[Krsqk]

This accounts for the prevalance of super-flu's and such and is one more piece of evidence one the side of evolution.

So you have a better bacterium. 1)It's still a bacterium; 2)It's still the same disease; 3)It could just as easily be evidence to support intelligent design--highly adaptive designs would make more sense.

Reptiles -> birds: There are more fundamental differences than just legs/wings. Most reptiles have 3-chambered hearts; most birds have 4-chambered hearts. Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart, or did the fourth one just happen all at once? Scales and feathers have no structural similarity, and even come from different genes. In fact, many of the "similarities" between any given pair of orders or families are found in completely different genes. There's nothing to suggest a mechanism for this "gene-hopping."

Explanations for legs to wings: Sure, it all sounds nice, but we don't see any examples of transitions between them. Unless, of course, it just made big jumps.

Fewer genetic similarities: So evolution will adapt its theory to meet this new obstacle. Does that mean they'll redraw the "evolution tree" we see so much of? Will it now be based on genetic similarities, instead of physical ones?

And again, the theory of evolution is not a representative sample of science in general. Using it as such is wholely wrong.

Yet this is exactly what happens from kindergarten through graduation in nearly every school across the country. Evolution is science; anything else is religion; let's not examine the evidence to see if parhaps there could be two interpretations. Why don't we start by teaching kids objective science and let them evaluate the evidence later? You know, the old "Teach them how to think, not just what to think" sort of thing?

Creationist bias/non-objectivity: Every evolutionist has just as much at stake in the debate as any creationist--his worldview, his life's work, his vocation.... There is just as much vitriol, hatred, and lack of objectivity coming from the evolutionist side as has been attributed to the creationist side. Whatever they want to say, it still comes down to "We have science, and you don't." The implication is that their science is objective and pure as the wind-driven snow, while their opponents are blinded by their religion and irrational thinking. In reality, few evolutionists are able to accept that there is another interpretation of the evidence we see and that they don't hold absolute truth. Some merely remain silent; some prefer to "beat 'em with the science stick" until they back off or shut up.

Any theory is better than no theory: 1)No, it's not; a false theory would not be better than a true one; 2)I don't see "no theory" being advocated. All that's been asked is for the evidence to be held up to both theories, not just evolution. The only basis for calling it "no theory" is if one has already rejected creation/intelligent design as a theory. There seems to be a widespread fondness for tossing creation based on the half of the evidence with which it has difficulty, while conveniently ignoring the half with which evolution has difficulty. Maybe a better way of stating that would be this: Evolutionists love to pass off creationist arguments by saying, "No, the evidence really means this," while not admitting the possibility of alternative interpretations of evidence which has been interpreted to support them.

Fyron: Not everything in this post is directed toward you, so let's not inflate your post count by quoting everything that doesn't apply to you and saying "I never said this," okay?

[ March 16, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Krsqk ]