On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

Welcome back then. Did you mean on topic? Ok. What is it? "[no] anatomical remnants or parts showing previous body types whatsoever" or "Where there [are anatomical remnants or parts] then it is evidence of a previous body type". It would help if you wouldn't contradict yourself. How did you determine this number? Show your work please. Why? They aren't. Of course, they were different in the past. I don't have to imagine, I can look outside. No, it wouldn't. You don't know what evolution says, do you? Show that it was indeed "quick". And what you call "adaptation", scientists call evolution.

Ok. Yes, like evolution predicts. Well, yes. Even you admit that this is evience for evolution. See, where you use the word "adapted", biologists use the word "evolved". They're the same thing. What is it? The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. I asked you to stop contradicting yourself. That would make it easier to understand what you are on about.

Of course there is. The sentences "Marine mammals are clearly land creatures that adapted to the seas" and "in fact it makes a damning case against [evolution]" are contradictory. On the one hand you admit to evolution being true, on the other you say it can't be true. That's called a contradiction. I'm sorry, what? This sentence makes no sense at all. Neither does this one. Great. Care to provide evidence for those triggers, or should we just take your word for it? Some were, most weren't. Like evolution predicts. Of course they do. Every "body part" around today is from an earlier creature. They don't look like their "original" parts any more, because they were changed to adapt to a different environment.

Wrong. To paraphrase Francis Collins (who is a Christian, by the way):"Even without the fossil record, the genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution". That's because you don't know alot about it.

Then you understood it wrong. First of all, if it uses sound, it's not radar, it's sonar, and second, no, blind people do not use sonar. Evidence for this? Dude, if what you say is what happened, then that is super-evolution. Evolution so fast as to be deemed virtually impossible by biologists. Evidence? No, it is bat shit crazy. You say evolution cannot happen, yet you propose some sort of super-evolution. Remember when I asked you to stop contradicting yourself? You are doing it again.

I wouldn't call this sonar though, I'd call it "hearing". Perhaps a radical idea, but I think it fits best. Which is what I was getting at. Well of course you are. This was decided at the last meeting of evil atheists and evolutionists. It was decided that we should have minor quarrels amongst ourselves to take another argument away from those creationists we all hate so much... Wait... I wasn't suppose to divulge that, was I?