Evolution has impossibilities and contradicitions.

My opponent is particularly self-contradicting on a single point I would like to bring out. He at first says, "Perspectives, of course, vary and are biased." Ok, you see that I am a creationist, but why, if you are so against biased perspectives, do you post a quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even a scientist? His points are irrelevant in this discussion as they are from a theological standpoint. We're not arguing whether creationism is correct, but why evolution contains so many fallacies. "There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.'[1]" I checked this website and it mentions nothing of lobopods evolving or having any intermediate link, it just some of them are related to others in the diverse scale. "Lobopods used to be regarded as closely related to modern onychophorans and tardigrades, but the similarities are based on the few species of Cambrian lobopods and often on a fairly general level. With the discovery of new creatures and based on new observations on fossil lobopods, we consider that Cambrian lobopods show great diversity and reveal a close relationship between Cambrian lobopods and arthropods" Tells nothing of these things being intermediate forms, but it does happen to delve into a vague form of spontaneous generation once again. Why is my opponent, who so heavily is against my perspectives about evolution being apart of spontaneous generation, post from a website that says these creatures came from radiation. That's spontaneous generation, the belief that life arose from non-living matter. "comparison between the dorsal spines of Cambrian lobopods and small shelly fossils suggest that Cambrian lobopods might have originated from the Meishucun radiation and diversified in the Qiongzhusi radiation."(http://www.mendeley.com...) But then again, whether this is talking of the chemical radiation that I know of is out of my reach. I looked up the Meishucun radiation and couldnt find anything. "Well, sure. If it's a newly discovered species, I don't see the problem. It'd be convenient if, for every uncovered species, they died right next to their ancestors. It doesn't exclude the possibility of there being any ancestors, just that we have yet to find them." Darwin said the same thing and the last 120 years have, in my opinion, further reduced evolution's facts. We have yet to find sufficient amount of intermediate links, which I see none. #2, you mentioned the word estimates. It makes me wonder where scientists estimate the cambrian because Carbon Dating is way off and there are numerous examples of this. If you want, i can give you some, but save me some time and look them up yourself. Even Steven Jay Gould did not believe that evolution happened over millions of years so he developed punctuated equilibrium.(Puncutated equilibrium was created to show that evolution takes place in spurts, thereby "solving" the Cambrian problem, but this theory has holes in it for modern animals.) And evolution cannot explain the diversities of life in the Cambrian, because there are no links or transitional fossils and even Darwin recognized this.(The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) Your suggestion that 5 million years is enough time for this diversity goes against science for it would take many more years for this to occur. For evolution to be true, like it says, life must start out simple, but we do not find simple life forms in the oldest layer of the Earth. And if you think bacteria developed into these creatures of a period of 5 million years, youre going beyond the realms of science. "I don't know know what my opponent's intention was in broaching the peppered-moth experiments, as it is a valid example of natural selection. The peppered-moths experiment was simply that, an excellent example of natural selection,[2]not some groundbreaking evolutionary happening. So I don't see the point in arguing over whether this represents macroevolution since I haven't heard people making this claim. The point was that beneficial mutation mutations can occur and this provides an example of one." Let me post my argument again to make it clear that I was showing that the Peppered moth experiment was invalid: "A common "proof" for evolution is the Peppered Moths experiment. To summarize it, "It has been claimed that before the Industrial Revolution, most peppered moths were light because they were well camouflaged when resting on tree trunks. The dark moths were rare. When the Industrial Revolution made the tree trunks sooty, the dark moths became more abundant. Since stricter pollution controls have cleaned up the environment, the light moths are more abundant again. At least, that's the story."(reference on bottom, #2) "The Field Museum should tell its visitors that both dark and light varieties of peppered moths existed in Britain before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the Industrial Revolution did not cause any new varieties to evolve. Both varieties were present to begin with. Even if a new variety had evolved, that would have had nothing to do with the evolution of a new species. If the black peppered moths had evolved into dragon flies that ate soot, then there would have been some evidence of evolution. But that isn't what happened. Light and dark peppered moths "evolved" into light and dark peppered moths. In other words, nothing happened."( reference on bottom. #2)" "Evolutionary theory has never relied on "a slow progression of fossils" as its only proof. Where evolutionary changes exist in the fossil record thpey do form one piece of evidence for evolution, but the absence of a particular link in the fossil record can't disprove evolution." My example of bird evolution was to show that evolution, if true, should have some transitional fossils that show it is occuring. Bird evolution is a great example since they are so well preserved in the fossil record, we have many to study and if birds evolved from reptiles, like evolution says, we should see an animal with feathers and perhaps scales. But we don't find that. And feathers is another problem, where do they come from. Things don't just pop into existence. And for evolution to be true, like I said we should see a bird with reptilian characteristics and feathers and we should also see evidence for a change from scales into feathers like evolution says and this transitional should be a bird or other animal turning from scales into feathers. But we do not find that at all. Summary: There is no example, anywhere in the fossil record, of scales turning into feathers(it is difficult to account for the initial evolution of feathers as elements in the flight apparatus, since it is hard to see how they could function until they reached the large size seen in Archaeopteryx'.Carroll, R., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 314, 1997.) and there is no example of a reptile turning into a bird, which should have reptilian characteristics and possibly be able to fly. Let's examine the supposed proof they found, Archaeopteryx.(In other words: ‘the chief difficulty in thinking about the evolution of the first feathers is the difficulty in accounting for the genesis of the structure through a continuous sequence of selective forces and with a continuous series of hypothetical morphological steps that are functionally plausible.'(Regal, P., The evolutionary origin of feathers, The Quarterly Review of Biology 50(1):35–66, 1975; pp. 35–36.) I can't cover any more info. Space ran out.