O-kay, I just got to page #2...
Let me address a few of "Still Thinking's" comments on this page...
"Even though science is continuing to prove that evolution from a single cell in primordial soup cannot have happened simply because of the complexity of the cell ..."
Really? What types of cells does your "science" study refer to? Modern "cells" - let's use basic bacteria, for example - have actually CHANGED over the eons. Primitive forms of bacteria found on those deep-ocean "smokers", for example, point cellular evolutionists backwards towards the primitive origins of cellular - single-cell - life.
As with human technology, which is based upon the very science which you are attempting to naysay, life itself tends to become more complex as one moves upwards through the fossil records.
By the way, I actually HAVE a piece of fossilized stromatolite - do you even know what a stromatolite is??? And you can find beautiful fossilized examples of early stromatolites in Montana's Glacier Park, to name one place to see such fossils... I've seen them in situ, and it was a glorious sight - well, for a rockhound, that is...
Moving right along...
"... and the fact that they cannot even recreate this scenario in a controlled laboritory setting. ..."
Actually, scientists - and I believe the actual discipline would be paleo-microbiology - HAVE been able to re-create ammino acids in conditions which replicate the conditions present on early earth - and ammino acids ARE basic building blocks of single-celled life.
"... Secondly, there is no proof that any species has changed into anything else. ..."
Aaaargh!!! the IGNORAN- er, "Oh, the humanity!!" - in that statement...
If you want to see an easily-traced line of change from one 'species' into an evolved-to-fit-new-conditions version - a "New" species - look up the chain of fossils making up WHALE evolution... The transition from a wolf-like creature to a four-footed fresh-water animal with webbed feet, to primitive animals recognizable as early 'whales' - but still retaining vestigial, useless hind-legs, to the whales of today - that is a CLEAR example of evolutionary change prompted by changing conditions.
Then there's Eohippus, the 'dawn' horses, and that chain of evolution which brought about the ancestors of modern horses - and I say ancestors, because most wild forms of horse - except for zebras and MAYbe a remnant of wild Chinese or Mongolian horse - have disappeared due to human activity. That's another easily-traced line of evolutionary change, if you'd care to look that up...
Then there's the afore-mentioned alligators and crocodiles... Sharks... Bears... Lions and other big cats... Birds... Look up the fossil records of the sequence of events leading to modern versions of these animals - there's a clear line of descent in each case.
Heh... There's some evidence that T-Rex might have been a fore-runner of today's chickens - now that's what I'd call ironic!!
"... Most of the dinosaurs that they have pieced together have not been full skeletons. ..."
Here's a rough description of how paleontology works...
Pieces of fossil are found at a dig site or quarry. They are examined, sketched [in the early days of paleontology] and nowadays photographed and possibly scanned into a 3-D computer program.
The information is sent out or made available to paleontologists working all over the world, thanks to the world-wide web. [Yet more proof that the internet is from the debbil!!]
Paleontologists world-wide examine and compare the bones' characteristics with partial skeletons that they have in their inventory. [Think "CSI" of the Jurassic; many of the techniques used by crime-scene forensics specialists have derived from paleontology, by the way...]
When matching - similar in many points - skeletal remains are found, the paleontologists share their findings. They already know the approximate geological period when the dinosaur died; so they can start out by comparing "apples to apples" right there. Some museums or research facilities may have a skull and a few vertebrae; others may have vertebrae and ribs, others may have ribs and leg bones, and so on.
Therefore, by gradual and painstaking piecework, a "complete" skeleton is worked up of an animal - a dinosaur, or maybe a Pleistocene mammal - that no-one's seen in complete condition before.
However, at the BEGINNING of the science of paleontology, they had to rely on finding RELATIVELY COMPLETE SKELETONS, in many cases. That was the only way they COULD I.D. dinosaurs at the outset, because there were no stockpiles of information gathered around the world and readily available, in the 1800's, as paleontology emerged as a full-blown science. In the beginnings - in the 1800's - mistakes WERE made, because the science was just developing then...
And THAT is EXACTLY what is wrong with your subsequent chart of "creationist" scientists, by the way... Not ONE of those characters listed are from MODERN times, when the sciences mentioned have matured and achieved a greater degree of scientific accuracy!!!!
After all, would you go to see a DOCTOR who still practiced medicine the way they did in the 1700's??? Would you want some doctor to LEECH you, instead of taking a blood sample and having it tested???? Or how about DENTISTRY - would you want an 1800's frontier dentist to drill your teeth with one of those foot-pedaled drills??? Hmmm...?????
I think that you realize the benefits of using the LATEST scientific information when it comes to taking care of your own health... The same benefits apply when referring to ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE...!!! [Well, DUH!!!]
That's enough for this post... More to follow...
Zid
