Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-27388204-20170606062014

Okay. I'm back. What I will first say is, and I hope this doesn't sound a little harsh, but don't pick a fight you aren't ready for. You have allegedly been "studying" this debate for longer than I have been alive, and yet you still have a child's understanding of evolution, as demonstrated by your statements of "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and "there are no transitional fossils" (which is my favourite, as it is so fun to rebut). I will put aside the fact that every fossil we find is a transitional fossil, and will instead opt to those that clearly demonstrate intermediates between the great groups. Firstly, as aforementioned, the evolutionary tree of whales is a perfect example. We have a perfect line of fossils going from amphibious quadrupedal mammals to modern baleen and toothed whales, each found in older rocks than the other, as would be expected. Example fossils in this lineage are Ambulocetus, Georgiacetus,  Basilosaurus, and more modern forms such as Dorudon, where the morphology of modern whales becomes apparent. We know that these were once animals, and we know that the further back they were, the more land-based they were, and genetics confirm this. In addition, the early whales, such as Basilosaurus, had vestigal, functionless legs. No perfect creator would have given sea creatures functionless legs. That is just one of many imperfections and useless anatomical features present among extinct and extant organisms that cannot be explained by creationists in a scientifically proven method (I suppose they could just pull the old "falldidit" card), but can be perfectly explained by evolution in a way that is backed up by fossil evidence and genetic evidence.

One thing I noticed with creationists pushing the whole "same evidence, different perspective" argument is that they only look at the evidence to the shallow level at which it is compatible with their story. The fossil record is a perfect example. Only if you look at it in an extremely simplified summary does it seem to support the flood. The dead bodies of countless organisms buried under water is as basic a summary of the fossil record as possible. Once you look more deeply into the fossil record, at the distribution of the organisms preserved in the sediments, and the composition of the layers, and use several (not one) dating methods to determine the approximate date of the sediments, you will find that not only does it massively support evolution, but it completely disproves the flood.

Finally, I suggest you stop supposing that we are committing the same logical fallacies as you just to justify the flaws in your arguments. No, I am not starting with the presupposition that evolution is a fact and working off that. Unlike AiG, which openly states that they assume the Bible to be true in the beginning, dismiss any evidence that contradicts it, and use the remaining "evidence" to "prove" their points. I am objectively showing you the correspondence between the morphological features of extinct and extant organisms, the genetics of extant organisms and the radiometric dating methods (all of which point to a similar age, not just one), can only be explained by evolution, which, today, is subject to about as much doubt as the theory of gravity.

Bottom line: if you don't understand evolution, don't try to disprove it to those who do. You'll end up making the same mistake as Bananaman Ray Comfort did, and make an complete and utter fool of yourself.