Evolutionists

Well, evolution has been scientifically proven. We just aren't sure where the first life came from.

It actually hasn't. The only reason it's still being held onto is because intelligent design is the only alternative.

Well, the fossil record would have it otherwise. The existence of dogs also is proof, since humans domesticated wolves and "forced" them to evolve into dogs. So is the fact that none of the animals alive today were alive during the time of the dinosaurs.

Fossil prove nothing. All you know about that animal is that it died. If no animals today we're alive during the time of dinosaurs, why has fossilized footprints of both been found side by side?
If you would, please listen to Kent Hovind on "why evolution is stupid." he explains why the evolutionary theroy cannot be correct, with citations. He taught biology for 15 years.

Ok, I miscommunicated. Many animals alive today we're not allowed be then. Fossils, in fact, prove more than that the animal died. They can show diet, bone structure, reproductive patterns, etc., which are directly related to genes. Now, I don't have two hours to spend listening to Kent Hovind, so if you could list some reasons why evolution is stupid, I'd be happy to examine them. And finally, just to be clear, do you accept that genes have mutations, and that these mutations occur naturally and can be passed down from parent to offspring?

Ok, I looked at it, and I haven't found any actual scientific proof against evolution in it so far. Could you do me a favor and quote some scientific reasoning?

You have to watch the entire thing I can't put it in the same way he does. Some things he brings up is "how did nothing explode?" That is impossible. No matter or energy or time or space. It is impossible for that to explode and create the galaxies we see. Another is the conservation of angular momentum. If this nothingness was spinning in one direction, how does two of the planets spin backwards? and several of the known moons? Why are some galaxies spinning backwards if all mater came from a single point of nothing that was spinning?

I can tell you this, we don't see change in any animal like evolution proclaims to have. You say "it takes millions of years to begin to see a difference" I say to that, that is not sound science, we didn't observe it and we can't recreate it. thus it cannot stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

Well, the spinning argument would work if it were not for the fact that other forces would be acting against those objects. Gravity, for example. If a massive object were tugging on an object that was spinning, and in the opposite direction, then that object might spin the other way. If a star explodes, then the force propelling the particles affected by the explosion will be greater than the force causing those particles to spin, so they could be turned around. Also, evolution doesn't require the Big Bang to have happened. Science doesn't know the details of how all that matter came into being, exactly, because science is not meant to explain why things are, it explains how things are. Perhaps a Creator actually did make all that matter, but the Big Bang is not a necessary part of evolutionary theory, or indeed a part at all.

As for the changes in current living things, here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/ Say, did you know blue eyes are a product of evolution? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm Even cancer is a mutation! And by your logic, we don't see any intelligent designer, so we can't observe or recreate it. "thus it cannot stand up to real scientific scrutiny"

Alight lets step away form the Big bang, but ill end that on this. Space, time and matter have not always existed. If you believe It popped into existence you have to know that all three must come simultaneously.

Blue eyes are not evolution, it is a variation in the human genome, You are saying that the Aryan race is more evolved? I really don't think you mean that, but that's what that argument means. It looked like you copy pasted that whle paragraph

My argument is that evolution can't be scientifically observed and recreated. By your own argument, God exists even though He can't be observed and studied scientifically. No we can't recreate creation, it's already been created. I observe It everyday.

Have you listened to the other side of the argument? Stepped away from Bill Nye, Dawkins, Hawking, and all them, And listened to the evidence for intelligent design? Something which Dawkins is beginning to believe. I'm not talking about the Christian God right here, but creation only.

Evolution is variations in the genome, happening over and over, following the principle of natural selection. The Aryan race is not more evolved, it just has a different genome from other humans, because mutations have caused them to diverge. Certain Asians have genes that allow them to survive at higher altitudes. These mutations were developed and passed on due to the fact that they helped the human that first developed them survive, which is microevolution. You are probably thinking of macroevolution when you say "evolution," which is just the result of organisms having mutations, passing them on, and their offspring having more mutations, until they become so different that they are a different species or subspecies. This is bound to happen, as mutations occur naturally. Did you read the newscientist article? That was an actual observation of mutation in bacteria. I did try to listen to Kent Hovind, but his arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. I would be happy to listen to your argument for intelligent design, if you would be so kind as to provide it for me. Now, to be clear, I actually do believe that the first life was created, but that evolution is true. Scientists have recreated and observed evolution, but not intelligent design.