Do fossils disprove evolution?

Its a proven fact that the vast majority of mutations are negative. Four billion years is nowhere near enough time for all the needed positive mutations to have occured that would have had to happen to produce the vast array of complex life forms we see today.I see post after post of evolutionists calling everyone who disagrees with them stupid when they can't even do this simple math.

Mutations are non-positive no matter how you classify them.
The math is too astronomical to calculate.
Its so far past the realm of possibility it a joke to even be an issue

Please tell me your not a Brain Surgeon.If you really need the numbers from a qualified person then I refer you to Dr. Lee Spretner and his book "NOT BY CHANCE".

....and yes, its so astronomical of a number that a simple child should be able to understand how impossible the time frame is....

OK let me walk you through it.
First answer a simple question for me.
1. How many times has it been observed in a science lab that a mutation resulted in an increase of information to a Genome?

You would bet a few thousand times? I would bet not! Here you have induced mutations with the help of an intelligent mind and the results are not only minute but they amount to a tiny fraction of all the observed mutations that have a non-positive result.For cumulative selection to work, a lot of good mutations have to occur by chance. At each step of a cumulative selection, a mutant with a positive selective value has to appear. It also has to be lucky enough to survive and eventually to take over the population. Then another good mutation has to appear for the next step, and so on.
You seem to think the chance of all this happening is large enough to make evolution work. But no one has EVER shown that such a think is likely--or even possible!

How many mutations have to result to get one positive result? How many of those would it take to go one slow step at a time, step by step to end up with what we have on planet Earth today?

No NosyNed that isn't enough. No one has answered my question and your post is full of misinformation."Not too bad" and "neutral" are NOT beneficial mutations. I sure hope your not in charge of anything important.You guys got nothing but evobabble to offer and I'm out of here.TO GOD BE THE GLORY

Apart from intelligent design, what can coordinate the incidental changes that hereditary transmission passes from one generation to the next? To perform such coordination, evolution requires a designer substitute. Darwin's claim to fame was to propose natural selection as a designer substitute. In making that proposal, Darwin perpetrated the greatest intellectual swindle in the history of ideas!
Natural selection is no substitute for intelligence. All natural selection does is narrow the variability of incidental change by weeding out the less fit. THAT IS ALL IT DOES! What's more, it acts on the spur of the moment, based soely on what the environment at present deems fit, and thus without any foresight of future possibilities. And yet this blind process, when coupled with another blind process (incidental change), is supposed to produce designs that exceed the capacities of any designers in our experience.
Where is the evidence that natural selection can accomlish the intricacies of bioengineering that are manifest throughout the living world?

Both sides should be discussed, absolutely. The problem with Darwinism is that it is all smoke and mirrors. Where is the evidence that the sorts of incidental changes required for large-scale evolution ever occur? The evidence simply isn't there. Imagine what would happen to the germ theory of disease if scientists never found any microorganisms or viruses that produced diseases. Thats the problem with Darwinism. In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex biological system could REALISTICLLY have emerged, Darwinism offers handwaving just-so stories of how such systems might have emerged...in some idealized conceptual space far removed from biological reality.
Why, then does Darwinism continue to garner such a huge following, especially amoung the intellectually elites such as many of you folks?
Two reasons: 1) It provides a materialistic creation story that dispenses with any need for design or God (this is very convenient for those who want to escape the demands of religion, morality, and conscience) 2) The promise of getting design without a designer is incredibly seductive--its the ultimate free lunch.
Getting design without a designer is a good trick indeed. Darwinism
is a magic trick performed far enough away from the audience to dazzle them...untill someone(like ID"ers) starts handing out binoculars making Darwinism's sleight of hand plain to see.
The Gig is up and the truth will prevail!
Now lets talk about the details close to home for each one of us, the human body. RAZD, you deny the human body is not intelligent correct?
Then you tell me your opinion of what constitutes a design worthy of the title "intelligent" and what qualifies your example for that title?Edited by ICDESIGN, : mispelled a word

Your joking right Dr Adequate. If you want to impress someone lets see you simulate creating life from nothing. I'll make it easy on you. Lets see you prove how to create significant new information from a blind non-thinking source.

HO HUM.....OK, your right Coyote. The fossil record is chocked full of transitional forms that are undisputable and the science labs are bustling with scientist's and their mountians of proven tests of how to generate significant new information to a Genome.
I mean, we have observed Macro-evolution in so many studies its a miracle no one in the world has ever heard of it.
Ohh, no more questions here Coyote. I'll just sit down and shut up after being put in my place like that.

Here is the perfect example of the smoke and mirrors trick you guys try to pull all the time.
Lots of small changes do not equal a huge leap into another brand new species. This has NEVER been observed and never will be because it is impossible.
If you think massive new information to the Genome is not required to produce a new feature in an organizm I highly recommend you head down to the libraries you keep refering to

Yes I have a question. How did the items in the picture come into being?

OK subbie. I'm the one trying to use smoke and mirrors. You busted me.