Firstly, I find it quite funny that you googled me
Someone sent me a pm giving me the links.
Secondly, you're forming an opinion of me based on your own prejudice - I defend evolutionism based on the evidence - not because I simply want to believe in it. It's much easier and a hell of a lot nicer to think that there's a god watching over me and has a nice spot in heaven ready for me, as long as I'm good and say my prayers.
Fossils only tell you 3 empirical things:
1) Their age.
2) The layer.
3) The species if known.
Now if you think there is anything empirical beyond that, list it and we will test it to see if meets the criteria of being empirical.
Thirdly - you tell me that I ignore anything that points in the opposite direction of evolution and that I already have "100% faith" in evolution. That is far from the truth. If actual evidence was put forward disproving evolutionism, I would have no problem going along with it. I see no reason to believe in a god, so I look for naturalistic explanations to explain natural phenomena. I have no vested personal attachment towards evolution, only that I accept the evidence. Also, I don't see why you decided to replace a post in response to my original post with an ad hom and obvious derailment.
Who makes the decision that evidence is evidence? Evos do. Now if the creationists had that power and rejected "all" evo evidence, what would you say, or would you just accept it? I know exactly what you would say. And it's exactly what we say and is the very reason you have no outside unbias source checking how you determine things is because evo has to have total control in order to reign supreme, and continue that reign. So your point of real evidence is mute as long as an outside source is never allowed to keep you guys inline and make sure your so called laws of how science works are being followed.
If such laws were being followed every idea that came up would get the time and resources to prove itself like evolution has. And I'm not referring to creation. Not allowing this shows that evolution is:
1) Unfalsifiable. So it's not even a theory anymore.
2) An implied absolute where absolutes are not supposed to exist.
3) Is accepted as an actual law like the laws of physics which supports 1 and 2.
In fact, what idea has ever been allowed to get even 1% of what evolution does on everything to prove itself to some degree? Can you name 5? Can you name 2? Can you name 1? ZERO is the answer.
In fact if this were a horse race evolution would be the only idea allowed in the gate, therefore the only one to always run it, and win it. And all bets, all the time and money, plus all the evidence would have to go towards evolution. Not because it's so provable, but because it's the only idea allowed.
It's also the very reason why those who believe in evo feel a need to protect it. Even from things that are not scientific, as they will admit. It's why evos feel a need to troll forums that are religious based. any idea is a threat to an idea that is based more on the protection of it than it's actual evidence.
If you disagree, make the list of observable processes and empirical evidence and we will start another thread and test your claims. I doubt you will because then you will have to face "real" reality.
I decided to discuss the Miller experiment because I admittedly had no idea what Eocene was talking about when he referred to a "trap". I figured I'd get a clarification and then find a source for their claims, since the only thing I could find in regards to what Eocene was talking about was found on creationist sites, and not scientific ones. Saying I got "attacked" was a bit of an exageration, however, I said that because I was annoyed that we ended up discussing abiogenesis in a discussion regarding evolution.
For life to evolve, life first has to came from lifeless matter. Not our problem you guys cannot overcome this obstacle and therefore feel the need to separate it from evolution so it's problems are not a part of evolution even though evolution cannot happen without it,