So basically, "we know there are tranistional species because we are transitional species, because we know there are transitional species". You haven't actually stated HOW we KNOW we are transitional species, only that we ARE transitionals species, with nothing to back it up. Not satisfactory.

"Plus, considering how incredibly unlikely it is for an animal to become fossilised, and how much of the land on earth remains unsearched, it’s lucky we have found as many fossils as we have."

Yeah, true, but scientists the world over have been looking intensely for a couple hundred of years for this stuff and haven't found anything worth reporting yet. The lack of transitional fossils doesn't mean they have not occured, only that there is not (yet?) a (non-speculative) reason to believe that they did.

"Ever wonder why the experts on the subject (the biologists and other scientists) all accept evolution, and it’s only those that know little about it who challenge it? There’s a reason for that."

That's ridiculous, as someone later said, how can you say all?
I have a friend who is an Assistant Professor of immunology at Johns Hopkins University.

She has been studying/researching/writing articles in respected (non-Creationist) science journals at a tertiary level for 20 years and still chooses not to accept evolution.

It's people like her that mean a lot more to me than a bunch of scientists who have been taught what to believe by their humanist professors from day one of uni and have never had the resources (or gumption) to offer a suitable rebuttal.

rockhound – you say the bible provides a worldview that can be stacked up against reality, you’re absolutely right. The reason for this is because such a view is not falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is.

Say you have a particular belief that the world is ‘all in your head’. There are no tests you can do that would ever prove this wrong. Whatever results you got from whatever tests, nothing can disprove your belief. That means that your theory is not falsifiable. ID theory and creationism are the same.

Evolution, on the other hand, has countless tests that could prove it false (and would prove it false if evolution was wrong). These tests, far from proving it false, absolutely verify evolutionary theory. Not only is evolution falsifiable, it stands up to countless different kinds of tests, all of which could easily prove it false but never do. It’s the ONLY theory about our origins that lives up to these standards.

Examples? Read the link.

YngNLuvnIt – It’s not up to me to convince you that evolution is science. It’s up to you to accept that reality.

The number of scientists who don’t accept evolution are negligible. They are not representative of the scientific community and never have been.

Oh, and let’s not get into Big Bang theory, it has nothing to do with evolution. The only connection is that creationists reject both (and try to lump the two together). If one were to somehow be proven wrong tomorrow, it would have absolutely no effect on the other. Any attempt to link the two warrants a healthy eyebrow raise.

Instead of getting into all the details you’re listing (what would a fossil have to look like for you to accept it as transitional then?) I urge you to read the link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html. Your earlier claims of ‘devolving’ and such show a fundamental lack of understanding of how evolution works. You can’t legitimately debate with so little knowledge of the topic.

Anyway, I don’t expect to convince you. It seems to me the only thing that would help some people is a miracle.

YngNLuvnIt, citing John "evolution goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics" Sarfati is generally considered to be credibility suicide of an extent greater than claiming the moon landing didn't happen.

What are the possible options for the species of a fossil? Either A) new species evolve from it, in which case it is the transitional species between what it once was and what it will be, or B) the species dies out and it is transitional in the sense it is the last evolutionary step on the way to extinction.

Haven't found anything worth reporting yet!? Couple of simple questions, how do you explain the whole bunch of fossils that show progressive deviation from earlier forms along with the development of new and more complex features? And, if the fossils that demonstrate this progression and feature development aren't transitional species, then what is the criteria?

"She has been studying/researching/writing articles in respected (non-Creationist) science journals at a tertiary level for 20 years and still chooses not to accept evolution."
She must have an interesting explanation for antibiotic resistant bacteria.

SPENDO

ur right, in terms of origins,evolution is falsifiable. So, have a peek at this link also

It shows the following:

1/ Behe's position
2/ Criticism (and ridicule.. always a good 'scientific' tool :) of his position
3/ His response to the criticism.

I think any fair minded person can see enough in this to come up with a reasonable assessment of the issue.

What I find noteworthy is how critical aspects of Barry Hall's research were conveniently left out of the reports quoting him in support of the evolutionary view. Now..that would not be 'subjective dogmatic bias.....would it' ? :)... perish the thought.

The simplest solution of course, is for Christians to simply .. set up our own schools, choosing our own curriculum and the secularists can go on their happy way down the cultural 'make it up as u go' moral gurgler.

In line with this, I predict without hesitation, secularism will see increasing rationalization and de-demonizing of 'sex with children' over the coming years, just like what occured with the gay lobby.

We are already seeing a re-emergence of the 'worship of Dionysus' in comedy, pornography, and 'fringe' festival content.. even in radical feminism. (this might be a bit deep.. may have to do some searches to 'get' what I'm on about here)

When a society disconnects from the Creator, the results are inevitable, not overnight, but... inevitable.

Deuc lerve yur work -

>>She (a creationist Assistant Professor of immunology at Johns Hopkins University) must have an interesting explanation for antibiotic resistant bacteria.<<

Why can't the religious accept evolution as a possibility. Couldn't a god/superior being/deity/very smart martian have set the universe in motion and evolution be a part of all that? Let off the big bang so to speak.

MichaelK, if your rather cryptic comment means what I take it to imply, I suggest your spellchecker is at fault.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 8 September 2005 11:24:08 AM

MichaelK., I'm guessing you took my "language barrier" comment as an insult, sorry, I didn't mean it that way. But as you can see both enaj and anomie are also having trouble understanding you. Running a spell-checker would have been a good idea, but I don't think 7 mistakes out of about 2000 words is a overly high error rate. Privileged? No more than the average white male. Educated? Well, one degree so far. …….
Posted by Deuc, Thursday, 8 September 2005 6:32:59 PM

Average white male-it is enough comparing with other e v e n white men from different backgrounds.
And where a direction of discussion went to? ID is based on faith and pure belief, science-bad or good – on data, where SARS mutates a blood of its survivors, for example.