Quote
I don't think you understand my point yet.


Is part of your plan telling people they don't understand your point, when you find that evolution continues to fail at giving substantial proof that it even happened?

Quote
The fact is that you have not seen it NOT take place either. Your pictures tell you squat. Take two brothers, one goes around the world while the other stays home. Can you tell from looking at the brother that stays home whether or not the other brother has gone around the world? Likewise pictures of cyanobacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, that look like the cyanobacteria around today does not mean that some descendants of those cyanobacteria went around the world while some stayed home.


The same old side step (You can't prove it "didn't" happen). I suggest you go around the world and find a good psychiatrist. The pictures are reality and you think they don't prove squat, yet your scenarios, charts and imaginary assumptions do. You'd be LAUGHED out of a courtroom. The courtroom of science demands substantial evidence, NOT imagined suppositions with bias interpretations and wishful thinking. To continue proposing this as a scientific probability, putting it across as a fact, is shameful indoctrination to any student in a science classroom.

It's very simple RAZD, all kinds are stable. Unless you know of a horse than jumps side ways and becomes a leopard, or a cat goes round the other side of the world out of sight and becomes a dog. You are relying fully on imagination and using senarios like this in an attempt to support the theory you have no substance for. If the fossils don't tell you want you want to see, then you'll imagine that the ones we haven't seen underwent the changes instead <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. Carry on imagining or that we just don't understand the process properly and though we don't see change, the changes were signficant. You continue to repeat the same excuses.

Quote
No, I don't conclude it happened anyway, I demonstrated that you are unable to prove that it has not occurred. If you are unable to prove it did not occur then your pictures do not show anything other than part of the natural history of this planet, a natural history that is better explained by evolution than by any other theory.


You haven't demonstrated anything, other than imagination and wishful thinking. Nothing else. You're unable to consider anything other than evolution happened. The alternative is unthinkable to you. One minute you say "I don't conclude it happened anyway" the next minute you're saying that natural history is better explained by evolution than by any other theory.....I believe that this theory is simply a convenient way to oust any idea of a Creator. It certainly doesn't explain it any better! It's just man's idea of what MUST have happened because the alternative is not desirable or wanted.

As I have said, the evolutionist continues to have the burden of proof to prove that their theory is a reality, they're teaching it in the science classroom. Your way out of this is an attempt to shift that burden onto the opposition when you are faced with pictures that defy any significant changes that one would expect from millions of years worth of evolution. If they haven't shown change, you tell us they are signficantly changed anyway and that we just don't see it (or understand it). It also shows that fish and amphibians were existing then, just as they are now. Evolution teaches that one evolved into the other.....yet these pics show even then they were existing around the sametime. What's changed? Even natural history hasn't contradicted the present. The evolutionist is the only one trying to do that.

Quote
And that is not the way evolution works. Organisms don't "morph" into some new organism. You need to rid yourself of false ideas before you can begin to understand what evolution really is, I'm afraid.


Are you now telling me that evolution doesn't preach that simplicity became complexity? If morphing from one kind into another over long periods of time doesn't occur, then how do you explain that dinosaurs became birds? Clearly they are totally different! How do you explain the fish - amphibian evolution? Especially in the light of total lack of proof it even occured. As far back as we can go, as far as the fossil evidence we do have, it hasn't shown anything of the sort. The only false ideas RAZD is evolution itself. The theory itself evolves depending on the situation the evolutionist finds himself in. Words a great part of that and telling people they just don't understand the process is another big part of it.

Quote
the pictures actually show evolution, just in a broader scale than you acknowledge: they amply demonstrate part of the natural history of life on earth. You have no pictures of feathers from the Devonian period, nor of fish from the pre-cambian time.


The pictures show no sign of evolution at all, except in the imagination of the evolutionist who wants to believe they still evolved anyway. Yep, they amply demonstrate natural history of life on earth, and continue to demonstrate it in much the same way, I totally agree...in other words what's really changed? Nothing more than assuming it must have.

Quote
You have no pictures of feathers from the Devonian period, nor of fish from the pre-cambian time.


So far we can only go by what we can observe today and what the fossils themselves may show us. And any that we cannot observe today that have become extinct, should not be automatically interpreted to fit in with evolution and then a chart given to show what happened. What we do know at least is that MANY different kinds were still existing millions of years ago then existing around the sametime as eachother...much the same as they do to this day. Outside of that, unless you have proof, it is very much imagination time.

Word games might help you to keep the argument going, but it's not helping your theory become anymore a reality than it's failed to be.