Oh I checked, we both went to the same uni and are in a choir (rock gospel actually, I go because I enjoy the style of music and they dont try and force their views on me) but since he started the debate while on a weekend trip away I have followed it.
It may be clearer if I post a quote:
"In order to accept the theory about fossils 'more complicated life appearing before its precursor' you have to believe that there are noticeable 'layers' in the crust, but there are not. There is no specific layer in which we can see the process of evolution.
As with dating, we do not see a smooth progression back in time. Quite a lot of the dates we get are erratically different from others. Also we do not know the amount of daughter and parent elements within rocks to begin with. It is an assumption that scientists have to make and admit to making. This assumption would allow you to come up with any age for fossils and rocks.
Also, you're example don't make much sense, as you presume that there would be an unchangeable constant process, with no variable affecting this, but this is not true and is something we just will not ever be able to prove. I'll have a read through your dating methods list, but I've had a brief look and can already see many problems with some of them which affect how old the earth could be.
No, you don't have to accept micro and macro evolution together. You should read a book called 'The Beak of the Finch' by Jonathon Weiner, in which it explores micro evolution causing differences in the beaks of Darwin's finches and at no point does it mention how it proves Macro evolution. It does say that it could be a possible route, but there is no concrete evidence. I went to your link and looked at the list of 'invalid arguments' some of which are not actually invalid especially the micro-evolution argument.
You've then got me to some invalid stand point about burying my head in the sand, or accepting the weight of evidence...? The evidence you have provided me with is full of flaws, as I have pointed out and at no point have you ever proved evolution or the age of the earth...reason why, you can't. Ask any scientist and they'll agree.
There is nothing wrong with my approach to the dodo questions and I feel you're side stepping the point I tried to make. I'd like it if when you mention 'evidence' you could show me it, as opposed to briefly mentioning it. What evidence is there that the dodo did fly? Your belief allows you to presume that it always lived there and developed in that one island? No, that is obscure. We have animals settling in places all the time, where the surrounding environments suit their needs. This could simply be the case with the dodo. It is an extremely poor example to use. You still never explained how it could have gotten to the island. Who's to say that that island was was always an island as well? Before the flood the world would not have been covered in as much water. Or you can come from the view point that much of the water at that point in time was frozen and at that point the island may not have been an island. Another possibility is that it did fly before hand, but because of micro evolution, it simply lost the need to fly.
In the time it would take for the dodo to lose the ability to fly, it would take quite a few years and the landscape could change a lot in that time. So what's to say it didn't just walk? There's no evidence to suggest it didn't.
As for its relation to other birds, I thought that would be quite simple...it's a bird. Again, you have given me no evidence for evolution at all.
Also, you've still not explained how the Bible's hundreds and hundreds of prophesies have come true including ones about cities, nations, individuals etc. Remember, these prophesies were made hundreds of years before they happened are are extremely precise. Some were written 700 years before the event actually happened.
I find myself at no cross road in which I have to bury my head in the sand, or accept the evidence. In fact, I find that from the information you've given me, that you've actually strengthened my views about creationism. The information you've given me about evolution has actually shown me how obscure a theory it is and how it is even more impossible to prove than I originally thought. I even know zoology students who agree."
™ Version 4.2