There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

Ok, lets do this. "CON Claims: Fossils don't tell us if the animal being fossilized gave birth" 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. In that there is absolutely no way of even knowing those fossils even lived. 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. 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. 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. In one to one debates why do you state the obvious? Of course I will seem erroneous to you, as much as you to me. Anyway, like I was saying about aliens relating to that fossils meaning nothing to evolution or proving any evidence. If we got a signal from space which stood out from all the other random signals, such as solar wind signals. If earth received an intelligent signal such a the coding of DNA which is, A, G, C and T. If we continously received same old signals from otter space, earth would, with out doubt conclued there is intelligent life. Unless this occurs you are enable to responded to the signal unless you conclude that DNA is a signal from God. You go on to say that, "Yeah maybe one fossil alone will not explain evolution is fact, but many of similar fossils prove evolution" - It makes no difference, if you have a whole kind of dead creatures in a form of a fossil or one single fossil. Take it like this, fossils are contructed by old bones or young, say if I said one of those bones is one fossil. If I added up all those bones, and if I recived to correct bones to link them up I you get a compleleted fossil. Of course add some rock and a few minerals. And POW! We have a fossil. Now what do I mean by the bones, well its only really to see the different animals wth in one kind. As if the bones were the dones were the creatures in the kind, in that they can evolve into different creatures within their kind. That is called micro evolution. If you want macro evolution, you would need to work out how one bone which is totally ralated only within this particular fossil/creature. Now I know what you are going to suggest possibly. You would say that the other fossils, say I had two, are different planets. And each bone is a different kind. And that bones link up well, with the joints etc. However since you rejected my possible theory of other life on other planets, you are stuck in solving this. I for one do not believe in other intelligent life. You therefore can not prove to me that fossils have any benefit in proving evolution. 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) I am sorry I have left this short, there really is no excuse why I had to leave, I should had done this sooner. I got to go away for the weekend and I would have had failed to reply since the time would had ran out, therefore increasing my chance of losing this really enjoyable debate. However I will attempt to use up my 16,000 charactors when I return on Sunday and onwards. Take care.