Summations Only

Can the cult of Darwinism be trusted to produce "peer reviewed literarure"? This is like expecting the literature produced by Jehovah's Witnesses to be peer reviewed!

Since I am not qualified to assess your ideas in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, 17, I referred them to Chicko. He said the respective observations can just as easily be used as arguments for Intelligent Design!Your claim that "only evolution" can explain the observations possibly constitutes the informal fallacy of the false dilemma, in philosophy-speak.

A recent check-up by his psychiatrist revealed that Dredge is no madder than he was one month ago and that no change in his anti-psychotic medication was required.

Unforunately, there was a breakdown in psychomosotic transfer between Chicko and myself when discussing this matter. Chicko explained that this was due to the fact that I am not qualified to understand the science he offered. If you want to come to Australia and commune with Chicko yourself, you are quite welcome to - if he deems you worthy of communication, that is. And whatever you do, don't jump the fence to get closer to him - he's a big Pitbull and he bites strangers!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Nice try, but all you're describing is microevolution. A creationist biologist could potentially tackle any task applied biology throws at him because applied biology operates only at the level of microevolution. For all intents and purposes, macroevolution exists only in the La La Land of theorectical biology; it's an irrelevance to real-world biology.

I can't, but Chicko could. Or you could ask the creationist scientists at CMI or AIG; I bet they could shed some light. Why not write to them and find out? Seriously. No, on second thoughts, don't do that - they might make too much sense and the next thing you know is, you've become a Bible-bashing Jesus-freak creationist loon.Besides, you should know that in science a theory is accepted only until a better one comes along. What you consider today to be the "only explanation", might in 1000 years time be considered hopelessly primitive and unenlightened.

sigh ... Here we go again - another Darwinist mistaking theory for reality. Your kind are so hopelessly brainwashed that you can't even tell the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory. This is Scientismistic delusion. Bizarre stuff.

That's not a very nice thing to say. That's not a very nice thing to say - nor even remotely accurate - someone who took a mere twelve years to complete seven years of primary school is not a "dumbass" (esp not in Australia Land, where asses don't exist). Scientism = "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques" - a dictionary definition. Many Christians suffer from scientism - they're known as theistic evolutionists.

First we need to agree on the definition of "many". I'm not in possession of an ass, and as far as I know there are none of these creatures in Australia Land (apparently there was one in Alice Springs in the 1950's, but it died). There are many horses and camels in Australia Land - and even lamas - but there is not one, solitary ass. There are also many rabbits here - from which the ass evolved - but a rabbit is not an ass, so it doesn't count.
Even if I did own an ass, I would have no idea of idea of how to pull a sentence of English-style words out of it. A veterinary surgeon might, but then that would cost too much money.

macroevolution = microevolution + millions of years.But life on earth is only 5778 years old - not enuf time for macroevolution to occur (assuming it occurs at all).Microevolution might be compared to a merry-go-round - there is motion and change, but it doesn't actually go anywhere.

I've heard that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertebrates. Is this true?

I agree - but there's no need to believe in any of that useless stuff about humans and apes having a common ancestor, or whales evolving from a mouse (or was it a rabbit?); great things can be achieved in science by just sticking to the reality of here and now.

It would be pointless because I'm not qualified to understand that level of biology. Chicko's explanation (via psychomosis) failed for the same reason. I would have to spend four years at university getting a degree in biology to understand what you're on about, I suspect.

I can believe that life on earth is only 5778 years old and still become a competent biologist who could potentially tackle any task in applied biology. This would prove a) creationists are not anti-science, and b) the "information" that humans and apes had a common ancestor is as useless as a fairy tale.

Your lack of imagination and/or close-mindedness is not a valid argument.