Replies

"...and besides, there is NO evidence of the process of evolving....anywhere."

I do think that is inaccurate, and at the same time presumptuous. There is evidence, and that is what should be disputed if you want to prove a point.

Perhaps one might begin by defining what the word "evidence" means. I think that many here might disagree on the different meanings of a word which is not really that controversial most of the time.

No doubt you are familiar with that case where the parents had a secret camera installed to record what the baby sitter was doing with the baby.

They got their first film and it looked like she was tossing the kid in the air like a football, bopping it around, just disgusting.

They called the law on that ol'gal right now.

In the end the sitter got off scott free ~ the reason was the "speed" of the video. It wasn't set up to do a full 30 frames per second or anything like that ~ more like 3 frames per second, and when it was slowed down to the rate of actual time flow it was shown she was not tossing the baby!

Evidence of evolution is rather like the film of that baby. The frame rate is pretty slow, but speeding up what we do know doesn't necessarily give us a true picture.

Eventually we will hae the ability to overcome the time-dilation factor, and maybe even go back in time and "fix" things eh!

Perhaps one might begin by defining what the word "evidence" means. I think that many here might disagree on the different meanings of a word which is not really that controversial most of the time.

Evidence is nothing if it isn't for or against something.

I don't think there is an anti-evolutionist on this thread who can give a coherent definition of the thing they oppose, a definition that actually matches something a biologist would say.