'The Archaeopteryx isn’t a hoax and it’s an intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.'

Keep dreaming guys and you also believe the earth is flat. So many desperate fraudulent attempts to prove the unprovable. No problem for you guys to put feathers where scales should be and vice versa. Just don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy. If only I had your faith.

Sorry Richie. That should read:

“Our closest relative - the creature that we share the most RECENT common ancestor with - is the Chimpanzee.”

Runner,

The Archaeopteryx is an intact fossil, so how could feathers have been added to it?

Not even Creationists deny that it’s genuine. Although they do omit the many reasons as to why it is a transitional fossil. I’d list them for you, but you wouldn’t bother reading it anyway.

I must confess that when I saw the title that TRTL gave this thread, my immediate thought was "there is no possible evidence, that will sway creationists".

Many thanks to runner, Richie 10 and Philo for justifying my early conclusion.

Each in their own way.

Philo immerses himself in the pseudo-science that is sprinkled around the internet, propagated by earnest, probably very "devout" Christians. Richie 10 takes the "I'm dumb, teach me" approach, then pretends not to understand. While dear old runner operates a machine-gun of reflexes, that denigrates everything he doesn't want to know as "blind faith in science", that he compares to his enlightened state of belief in his religion.

Face it guys. There is nothing that anyone can say that will in any way shape or form prod these folk towards accepting scientific evidence. They think it is just another belief system, and they reject it.

Which is their right.

So long as it does no harm, and is kept away from children and impressionable, easily-led adults.

runner and Richie10,

Genetic evolution has been studied between HIV-1A and HIV-1E. The intermdeiates ("missing lnks') HIV-1B to HIV-1C are known. The HIV-1 species is estimated to have its origin circa 1940s, probably mutating from other an virus. HIV-2, now a separate species, still contains the genetic material showing familial association with its precursor HIV-1. All HIV strains will share common ancestors with other viruses, as you and I do chimps, and dogs with bears, and hippopotani with whales. All these species of mammals and viruses share primodial DNA and are therefore distant relatives.

Even if God did exist, what is the problem with created species being interrelated? Moreover, Christian creationists defend ancient scriptures (cobbled together over centuries) against science; not (hypothetical) God against science. The creationist in the first-order defends the Bible before any God. If God exists, but the Bible has nothing to with that God, defending the Bible would be a rather useless exercise.

AJP,

Thanks for your kind comments. You and I can only try to present a logical case. I enjoy your posts and appreciate that you think before you type.


Pericles,

Good point about belief systems. The difference of course is that scientists and even rational lay (to profesional science) people will change their perspectives based on evidence. A totally different position to runner whom openly admits (above) no amount evidence is adquate to change his/her mind. Of course, creationists are fully entitled to their arrested minds. Unfortunately, though, they miss out on knowledge of things work and how truly amazing "life, the universe and everything" is. By not thinking (not applying their brains), they are like people buy a high performance car and keep it locked-up in a garag and never drive it. Denial blocks insight. A less than ideal situation.

Richie
AJP has kindly answered your question.

Your claim that you will 'believe' when a monkey gives birth to a human is disingenuous. You know very well (or should know) exactly what the theory of evolution is about given you are are arguing so vehemently against it.

As a devotee of science fiction (I fervently agree with C.S Lewis: “science fiction is the only truly mind expanding drug”) I have to say runner et al is hardly alone.
I have always been surprised and disappointed that so few out of so many incredibly talented and amazingly imaginative authors have explored the possibility that we (humanity 2010) are a 'transitional species'.
Arthur Clarke was of course, one of the early exceptions.
Considering the thousands of both serious sci fi and space operas set thousands of years in the future, amongst space faring humans, very few have dealt with the established fact that, when confronted with a new environment, species adapt or die.
The idea that we 'are created in God's own image' appears to be pervasive, even among atheistic science fiction writers.
On a different note, for me an unbeatable argument against intelligent design would be my image of runner, wearing Severin's bikini (with an appendix scar).
As much as I normally enjoy your posts, Severin, that's an image I could do without.
I did laugh, though.