[Ahban]

You got him on that one, but you are still down about 15-5 in the threads I've seen. I'm talking about the issues of substance on the thread, - how solid is the proof that currently described evo mechanisms explain what we see?

Most of his losses came in his early days. I respect you guys as worthy opponents, and I think you should respect him as one too. He IS. He maybe got caught on this point, but not on the issue of the thread. Not on the substnace of this debate.

The proposed bird ancestors you show come along AFTER birds, or much more bird-like creatures, are already around. That and the ostrich digit study (showing that birds and dinos have different digits that develop) should tilt the evidence away from ANY of the dinos shown as being a bird ancestor.

Even the evo authors of that ostrich study say that. They think the 'common ancestor' must be pushed so far back that it was something that gave rise to both birds and dinos.

Your standard of proof seems to be 'if I can show you anything that looks like it could be a graduated series (even we know it does not belong in that series) then you must accept evoltion as fact'. If I am reluctant to accept such a flimsy standard of "proof" then I am a person who is trying to "ignore the evidence".

I am calling on gore3000 and all of you to stop with the personal insults and debate the evidence like civilized people. Please?

[VadeRetro]

You got him on that one, but you are still down about 15-5 in the threads I've seen.

I hope you're never called upon to referee anything, ever.

[RadioAstronomer]

Well you must have missed the orbits/circle/ellipse arguments then.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a criminal conspiracy and I see in the near future there is going to be a new civil rights revolution happening.

There are enormous injustices and injury to levy and correct!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You got him on that one, but you are still down about 15-5 in the threads I've seen.

For those of us scoring the rounds at home, its not nearly this close. Vade is waaay ahead.

The evos in these arguments are trying to argue a scientific position, from observation to theory. The Creationist/ID'ers are still struggling with definitions of basic terms and are unable to deal with the observations other than to attempt to define them away. "A wing's not a wing unless its on a golden eagle".

Although the ID'ers have recognized some of their limitations, they have yet to put forward anything based on observations that might be called a theory.

The Creationists are in about a million different camps and can't agree which Bible to quote or how literal they need to be. No wonder there are over 250 Christian Churches in the US (I confess to being a Christian and I blame the literalists).

My scorecard has Vade with a lead that "can't easily be counted".