Andrew Cummins on "Creationism"
with me...
 RT>> They have already. The theories are tested continuously by
 RT>> evolutionists themselves. That's why its called a science.
 AC> Evolution is called science for the sake of authority.
 AC> What other options?  An atheist can't say "God said so."
I suggest you read a book on evolution and how the scientific method is used 
within it because it has nothing to do with authority. Only religious flakes 
believe in ultimate authorities.
 RT>> Incorrect. The evolutionists are split into two schools of thought
 RT>> about this. There are 'gradualists' and 'punctuationists'.
 AC> True.  There's Dawkins vs. Gould as the pop leaders of the two groups. 
 AC> Why isn't the issue settled?
Because the evidence can still be interpreted in two different ways. This 
does not mean one will turn out to exclusively right over the other.
 RT>> But we HAVE transitional forms. They are not non-existent merely rare.
 RT>> As one would expect if the punctuated evolution theory is correct.
 AC> Given that there are billions of dug-up fossils in all sorts of
 AC> conditions (bone fragments, deformed creatures, etc.), given that there
 AC> is a *huge* diversity of life, given that some people want to find
 AC> transitionals, don't you think even if Evolution were false that there
 AC> would be found some fossils which look transitional?
That's why there is great debate amongst evolutionists themselves before they 
label any new evidence as a transitional. However, being evolutionists they 
look for a scientific answer. They don't just decide that because there is a 
book somewhere that it is infeasible or feasible.
Of course, if you wish to assert that transitional forms aren't transitional, 
then all you have to do is offer a scientific reason for why they're not.
 RT>> We have fossils with ages running up to 600 million years old. That's a
 RT>> lot longer than 6000 years. Please explain why we have fossils of this
 RT>> age if the earth is only 6000 years old as creationists claim.
 AC> You're trying to stipulate something that I don't agree to.
 AC> There aren't any fossils that are 600 million years old.
Just shout "IS NOT!" then Andy-Bob. Unless you'd like to demonstrate how 
we've made the mistake of dating fossils to that age and not 6000 years or 
less? Or are you claiming that scientific dating methods can be wrong, in 
some cases, by a factor of 1000000?
No to mention that the vast majority of fossils are dated as far older than 
6000 years.
 RT>> Not all evolutionists are atheists but they aren't creationists in the
 RT>> fundamentalist sense. ie. they don't believe the world was created in
 RT>> 6 days 6000 years ago.
 AC> The loudest proponents of Evolution are atheists.
It is not strange that the field of evolution theory is populated by both 
theists AND atheists, whereas the "field" of creationism "theory" is 
populated solely by religious fundamentalists.
Now, you were going to say something about biasing of opinions I believe?
    Relatif Tuinn
... Just because the future is known, does not mean that people aren't
    deciding what their future will be, on their own. - Ken Young
--- Spot 1.3a #1413
---------------