There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

Ok right where to begin? Thank you again for another pointless but fun debate. Just to let you know I take evolution as a joke. One big joke. I would like to point out that by saying fossils are proof for evolution is like saying a missed target was shot at, again. You simply can not say both fossils or the shot are proof for either the target being hit or not or that the fossil as alive creature, gave birth. By saying fossils are proof of evolution, you are saying also, if a target is missed, it will be shot at in till it is hit. That maybe the case that adventually the target will be hit but you got to be there to witness the shot to be completely sure. Just like you have to witness a dead long gone creature giving birth to a creature you think it evolved into. Otherwise it is one large geussing game of prove me wrong. You can take physicality as a belief too as well as spiritual existence. For an example, you have to believe that aliens exist, as you do not know for sure. Just like evolution you have to believe it, and alike with aliens there is no proof for either. Whats the difference? Alien's, you could believe that they exist, but you can not see them, as either they are too far away or they are to close to us to be seen (aliens huh). So aliens have a possible existence on their side, but not being able to see them because they are not on planet earth is a down side on their behalf. Evolution has the aspect of being able to be seen, all the dead creatures, beast and monsters, but they are dead and can not see them, but we could if they were alive. So evolution has the fact that we can witness, as they are where we live on planet earth. But evolutions' down side is that they can not been seen as they are now fossils. Let me put this in a clearer perspective for you. Aliens - Can not be seen as their are too far away. Might be seen because they might already exist. Evolution - Fossils for fact could be seen as they once were living creatures. Never again will they be seen because they are now none existent. Tell me if you have to believe in aliens, why take evolution as a proven fact? Why not take the existence of aliens be classed as a scientific fact too? Come on, see how fast open space is. One person could own 1 trillion stars on earth, just for the size value. Same equal properties, just different values. Surely they are worth the same? ^^^^Aliens and evolution^^^^ that is. Next I will discus why I think fossils prove nothing towards evolutiuon. Fossils are only remains on a once lived creatures. The strongest point here is that you or anyone else does not know for sure that any fossil gave birth to offspring. You know the sex and you know that they must have had offspring to get creatures we have on earth today. But, this is what no one knows, which creature gave offspring, and when. You may guess at the date or which creature gave birth, however you can never be totaly sure. You also can not know whether the cureture is any different than it's perants, as you can not give any DNA samples as both are dead. You either put together a jigsaw puzzle which can not fit together bit by bit but the picture would match up, or you have a jigsaw puzzle what fits together but the picture on the puzzle does not match up or make any sense. You can not inherit both, as you were not there but you are here now, either that or you die now and know what creatures look like today but you will not be here to tell people evolution is for real. Sorry by my methods for fossils are no proof for evolution at all. Carbon 14 dating and all the other datings, rock testing etc... Just either add dust or take dust away, in that I mean sometimes they are trusted other times they are not? Dating methods are either trusted or not. Just can not have both. Examples: "A Dinosaur carbon dated 9,890 years and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim" - The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods) A living mollusks was dated by using carbon 14 dating to be found at 23,000 years old. So what are you thoughts now? Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question) Or are you now going to change the facts to fit your evolution theory? This is another quotation, it is taking about carbon dating, "This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead." -- The Bible and Radiometric dating (The problem with Carbon 14 dating and other methods) After finding out that the date which the carbon dating produced made out that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago. I for one just believe in the Bible. You may support me on this more than these carbon dating results, am I right? Look alikes: You will say that because one kind of creature looks the similiar it must be related, now there are different points of veiws you can look at this. You can say that all animals have limbs so they must be all related in some way or another. Or you can say one animal has two springy legs used for jumping and a croaky sound when it calls out. You would then say that a frog is related to a toad or another frog which is much smaller and produces deadly posion. Where as you would say that all animals are related in some way because they all have a beating heart. Either that is logic or just plain stupid. I think it is stupid. Not logical as you have come across a new bigger problem, to disprove a common designer, which is needed to create the universe in the first place. I am logical in both ways where you are only in one. I am logical about there being a common designer and I am logical about the universe needing a creator as the universe is a creation. You are only logical about, if whether all creature have eyes then they are all related in some way or another. And not at all logical about the universe appearing from nowhere or nothingness. That is final. Period! However, lets continue alittle further. You could also say that all mamales are related because they all have hair. No, you are getting closer but you are still off target. We are trying to get accuracy here not a convient belief system going. You clearly do not know if a mouse is related to a cammal because you have not witnessed any offspring which has caused there to be either a cammal or a mouse from a none mouse or cammal. You only use the fossil record like our belief in God and Christ that the Bible uses as evidence for both God and Jesus. Jesus and God both do exist no doubt just like those fossils once existed as living creatures. Evermore we take ours as a belief that Jesus did those miricals and the Christian God created the universe. You do not take it as a belief but ponder on about it being scientificly proven, when it clearly has not. If you do not believe in one thing, you have to believe in another I supose. Anyway if you said, "Ok then all creatures that can have hair, have two eyes on front of the head (not on the side) and have able fingers that can pick objects up, are all related." Again this is closer but you still have a huge variety of mamales which all have those features. Monkies, apes and humans. It seems that monkies are best at climbing, and apes are worse than monkies but better than humans. By this link you asume by using miss used logic, that can easily be mistaken for the truth, by using this logic you are forgetting about God, purposely.In that God exists today and because of that you fear hell as a consequence. These mamales are not related and none have a common ancestor but a common designer. Your life becomes much more meaningful, worthy and great when you look at life like this. Not meaningless, worthless and petty. Thank you.