Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"mutations are the result of imperfect DNA copying, resulting in genetic variation" This is what I said through replication the DNA loses information (amino acids). The mutation is a loss of genetic information, there is never a 'gain' in new information. "note how it says 'change'. not 'downgrade' it seems the only time you forget to quote the dictionary is when it disagrees with you..."Whether or not what the definition is, does not change what the actual genetic occurrence that takes place. You can call it a change, but it's a change that loses information not gaining it. "and it is this, among other, mechanisms of genetic diversification that lead to survival of the fittest, pressuring organisms to change over time in the process known as evolution." Let me stop you there. Survival of the fittest is different from evolution. The process of eliminating weaker species is not evolution. What evolution implies, is a genetic attribute to advance the species. It is specifically improving the DNA thus, adding new information to it. This is not done through mutation. What we witness in survival of the fittest (or natural selection) is the elimination of weaker species. The species that survive are either already adapted or 'mutate' (loss of information) in which they survive. But make sure you know that no new information is added to their genetic chain. "you are using a 17th century scientist to prove your point? talk about out-dated evidence" That was from your source not mine. I was just simply pointing it out to you. "and the "holes in a shell" is called evidence of interaction which is used after the discovery of more substantial fossils like this" Those holes they found in that fossil are either that of a mosasaur or limpets, they aren't sure. Do you see how different of creatures those are? That their speculations vary that widely. "http://images.suite101.com/897376_com_102_0803.jpg" You do realize this is a model right? They constructed it from the discovery of a tooth. This is the evidence you support? How is 'art' more viable then eyewitness testimony? "how does this prove that there were flying animals before land animals?" That's not what my aim was here. If you read the article you would know that they speculate it was a flying insect. Although there was no evidence of wings in the fossil, because of a few similarities between it and a modern insect. They have very little evidence it even flew! These are the types of 'unsupported' claims evolutionists make. "http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm" This is from your source. "If nothing disturbs the grain to release any of this radiogenic lead, dating it is straightforward in concept." So in other words, a consistent environment. "Second, zircon has a high trapping temperature of 900°C. Its clock is not easily disturbed by geologic events—not erosion or consolidation into sedimentary rocks, not even moderate metamorphism." "But even the best geologic methods are imperfect. Dating a rock involves uranium-lead measurements on many zircons, then assessing the quality of the data. Some zircons are obviously disturbed and can be ignored, while other cases are harder to judge. In these cases, the concordia diagram is a valuable tool." "Now consider the discordia. If a 1500-million-year-old rock is disturbed to create a discordia, then is undisturbed for another billion years, the whole discordia line will migrate along the curve of the concordia, always pointing to the age of the disturbance. This means that zircon data can tell us not only when a rock formed, but also when significant events occurred during its life."What about from catastrophic events? We know basalt temperatures can range from 950C to 1200C this would definitely disrupt the time schedule. Even with a discordia the threshold for the zircon would be completely compromised. We know of the geologic implications of the flood (massive volcanic and tectonic activity). Especially that of rapid subductions of 'plates' and the corresponding magma flow. All of these effects could "totally" disrupt the discordia thus, invalidating the entire dating method of the sample. http://www.minsocam.org/msa/collectors_corner/arc/tempmagmas.htm http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n1/dating   "http://itol.embl.de/itol.cgi" Yet, again you give me artwork not evidence. "That is not how divergence works. as you go up the evolutionary ladder, species get more and more different from each other." And there is none of the transitions in the fossil record. The fact is evolution is a long and slow process. According to natural selection the weaker species are eliminated. If you have a land animal that is 'evolving' into a whale, you must have several (at least) transitional forms. This animal would have to slowly gain the attributes and characteristics of a whale. The genetic implications here are absurd enough, seeing how you would have to add new amino acids to the DNA of the animal. Which has never been observed, only the "mutation" or damage in the replication (loss of certain information). We can't simply go from legs to fins within a generation. So how would you suppose a land animal with half fins and half legs would eat or catch food (even evade a predator). Natural selection would tell us this animal would be eliminated. Even if you believe it was a whale with a leg and fin mixture. How would it do a good enough job of swimming to catch it's food. Despite the fact no such creature has been found in our fossil record. How do you explain its survival? "each 'step' of evolution is its own species, not some half-way mark to becoming a whale." But it still must transition. We have to see intermediate forms, which we do not.