quote:
I cannot say this is a smooth transition BUT I can see why people would think this is evidence. I need more fossil records regarding whatever species. I like to give this a chance of 3/3 or so. so far we have 1/1 need 2 more fossil records.
Biologists see no need to widely publicize every transitional form they find. They don't need to because there is already enough to be classified as a scientific theory. Why should they waste their time? Do chemists bother to place every instance of a successful acid-base reaction on every science web page, just so that they can add more evidence to the Lowrey-Bronsted theory? No. They don't need to. Then why should biologists waste their precious time widely publicizing more and more evidence to support a scientific theory? To appease Creationists such as yourself? I'm sorry, they have far more important and worthwhile things to do, such as research, or slave away, chipping at stone in the hot desert(which is their job, by the way).
You are kidding yourself to think that they would waste their precious time trying to defend their theory from a bunch of fanatics who don't have a shred of evidence.
Maybe when evolution comes under attack under viable scientific grounds will scientists find it worth their attention.
I am quite annoyed, because I once spent a lot of time searching around for transitional fossils. Once I found all of the sites and references, the Creationist merely shrugs their shoulders and says "Oh, they aren't transitional. Look at a chair, it has legs, just like me. Doesn't mean we are related." From memory, one of the fossils (which they finally admitted wasn't fake, after I spent ages hunting down evidence to show that they weren't), was Archeopyrtex (sp?)
Yes, I may sound like I'm patronizing the person, but quite simply, I think that people should believe what they want to believe.
Leave the science to the scientists, who actually want to do science.
quote:
No, I remove the dating methods because I simply dont trust them
Pity, since they have been scientifically verified.
quote:
If I remove the dateing methods it removes the time which would be explained to be used for the evolution of these parts and they become created parts because there is no time.
This would also remove how long the earth has been around according to evolution and to the restrictions in the bibles guidlines.
In otherwords, you are ramming your fingers into your ears, and placing your hands over your eyes, while screaming "No it doesn't!"
The fact is that there is nothing flawed with the massive variety of dating methods that scientists use.
And I challenge you to prove otherwise.
What you are doing is VERY unscientific. You change the facts to fit your theory. Oooh boy.
Scientists change their theory to fit the facts. This is far more honest and scientific.
If scientists see something wrong with a theory, they will change it to reflect the data. You, on the otherhand, upon seeing something wrong with your 'theory', attempt to destroy and ignore everything which contradicts it.
Instead of trying to support Creationism with evidence, you have attacked physics.
Well done. I have seen this pettiness before in many debates.
™ Version 4.2