plausible evidence that shows evolution is false. So what was the point there?"How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?"Prehistoric bees pollinated prehistoric flowers. Isn't that easy to answer no? Don't believe me? Scientists have found a 100 MILLION YEAR OLD BEE. Still no proof evolution is "false". [http://www.nbcnews.com...] Now my second part of the argument. The evolution of the whale!Millions of years ago, there lived a land mammal knows as the Pakicetus. Over the years it evolved into the Ambulocetus. Then into the Kutchicetus. You get the point?[http://www.amnh.org...]How does this prove evolution? You were talking about fossils earlier right? What about the Pakicetus fossils found in Pakistan?[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Let's look at the Indohyus. This small creature shared something very similar to whales. The involucrum! The involucrum is a layer of new bone growth [http://en.wikipedia.org...]The Indohyus also showed it's aquatic lifestyle. The bones of the Indohyus were dense and had a thick and heavy coating. This helped the Indohyus stay underwater. This suggests a tactic the Mousedeer (can't avoid mice and deer can we?) and the Water chevrotain. When threatened, they dive into the water to hide. Let's not forget the Indohyus's bones are similar to a Hippopotamus.That is all I have to say. The third part of my argument is next.