Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[lucent]

You do know that there are a vast number of transitional fossils dont you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

Apparently you didn't read the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

No true ancestors means no proof of macroevolution

You do know that evolutionary history is preserved in the genes dont you?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...ution.html

You do know that common genetics also indicates a common designer, don't you?

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/in...ology.html

You do know that creatures that predate the cambrian explosion were soft bodied and didnt fossilise well so you are asking a lot to find these things dont you?

But some really really old fossils have been found and you know what they were single celled and simple not all the 'types' were around them.

http://news.discovery.com/space/microfos...10821.html

Its almost as though complex life evolved from simpler forms isnt it.

You do know that was debunked, right?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-over...earth.html

'macroevolution' is an invention by creationists to try to jemmy the fact of evolution into their religion. Ther is no micro or macro evoltion just evolution.
Animals don't suddenly change, but there are small changes and branching off, driven by environmental or social pressures, over a vast period of time that leads to bigger changes and eventually speciation occurs when one branch can't breed successfully with the other branch because the changes are too great.

This is a common misunderstanding by atheists who have never actually studied or researched anything about evolution. The terms macroevolution and microevolution are used by evolutionary biologists and were first used by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in 1927. Microevolution is all that has ever been observed, so no it doesn't follow that small changes within a species lead to new species. There is no evidence in the fossil record to support such a conclusion.

"natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution."

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648