How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

Yes, I will join your silly discussion. Why is it not OT for you to come into my thread and ask me to input my view on something I have no clue, no reference, and in fact no idea of. Please do not respond to this unless you like to argue off topic.Biologists believe things they think are facts based on evidence. How can they? Easy, how can anyone believe in God? Experience, evidence, data, hypotheses, theory, assumptions.

I assumed the topic was based on the title. I guess I was wrong. "How can biologists believe in the ToE? I think that is self explanatory. More appeal to authority. classic. It only takes a few (or one) bad assumptions to corrupt a scientific study. I'm not attacking their research, only some of their assumptions and conclusions. "only" is the key word. Limiting it to your thought, very unimpressive. Why do people incite me to write negatively, as if your purpose is to lure me into these little squabbles. Am I to let these just lie? Your question seems to circulate around the idea that all scientists research the same sciences. If a paleontologist suggests through research that birds and dinosaurs have common ancestry then the biologist will study how this could be possible. Not, as I understand it in most cases, to prove something right but more to line up with a certain theory for ill or good.Why do I think these people are wrong?
1. age of the earth. I don't think anybody can use an assumption like uniformitarianism and postulate theories that could very well be incorrect. Thus leading into ideas that radiometric dating can work. In geology you need this uniform idea, in biology you need drastic environmental changes, it just doesn't stack up.2. irreducible complexity - Micheal Behe. The only argument against this that I have read is that this just can't be true. Behe isn't a real scientist. Damage his character so you don't have to face the facts.3. anomalies in geology. polystrate fossils and objects, out of place artifacts, angular unconformities, dinosaur and man footprints.4. Living dinosaurs.
http://www.livingdinos.com/mokele_mbembe.html5. The lack of any transitional fossils. and this is hilarious:
CC200: Transitional fossils
Might as well say that their isn't any. Only a good imagination can fill the "gaps." And anyways what about the invertebrate transitions?6. Mathematics. The Scientific Evidence for Creation, by Duane Gish
nodnc.com is available at DomainMarket.com. Call 888-694-67357. Order to disorder, thermodynamics. I think this is probably a weak argument however the talk origins apologetic seems lacking.
From: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution It seems that they are excluding original design and the implications thereof.Lets start here. Edited by Vashgun, : insight to incite

Same to you, your story is corroborated by no one. Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.
http://www.mokelembembe.com/
http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html

Appeal to authority and popularity, don't make me give another example. I Would very much like to see links backing up your views instead of wild assertions. What like PE? Produce irriducible complexity? Provide some links so I can entertain myself. All you seem to gots is wild assertations. Ok, sure. Links. http://s8int.com/index.html
http://byerly.org/whatifo.htm Under the model of relative geology, of which I currently debate. Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS
Human and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan? | Answers in Genesis Honestly? Explain how it would not. Yes, and it was reminiscent of a movie by F. Gary Gray. Avoiding the topic? Or assuming that I am as knowledgable as you seem to think you are? This assumption has been proven wrong at the EvC many times, just click on my name and follow the topics. Hardly unbiased information. Please prove me wrong.

I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas. *If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture.Also, I think it is important to notice the reason he gives for this. This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this. The fact is that roots will bind and hold together soils. Hostas are extremely good plants for this, also most broadleaf grasses. It could have taken a massive chunk of soil with root ball intact.This is way off topic, I will propose a polystrate fossil thread to discuss this further.Mullers response is confusing as it does not address how these machines appeared. He speculates why there will be many vestigual parts, which is and has been proven ignorance on the part of the scientist.honestly i don't want to spend so much time on off topic topics. i have much more to say but too tired to care.

survive was a poor choice in words. Stand up would have been better.

I'm not avoiding anything baby! Bring it on!This is how:Uniformitarian assumption.