beastly-rich/science

quite, the atheist tag is inappropriate.

That is quite unbelievably stupid. I've never seen evidence warping, ignoring and outright denial like that from anyone other than a creationist. His ocean floor evidence seems persuasive, if you don't know that sea floor is basically recycled when it's subducted so it's really not that startling how young they are are. If his idea was true then paleomagnetism would show it.

Jackanapes, I hope you are joking. 1. Evolution as far as common descent goes is falsifiable at any time, all you need to do is find a fossil out of place, like a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian to give an example. Unfortunately for creationists what you do find is immediately before you see the first mammals you find mammal like reptiles and right before you see amphibians you find fish with wrists and lungs. I've never ever seen a creationist explain any of this with anything other than a flat denial. 2."There are not trunks of major branches of this tree. Take bats for instance." this is a flat out lie. guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution [guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution] Do some research. I'd say that ignoring the huge amount of fossil and genetic evidence that evolution has going for it to point at a gap saying "Ahahahaa! You don't know what did that! That means all you say is wrong and goddidit!" is a fine example of confirmation bias.