[quote]Let me guess the Bible?[/quote]Well Britton, you know that would be bias if I used the Bible. So of course it isn't the Bible. Detective skills please.[quote]You have no real world, concrete reasoning.[/quote]After paragraphs of information were given, replier states this.[quote]You simply don't understand, don't want to...[/quote]Simply, I already understand. So much so that I can point out their flaws.[quote]...and want to spread your lack of understanding...[/quote]How is this lack of understanding if the debate is evidently ongoing?[quote]...to people on this forum who are equally uninformed.[/quote]The people on this forum are equally uninformed? Huh...

Every flaw you point out has been refuted thoroughly. So I ask, what flaws?

Eleven Words: The fossil record, cosmic dust; and complexity, intelligence, and organic origins.

[quote]Eleven Words: The fossil record, [b]what about it? This is the strongest evidence for evolution.[/b] cosmic dust [b]what about it?[/b] and complexity, intelligence, [b]these aren't flaws, you simply over value these things therefore making them "impossible" in your own mind. Natural selection and genetic mutation, are the cause,easy.[/b] and organic origins. [b]not part of evolution.[/b] [/quote]

Our Cosmic Dust, It's an Issue (passage excerpt): "Scientists tell us that 20,000 tons of cosmic dust fall on planet Earth each year—or about 50 tons a day. This means there is some on everyone’s head and in everyone’s stomach. Most of it is microscopic in size. If the Earth is 4½ billion years old, there should be a lot of cosmic dust on the Earth... ...On the basis of annual measurements of cosmic dust landing on the Earth, evolutionary scientists calculated that a very conservative estimation would be 50-180 feet of loosely packed cosmic dust on the moon's surface... ...Finally the great day came; the space rocket roared into orbit and then out into the heavens. It traveled thousands of miles, finally reaching the moon, where the lander was detached. Millions of Earthlings watched via TV, holding their breath as the Eagle slowly descended to the surface... ...The spacecraft planted itself firmly on solid ground known as Mare Tranquillitatis... ...Not long after the landing, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon" ([i]The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe[/i], Chapter 5). This is what Neil Armstrong shortly stated after his landing, Armstrong states, "The LH footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It’s almost like a powder. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles [National Archives and Records Administrations. http://www.archives.gov/social-media/transcripts/transcript-eagle-has-landed-1969-45017.pdf (accessed on May 7, 2015)]." "Three times Armstrong repeats that there was very little dust. The entire conversation is available on transcript for anyone writing to NASA in Houston, Texas. These statements about the dust have been virtually ignored by the evolutionary community in their publications and TV documentaries. The reason is simple; no one wants to shoot his own foot" ([i]The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe[/i], Chapter 5).

Everything ive found basically agrees with this http://www.universetoday.com/94392/getting-a-handle-on-how-much-cosmic-dust-hits-earth/ But that still doesn't lend any reasoning on why you think cosmic dust affects the theory of evolution.

Sorry, I left out some info. I had to comb through the passages because of the length. It has now been readjusted. Now I would like you to infer from what was stated in the passage again. I'm sorry that I couldn't answer you sooner. I had to go to my dad's to help take down his Christmas lights.

Evolutionary scientists wouldn't be predicting things for the moon landing. Those people are called astrophysicists. So your point is because the lunar surface didn't line up with predictions by astrophysicists, that evolutionary evidence based on observation of fossils, DNA and genetics, etc by different scientists in different fields of study is somehow discredited? The whole point of your excerpt is that it attempts to discredit evolution based on an incorrect prediction by scientists in a separate field of study. Evolution isn't a prediction. Its a conclusion based on observation and experimentation.

You asked how did Cosmic Dust interfere with the belief in evolution. Don't get touchy. Besides, the fossil record has issues with its evidence, and DNA is still DNA. No other system of transcribing biological information at a molecular level has evolved into existence. So thinking that even DNA is evidence of ancestral relations is flawed. This still proves whether a human is a human or an ape is ape. The number of chromosome count is irrelevant when it comes down to deciding which is which since it's so obviously apparent. A human can fake being a monkey, but a monkey can't at all successfully duplicate such a technique. All of what I was showing you previously was to demonstrate often the evolutionary flaw in prediction.

But evolution isn't a prediction, its a conclusion on the observed evidence. And the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution. The fossil record will never be complete, as fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition. It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated. As for DNA, I don't think you understand how it works.

And dust on the moon affects evolution how?

Source for the amount of dust that this quote claim falls to earth all the time?