Replies

<> Hundreds of fossils? Comeon- that's a gross misrepresentation of the facts- You make it sound as if there were hundreds of species supposedly showing the line of evolution of the ear- when infact, it was a comparison of only a few select species that were, according to evolutionists, seperated by millions of years- As well, it was comparing a hippo sized animal and a rat sized animal side by side, claiming that the jaw bones that differed slightly showed a 'clear line of evolution' of the hearing system- As well, it ignored the fact that the Cynodont didn't even have a direct relative in that little comparison chart that quite frankly, was deceitful owing to the fact that they drew the jaw bones of the species as the same size when infact, the species differed quite dramatically in size- the chart made NO mention of this I guess becaUSE they were afraid someone would point out the obvious glaring problem to them, and wouldn't blindly by into the little chart had they been fully informed about the species being compared side by side. My gosh Ahayes, I'm sorry if you find my scepticism offensive- but good golly, as I pointed out before- there were many many psecies inbetween these the few that were selected to try to make a case for ear evolution that sghowed clear regression in the supposed line of evolution of the jaw that simply were not mentioned- You can dismiss my scepticism if you like- but I'll in the meantime look at the obvious glaring problems and not simply pretend they don't exist. If you can't even conceed that that hypothesis is so sketchy that a slight wind can blow it away, then quite frankly, I'm really not interested in discussing it either- it seems you're put off by the fact that I don't hold blindly to something that has very little substance to prop it up scientifically. <> Oh- I see just fine Ahayes- And I see that the science of evolution is willing to go to great lengths of faith in order to try to glom together a weak case for supposed evolution. And I also see that there are NO evidences or examples of macroevolution, and I also see that Macroevolution has serious, insurmountable biological problems that render it impossible, and I'm quite frankly not interested in believing something is true based on such sketchy evidence- That Eye evolution article you pointed to was just what I said it was, a wishful thinking apologetic argument that relied HEAVILY on if's and but's- much like most of the supposed 'clear examples' and 'established facts' that we're handed. Are you perhaps suggesting that skepticism has no place in science? lol

Hundreds of fossils? Comeon- that's a gross misrepresentation of the facts- You make it sound as if there were hundreds of species supposedly showing the line of evolution of the ear- when infact, it was a comparison of only a few select species that were, according to evolutionists, seperated by millions of years-

Pardon me, you have brought me to this: Bullshit. I presented the study to you. They studied more than 300 fossils. You lied it all away, as you are doing right now. You didn't even read the article itself, it must be either divine revelation or extrasensory perception that allows you to make so many ridiculous claims about its content and invent so many supposedly contradictory fossils out of thin air. About every sentence in your post contains a new lie.