Dan

I was specifically addressing your use of the word “vogue” which implies a temporary, shallow fad.

I agree, majority opinion can be wrong, but a tried, tested and logical theory will only be discarded in science if it is shown to be inconsistent with evidence, which evolution is not.

As Loudmouth shows, it is not only fossils that support evolution.

Evolution tells us how life came to exist. Religion tells us why – a question science cannot answer.

Incidentally, why would creationists expect extinctions?

Dan S de Merengue, you're a tease.

You can't just drop in here after nearly a week, and still not answer the all-important "question of the toenail". After all we've been through together, that's just torture.

I put it as pleadingly as I could:

"...the discussion lacks one important input from yourself. Since you believe that the toenail was deliberately Designed in its present form, what purpose does it have?"

I don't ask much, you know. But it is little things like this - and they don't come much littler than a toenail - that contribute to a harmonious and mutually satisfying relationship.

Rhian,
If you say “vogue” implies something temporary then I think the word might be quite apt.

Why would creationists expect extinctions? 
As I was trying to clarify earlier, according to St Paul (Rom 8), the world is under a curse. Ever since the fall, the world has gone away from God's order and has been suffering. In a fallen world bad things happen. Extinction among the animal kingdom is perhaps one of these. We can see from the fossil record that certain animals at one time existed that don't now. 

So we know that extinction happens. Though we are sometimes pleasantly surprised when we find living creatures that turn up unexpectedly, after having first only knowing them as fossils (like the Coelecanth), and thinking them extinct for millions of years.

Some above have suggested that this view is 'convenient' for the Christian worldview. Yet convenience hardly makes one's perspective untrue. E.g. It's quite 'convenient' that the world rotates on its axis every 24 hours.

And I think those question words 'how', 'why', etc. start heading towards the Maxwell Smart throw away lines. Both science and faith attempt to deal with more than just how and why alone. The Bible says a lot about what happened in the past and what's going to happen in the future.

Pericles,
To be frank, I thought I'd answered your concern sufficiently. I was getting a bit tired of discussing toenails.

Joe,
You inspired me to go and buy the paper. But I couldn't find the article. The Australian, Friday, March 9. What page?

Hi Dan,

Bottom left-hand corner of page 11. Fascinating !

Sorry, Dan S de Merengue, I must have missed it.

>>Pericles, To be frank, I thought I'd answered your concern sufficiently. I was getting a bit tired of discussing toenails.<<

Would it be too much trouble to cut'n'paste your answer again, just to indulge me?

My question was...

"Since you believe that the toenail was deliberately Designed in its present form, what purpose does it have?"

It is ok of course to accept that it has no purpose whatsoever. But that would open up a few more, possibly unwelcome, avenues of enquiry as to the validity of "Design". would it not?

More likely though, you'll fall back on the "God moves in mysterious ways" schtick. Receptus ignavorum.

Pericles,
The words "God moves in mysterious ways" aren’t mine. The phrase belongs to you.

For your question, perhaps look at what I’ve already said (try starting Feb 29.)

Jo,
The article in the Australian was less detailed that I expected. It’s totality on fossils was four words long, stating a particular date ‘tallies with fossil evidence’. Inevitably such evidence will corroborate more easily for the philosophically inclined.