So evolution, this debate has been done over and over again. I guess it doesn’t hurt to go over it again. I previously had a lengthy debate with James on this, at one point in the debate James had lost it and I had to call the debate off as he could not intellectually defend himself. So anyway lets get the ball rolling, however before do that let me mention that I do not proofread my posts and my grammar sucks so there will be typographical errors in this post, and I do not want someone pointing that out to be – I also happen to be a dyslexic.
Now, firstly any propagator of the theory of evolution always states that life started in the water, which is a pretty strong hypothesis however like all theories it has its pitfalls. The majority of the earth is covered in water here is an image of the earth taken view space:
now anyone can see this is factual claim. I would like to ask the propagators and the proliferators of the theory of evolution why would land animals (Side note: for the sake of argument we will also let humans fall into this category) which were originally in the sea as the theory of evolution states put themselves at a serious and catastrophic disadvantage if true that animals originally evolved out of fish like creatures. Why would animals evolve out of the sea and start colonizing the land? This does not seem to make any sense – now I have herd the argument over and over again that the land was better for the animals as there was abundant of food and less threat, this argument is weak at best for the reason that. Adaptation to the new environment would have had to been rapid, what happens if you take a fish out of the see and put it on the land? (Done thinking?) It dies we all know evolution takes a very long time and this adaptation would had to be abrupt which would contradict evolution at a none microscopic level throughout the world we would see fossil evidence we would see abrupt changes in the fossil record, yet we don’t. Even so, why would animals move out of the sea where there were abundant recourses? Why move onto the land where there was danger natural disasters the climate ect, ect.
Also, why would the evidence appear to be in one zone? I.e. Africa?
Furthermore, we would also see fossils that are going through a transition and are caught in the middle, just because something is “evolving” into another species doesn’t mean it can’t die why do we not find this in the fossil record?
Now, firstly any propagator of the theory of evolution always states that life started in the water, which is a pretty strong hypothesis however like all theories it has its pitfalls. The majority of the earth is covered in water here is an image of the earth taken view space:
now anyone can see this is factual claim. I would like to ask the propagators and the proliferators of the theory of evolution why would land animals (Side note: for the sake of argument we will also let humans fall into this category) which were originally in the sea as the theory of evolution states put themselves at a serious and catastrophic disadvantage if true that animals originally evolved out of fish like creatures. Why would animals evolve out of the sea and start colonizing the land? This does not seem to make any sense – now I have herd the argument over and over again that the land was better for the animals as there was abundant of food and less threat, this argument is weak at best for the reason that. Adaptation to the new environment would have had to been rapid, what happens if you take a fish out of the see and put it on the land? (Done thinking?) It dies we all know evolution takes a very long time and this adaptation would had to be abrupt which would contradict evolution at a none microscopic level throughout the world we would see fossil evidence we would see abrupt changes in the fossil record, yet we don’t. Even so, why would animals move out of the sea where there were abundant recourses? Why move onto the land where there was danger natural disasters the climate ect, ect.
Also, why would the evidence appear to be in one zone? I.e. Africa?
Furthermore, we would also see fossils that are going through a transition and are caught in the middle, just because something is “evolving” into another species doesn’t mean it can’t die why do we not find this in the fossil record?
