There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

==================== CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth + Aliens ==================== {quote}That is right, fossils tell nothing of evolution, all you can know is that they once were living creatures. The fossils could have ended up in the ground in many ways.{endquote} ---->True, there is a possibility that some fossils may have been the product of something else besides an animal dying then getting preserved. HOWEVER, evidence shows that most fossils are the product of preserved dead animals -- therefore, we can say with good reason that most fossils are reliable sources of evidence for evolution (in the sense that we see the geneaology of animals progressing). {quote}If you asume that creatures came about by chance, you are tripped up by the fact that fossils formed by chance and had nothing to do with living creatures at all.{endquote} ---->Creatures did not "come up by chance". Abiogenesis may have, but natural selection -- the guiding process for all of life -- is NOT random. Mutations are random, but not natural selection. It's a process that does what it does. {quote}And those bones you find of say a T-rex had come about by being shipped here from another planet. - This may sound ubserd, however it at least moves the problem of biogenisis else where for now.{endquote} This is possible, but VERY UNLIKELY. Empirical evidence always has a degree of fallibility in it, but the probability of such ranges. For example - it's very obvious that gravity exists. However, there is a small -- though possible -- chance that invisible fairies are moving things as gravity would. Essentially, there's a small chance that gravity is actually an armada of invisible fairies. Possible? Yes. Probable? Hell no. {quote}You have yet to prove other alien life exists. For in till someone does so, there is no reason to believe in either. Alien life or evolution through the remains of fossils. I explained the equal properties that evolution and alien life share, and you did not really display any reason why I was wrong.{endquote} ----> Actually I did. I stated in the previous round that while the existence of aliens is POSSIBLE and perhaps PROBABLE, there is no solid evidence for the existence of aliens. Additionally, there is no evidence for an intelligent race of aliens existing. Additionally, there is no evidence for an intelligent race of aliens capable of interstellar transport (to get to Earth), or technology to allow them to hide from our tools of science (cloaking devices - Predator anyone?). All these are possible, but as my previous argument states, it is very unlikely This is why evolution and aliens are NOT on the same playing ground when considering how fossils formed. By virtue of Occam's Razor, it is evolution. My opponent then goes on to talk about how a fossil may just be the collection of other various bones. However, we have radiometric and anatomist methods to differentiate between different bones for different animals. Is my opponent really saying that an ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENCE, namely paleontology[1], is invalid? ==================== Faulty radiometric dating ==================== {quote}I did not get any reply on my question of trust. - "Still trust these scientists who have said such methods are correct when clearly not. (I actually want your answer on this question)" - (Return to my previous round to see the reason why I posed this question){endquote} ----> I probably won't abandon all my trust, but I will be skeptical of future results published by these scientists. HOWEVER, you have failed to refute MY arguments. You have failed to give me the links for the inaccurate dating, so I can prove to you that the reason they were faulty was because the said scientists used the wrong methods for the wrong age range, and other various things. While I won't trust the few scientists who commit grave errors, and even some who commit hoaxes, the majority of the scientific community is something I can "trust". ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent hasn't given much in his previous round. He has avoided my questions/arguments pertaining to radiometric dating, he has failed to see the very clear distinction between "possibility" and "probability", and he has failed to even refute my points about comparative anatomy. With so many arguments left unanswered, and new ones that are as equally inadequte, I urge a vote for PRO. Thanks for the debate. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...