[Fyron]

BM:

Look at what you quoted. I typed how life came to be how it is, not 'how life came to be'.

I was not quoting anything there. Quoting you would have involved placing it in quote UBB tags. I did not distort anything there. In fact, you never said anything about "how life came to be how it is". I do not see it in any of your Posts.

you went right ahead and chopped off half of the phrase to make it into a different claim.

No, because _you never said that phrase_. It was made-up "quote" (though not really a quote of anything, as it is not a quote), not a quote of you.

There are many more books pointing out the flaws of Darwinian theory, btw. It's not just this one. Here are just a couple of the more respectable ones written by 'real' scientists. Admittedly, they aren't easy to find. That's why I pointed to Milton's book first. It's easy to find.

You do realize that I said that the theory of evolution is currently undergoing major re-evaluation, right? I never once said that the theory of evolution is set in stone, and that is how it is. You seem to think I have argued that, when I haven't. In fact, everything I have said leads to "if it is proven wrong, it will be changed to accomodate new evidence/experimentation".

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
BM:
It's unfair to use an archaic theory of evolution (purely gradual) as an example to 'disprove' evolution in its entirety. Modern views include both gradual and dynamic theories and are much more inclusive of the available evidence.

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

Krsqk:

Did it progress through a 3 1/2-chambered heart

Krsqk, please do not get into that half-organ garbage again. It did not help your case in that old thread, and it will not help here. Bringing it up will only hurt your argument.

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.

Yes we do. There are dinorsaur fossils with legs and half-wings instead of arms. Actually, legs to wings is wrong. It is arms to wings that is the correct path.

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?

That is a distinct possibility.

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.

And this is done constantly. Pure creation with no evolution always falls short because there is no valid evidence supporting it. The only "evidence" is false theories and incorrect analysis of the evidence. This is not to say that the current theory of evolution and all of the currently held paths of evolution are absolutely correct (as they probably are not), just to say that pure creationism is not supported by any valid evidence that we have.

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?

I haven't done anything of the sort so far, so what makes you think I would start doing it now?