[loser]

Fossil cockroaches show significant evolution from modern species.

What are these significant changes?

Talkorigins.com rebuts idiotic creationist claims in detail and at length.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

You keep acting like micro and macro are hugely different things, just because the animals they create may look markedly different.

Let's see: micro (little) and macro (big)...hugely different things?

Nah, there's not much difference between big and little, the words are almost interchangeable.

Those that accept the definition tend not to be biblical literalists and actually recognize science as a way of learning about the universe.

That's strange because I haven't met any creationists who are unscientific. In fact, I think more evolutionists take science too lightly, wresting it until it's more like religious dogma.

You see, besides a definition, evolution can also be used in reference to observed events that fit the definition, for example, the change in color of certain moths from exclusively light morphs to almost all dark morphs in the period of 50 years. Since we know the color of these moths is controlled by a two alleles of a single gene, the frequency of those alleles in several populations changed over about 50 generations. Thus, that change in color was evolution.

Those moths can change color for a trillion billion generations but they won't change into frogs. You take recognized adaptations and try to make it prove macro evolution which it simply doesn't. Talk about spin and intellectual dishonesty. That's no different than me asserting that because man has the ability to create, it proves that God created man. No, actually that assertion is more logical than yours.

For example, evidence indicates that humans appeared in the Americas, fully formed and functional, less than 14,000 years ago, whereas, they appeared in Europe some 40,000 years ago. Were these two separate creation events?

You'll shortly find that the evidence is false. I won't be the one to tell you, the fickle scientists that you so rely on will.

Do you know what a transitional is? Undisputed by whom? Creationists? Actually there are many, many accepted (by scientists) transitional species. For example, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Pederpes, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Aconthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dahlanistes, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx,Sinovenator, Byronosaurus, etc. Since you are speaking with authority on this topic, these shouldn't cause you any problem. You probably know, off hand, to which evolutionary sequences these belong.

I love science fiction as much as the next guy but I try not to let it interfere in my rational thoughts. The list of dinosaurs rivals the gods and goddesses of the Romans and Greek but are ever bit as mythical. You're impressed by creatures that never existed!

Actually, mutation is one of the observed processes that tends to increase genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity does not equal evolution.

That is an insulting attempt to reduce science to the level of superstitious religion that is held in spite of no evidence.

Which relegates evolution to the realm of religion...having no evidence.

Humans are like that. We generally don't question what we are told. If our parents tell us that God created humanity, we don't question it. Its not in our nature to go against our parents.

Actually, we tend not to question authority, parents or otherwise. What you say is no different in the classroom. If your science book tells you about evolution and dinosaurs, you don't question it at all. You blindly accept it as fact. It's not in our nature to go against out teachers.

Having once been a catholic I remember the safe and secure feeling of believing in God. I also remember the day I realized there was no such thing as God.

The Catholic religion has done that to a lot of people. Tragic and sad.

To a scientist, this is not a question what to choose to believe. This is a question of reasonable thinking and evidences. Science plays by its own rules, trials and errors, diligent evaluation of the facts comes first and then, comes knowledge. So many good and not so good things we use in our lives today have been obtained not by believes, but by trials, errors, experimentation and observations: vaccinations and right nutrition for health, nuclear power, electricity, Internet, etc. Believers are busy only with interpretations of what is written in their Holy Books.

Not true. I am a scientist and a believer; there is no conflict. I believe what is true and I have faith in what can be true but is as yet unproven. I am not a superstitious person.

Theory of evolution passed all major tests successfully.

Depends on what you read and how you grade, It has utterly failed all my major tests. I'm amazed at how desperately people cling to inviable beliefs (such as evolutionary biology).