Paul, I will look at the site and report back my thoughts on it in the next couple of days. If you would look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible . It is oviously from a biased source, but is well done and the technical parts are explained so the unscientific can understand, and I would like to know your thoughts on it. JA Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: J A Re:Evolution ( Excerpts in red ) From j a Mon Sep 24 18:26:54 2007 I don't remember your definition, but I would say that defining that word in such a way as to make discusion possible may be beyond us. But I'll try. Transitional form: A creature which shows the partial progression between two creatures which are extremely dissimilar, where the 3 creatures in consideration are part of an actual evolutionary progression, such that creature C is a descendant of B and B is a descendant of A. I can live with that though I have considerable reservations about ' ... extremely dissimilar ... '. My definition was as follows - Re:Evolution From Paul Deema Wed Sep 19 17:51:34 2007 You seem reluctant, so I'll propose a tentative and hurried definition of transitional form -- "A species which exhibits characteristics of an earlier species together with characteristics of a later species. All, some, or none need be extant." How about taking a risk and give me your definition? You continue - Whether or not everyone on the planet (or just a majority, or just a majority of the scientists) agrees or not has nothing to do with truth, or the evidence and logic behind what we think to be true. It seems to me you've agreed with this type of statement before too, but in the end you are still using it as your justification for thinking it (evolution) to be true. I'm fairly sure I am on record as observing that the most profound question ever asked was by Pilate on the steps of the presidium - "Truth! What is truth?" Well we have two possibilities in life I think. You can run around in circles beating your breast in frustration at there being no way to know what is the truth thus achieving nothing, or you can proceed on the basis that intelligent and knowlegeable men probably have the answer to at least this problem, that in any event if they are wrong, events will demonstrate this and knowledge will still be advanced. Concerning justification for deciding that evolution is the answer to "...why we are what and where we are." Since I cannot, and neither can anyone else at this time with certainty, know the details of abiogenesis and evolution, including its existance or non existance, the stratification of the fossil record is sufficient proof for me that it happened. All the attention drawn to difficulties concerning understanding how this happenned or why this happenned are just diversionary tactics. The fact remains that at the lowest strata, no organisms are found. Next we again find no organisms, but we do find the burrows these worms made. Above this we find worms which have made carbonaceous shells as armour. In each layer we find creatures which did not exist in lower strata, while those in lower strata may well persist in higher strata but often do not. And so on up to the present day. That these layers are chronological in order can be shown by a variety of dating techniques only one of which is radiometric. Scientists are not comfortable with just one indication and rejoice when second and third different techniques give the same answer. But the primary technique springs from the certain knowledge that in any process of precipitation -- that which was precipitated first is at the bottom while that which is precipitated last is at the top. While trawling for info today I found this site -- http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/seven-creation-paradigms-2.html. It is not a pro-evolution site despite the name (this is often done to snare a trawler looking for the opposite of what you are peddling) but instead is one of those moderate sites which tries to present all the relevant data. At the end of it all however, I think they will decide that their paradigm is the correct one -- not a point on which they need be condemned as most do the same -- but they do, in moderate language, appear to try to present points from all angles. Tell me what you think. Paul D --------------------------------- Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now. --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.