[Simonius]

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Rubbish. The fossils do not just show diversity of life, if you take them in the context of their varying ages you see clear progression down thousands of different branches, involving hundreds of thousands of different species..

Have you ever actually reviewed the fossil record? I dont think you have because it is rather devoid of records of 'clear progression'. Instead what we have are generally brief snap shots, millions of years apart, representing drastically different lifeforms. If you don't believe me then look into the evolutionary evidence of a relatively recent creature that is paramount in our concerns... humans.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Furthermore, comparison of the DNA patterns of animals alive today, with the DNA patterns of the animals from which evolution says they evolved,.

No it doesn't, it says that in genetic terms they are very similar and suggests that evolution may have occurred. It does not mean that evolution is the only explanation. Similar creatures would have similar DNA if they had a shared evolution, were created, or were the result of alien genetic manipulation because they are similar. That argument is a bit of a no-brainer.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret You're saying all of that's a coincidence, that all species were put on the earth at essentially the same time by God, and that it's just a matter of chance that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from within the last 50 million years, are indeed younger than 50 million years, and that all the fossils which evolution predicts date from 200 million years, do date from 200 million years.

Nope... never said a single word of that.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret Evolution explains the development of species observable in the fossil record as well as in DNA. Creationism does not. Simple as.

But the development of species is not obervable in the fossil record, look at it, the fossil record merely suggests the possibility of evolution it does not prove it. This absence which you will find if you look at the evidence rationally suggests the possibility of creationism. Go back to the evidence.

Quote by: BorisTheFerret And taking a religious story as the starting point, then working backwards with the express aim of vindicating that story, all the while ignoring any evidence which contradicts the creation story (which IS what you're doing), is NOT scientific. You can't take a religious story and dress it up as scientific theory. That's what ID does, and it's been universally and irrevocably debunked by the scientific community..

Firstly I did not do that, I have merely realised that the fossil record with its lack of intermediary lifeforms suggests the possibility of creationism. A number of things now taken as fact have previously been debunked by the scientific community, not scientist who is true to the scientific method discounts facts and theories because they are unpopular. The fact is what I have said stands up to scientific rigour, and if you did some research instead of relying on your school taught assumptions you would realise that.