^ This. And dinosaur fossils that show dinosaurs --> birds.

Well do ou have a link to where you found that picture? I would like to see it

And secondly I am tired and I am going to go to bed see you guys in a couple of hours

and here is the evolution of plastic cutlary. as you can see it pretty much started out as more or less a straight line, and over millions of years of geologic pressure, it formed a somewhat of a cup thing at the end. we know that the grooves were formed last, but it wasn't until recently that we discovered the missing links between these two.

and here are the missing links we found.

not only that but it was also found that all of these are made up of 100% the same material.

Evolution is annoying when people use it as their reason to be anti-christian. Belief in a theory that proposes thousands of new questions does not make you superior.

SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE
OR MISLEADING. YET BIOLOGY TEXTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEM AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION. WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES?

Science changes its stances all the time. I mean... my mom was telling me back when she was in school they were talking about a prehistoric remains of a human that proved the missing link in the fossil records... turns out she just had arthritis but they kept it in the text books years after because changing them all out would have been expensive... I feel bad for the people who were taught for years that this was real.

Scientist are the most closed minded people. They believe their calculations and findings are infallible. They also conveniently mix in theories with facts. If they have A and need to get to C the will add in B without it ever being present because its just logical to assume there had to of been a B. Also, the fact that scientist are doing experiments usually to prove their theories and support it... biased if you ask me.

I hate that they teach half assed theories as fact in schools that haven't been proven and in some cases proven to be false and don't teach the alternative.

This ... this is such massive fail ... I'm too tired to be as detailed as Rath, I'll probably come back in the morning ... unless I smarten up and decide not to even try.

Sneak peek:
"There is actually six different kinds of evolution. You will hear people refer to evolution when they talk about the origin of the universe (cosmic evolution i.e. the big bang). There is also chemical evolution (every element evolving from hydrogen. all i have to say about this one is WTF). Stellar evolution. A lot of scientists think they know how stars have formed. This is questionable as it has never been observed. And then there is biological evolution (abiogenesis). All of these along with macro evolution have never been observed, whereas micro evolution has."

1. "Chemical evolution" I believe you're referring to the idea that all of the elements in the Earth -- silicon, iron, gold, etc. -- were created by fusion in the stars from what started out as hydrogen. Hydrogen became helium, etc. Do you know that this is the same process as what happens in what is referred to as a "hydrogen bomb" AKA "H-bomb"? Hiroshima was nuked by a fission bomb but we created fusion bombs after a while and tested them; I believe Bikini Atoll is famous for such a test.

IF FUSION WAS BULLSHIT, as you clearly believe, THEN THE BOMB WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED right -- no?

2. If by abiogenesis you mean the chemical process that (*sigh* allegedly) became self-replicating, evolving, etc., I don't think the part where it STARTED could really be called "evolution" instead of "a chemical reaction".

I dont think anyone is denying that fusion is an actual process... obviously fusion is fact. Its happening in stars constantly; proton-proton chain fusing and He fusing. Natural fusion reactions in stars can only, however, produce up to element 26 (Fe). and yet elements naturally occuring goes up to 92 (U).

There isn't one single piece of evidence that shows evolution, it's the accumulation of all pieces found, fossilic mostly that shows evolution. I'd say that the recently found "feathery dinosaur-bird hybrid" would be a pinnacle of scientific evidence on evolution

No, I say do the work yourself, stop being lazy.  Get down to a library, go the the reference section, enjoy.

*SIGH*

We didn't evolve from gorillas, Gorillas and humans have a common ancestor. This common ancestor isn't alive today, it evolved into many species. for example our common ancestor that was a proto-primate would have evolved into humans, apes, gorillas, monkeys and whatever other primates exist today.

Do you seriously think that one animal can only evolve into another one? Of course not, animals evolve to suit their environment, two of the same animal living in two different environments will evolve into to two distinct species over hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years.