Bex, you actually have attempted to give evidence in a meaningful way. You have cited websites and links that I could check out. True, you have regurgiposted a whole list of quote mines that you don't seem to have read, but I honestly admire the fact that you've tried to back up what you say. As I said before, it's been enjoyable talking to you. So maybe I should have said you were the exception here when I said the posts were vague; you did force people to start being more specific in their claims and we had something substantial to talk about. And if you want more evidence, or a link, for something I say, then please ask. I try to provide these but if more are needed then I will oblige. I have no desire or need for obfuscation. I don't want to confuse anyone or blind them with science; I want them to understand how it explains the evidence we see.

I'm also trying to address most everything I see in posts, and I'm talking to three people at once here, which is probably why my own posts get so long. It isn't honestly what I want, because inevitably some of it is going to be glossed over if not ignored when people reply. What should we focus on? I'll say what I would like, narrowed down from what I've been talking about myself. If people here say that fossil sorting and dating amount to lies and fakes, then I want to see evidence for that. Specific examples. And scientific reasons for why radioisotope dating is so very, very inaccurate that it gives dates which are millions of years too old.

Further on, you seem to be saying that fossils are examples of specific animals that died . . . relatively recently? So ambulocetus and archaeopteryx were recent animals that happened to resemble whales and birds. This line of reasoning further suggests that evolutionists have a pre-existing desire to bash God and the Bible at any cost, which includes faking evidence, lying, and telling everyone that fossils are evidence of evolution when they aren't necessarily.

The error here is that evolutionists do not have this pre-existing burning desire to "believe." This point has been made before, but when talking to people who do have this need to believe, it's perhaps asking you to get into a different mindset in order to understand. Speaking for myself, I look at the actual evidence and let it lead me. The question is, then, what is the evidence?

Scientists do not just dig up fossils and make guesses about them, which is what you seem to believe. The rock in which the fossil was found is dated, which gives an idea of when the organism died and places it within the geologic column, for which there are known series of dates. If the fossil itself is more recent than 40,000 years, it can be carbon dated. There are also many fossils existing already of different species, spectrums which usually include the species of the fossil itself, plus those from which it evolved, and species that in turn it gave rise to. Furthermore, these are layered in the fossil record so that you will see earlier species lower down and later species higher up, consistently, with no mixing. All of these puzzle pieces are compared with each other. Experts spend years studying the characteristics of each species and how these can be studied in fossils.

Finally, transitional fossils are named as such because they display characteristics of both the species that came before and after and yet themselves are neither but something in between. This data is arrived at via the methods discussed above. Archaeopteryx, for example, is dated by the rock in which it is found and comparatively through the fossil record as having lived concurrently with theropods, and not long before the appearance of what we begin to classify as modern birds. It has characteristics of each. This is the definition of a transitional fossil. Though as I've said, technically all fossils are transitional, because evolution does not stop.

About the author of your bestiality quote . . . I was simply making an observation. He could have said that he thought humans cannot be "brutes" like animals, that they were created to have mastery over them, that humans are the only beings that have souls . . . not that I agree with this myself, but I think that's the sort of thing he was driving at. He seemed to want to talk about sex with animals for some reason. Why that enters into it I don't know, but I find it bizarre.

What's wrong with saying we're unique? We are a species called homo sapiens. No scientist is going to tell you we are apes, though they will tell you we evolved from apelike creatures. All species are unique, whatever they are, because of their nature as a species. As I said, it does not bother me that my ancestors were not humans like me. I find it fascinating and wonderful.

You said:


Point being-? These are human-made changes within a species. Over time you might end up with new species, as probably happened with the wolf and the dog. Whether this happens through random mutations, the influence of morphic fields, human intervention, or even the guiding hand of God, it is still evolution in progress.