Given the available data, denying the theory of evolution is completely unreasonable

When I quote from folks who don"t believe in evolution Pro claims I"m being biased and not using scientific sources, when I do quote from scientific sources he complains that I"ve fallen prey to quote mining from creationists websites. I"ll leave it up to voters to decide if this is fair. I didn"t argue that Lucy wasn"t bipedal, I said that even apes today walk upright sometimes, so walking upright doesn"t prove Lucy was becoming human in any sense. I also argued that just as there are varieties of humans today that could die out and leave the rest of us, such as pygmies, there is no reason to think Lucy was not just a particular type of ape which died out. Pro assumes that because apes living now don"t have feet and teeth exactly like hers that she had to be evolving into something else. If all pygmies die out will evolutionists hang up a chart with pygmies as an intermediate leading to us and say, "humans are not so short today, it must be evolution? " Lucy was just an ape. Yes, "ape" had no scientific definition in the world of evolutionists, but I"m sure the average person knows an ape when they see one, and they certainly don"t consider themselves apes. In fact, most people would feel sorry for anybody who thinks of himself and goes around calling himself an ape. I don"t care much for the definitions of some elite group of scientists. Everyone else knows what I mean when I say "an ape," its only evolutionists who act like they are too educated to get the point. My terminologies are not problematic for those not indoctrinated into the vocabulary of evolution. Pro says: "The link he provided clearly says: "The discovery helps to refine the timing of the transition from our fishy ancestors to land creatures"; his own source disagrees with him. " What Pro doesn"t seem to understand is that this is one of the very examples evolutionists claim would prove evolution false: "It would be highly inconsistent if the chronological order were reversed in the reptile-bird and reptile-mammal example" For example, we should never find mammalian or avian fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. " . http://www.google.com... This example I gave reverses the fish-amphibian order. Evolutionist believe that "The first major groups of amphibians developed in the Devonian period, around 370 million years ago. " . http://www.google.com... But this amphibian was around 397 million years ago, a full 27 million years before amphibians are supposed to even exist! . http://www.google.com... This is the very kind of thing they admit would disprove evolution; but instead of holding true to what they say, they will twist and bend the phylogenetic tree to make it compensate the new discoveries. It matters not what one finds in the earth, evolutionists will find a way to make the theory flexible enough to accommodate it because they can"t teach divine creation in a science text book. Evolution is the only game in town, it"s what they are stuck with, like it or not. Pro said "They simply evaluated the age of the OLDEST known tetrapod and then conjectured that, slightly prior to its existence, there must have been a animal that was "half-land creature and half-sea creatures". So they searched northern Canada (where the rocks are just the right age) and they found precisely what they were looking for. " But that wasn"t the OLDEST tetrapod; we now know four footed lizards were walking about 397 million years ago, so you"ve got to look for transitionals between fish and tetrapods dating back more than 397 million years. You DON"T have any! Tiktaalik comes way to late to be transitional. Aurornis shows that evolutionist are flat out wrong in their claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs because here we have a bird which predates all the so-called intermediates between dinosaurs and birds (thus it"s in the wrong place on the phylogenetic tree), and this bird has not a single intermediate before it. Pro would need to show intermediates leading up to Aurornis as evidence that the earliest birds were evolved from dinosaurs. This he hasn"t done or attempted to do. Aurornis Xui shows that birds like archaeopteryx have predecessors who were birds; it shows we don"t need the hypothesis that the birds we have today came from dinosaurs. It shows the oldest birds have no intermediate links to other species. Aurornis appears in the fossil record fully formed with fully developed feathers. No evidence that it was in a state of transition like some half-reptile half-bird as evolutionists envisioned the bird"s ancestors to be. Pro says this debate is about science, no, it"s about truth, and science isn"t the only avenue to truth. I am free to use philosophy, history, and appeals to reason or common sense. This debate is about whether the available data makes it unreasonable to accept evolution, and it is. I didn"t contradict myself when I argued that fruit flies and bacteria don"t become anything radically new. My argument was that while they would not give birth to anything radically new in one generation, and I said as much as bout the dog, if evolution was true, we should see enough minor changes in bacteria and fruit flies over the course of many generations, like the 60 000 generations in Lenski"s experiment, to have observed massive change in our lifetime. But it seems we could live our whole life observing minor changes which don"t make the fly EVER become anything new. Pro wants to know what is a radical change in fruit flies, and mentions eye color and body size. Well, humans have a variety of eye colors and body size, does it prove we are evolving into anything other than human? No. Pro couldn"t defend the dates he gives for the fossils he mentions because those dates are arrived at by speculative theories. Without these dates, he can"t know for sure it takes evolution millions of years to achieve the radical changes, and should seek another explanation besides evolution. Pro wants us to believe the giraffe developed a mutation giving it a longer neck, then that it also got another mutation giving it longer legs for stability, that it got a whole set of mutations to accommodate the morphological changes in its body along the way, but then claims these were all random. How lucky and convenient for the giraffe. What are the odds of all this happening by chance? Guess the giraffe won the lottery. Even more improbable is Pro"s claim every other species alive today also won this very improbable lottery. If some intelligent, guiding force were involved here, that would make it more probable, but at random? Chances are the giraffe would have perished. Because Pro doesn"t know the reason for the long nerve in the giraffe"s neck he says its there for no reason. Hey, scientists don"t always know everything, and they take time to find out what they do know. Before they knew what was keeping us earth-bound didn"t mean gravity didn"t exist, and before we knew the earth was round didn"t mean it was flat, and before we knew about the Big Bang didn"t mean the universe was eternal in the past. Scientist may yet discover the reason for this nerve, but even if they don"t it doesn"t mean it has no purpose for the way it"s designed. Pro says "if you manage to witness a living thing evolving to become part of an other domain, you will have cast some serious doubt on the theory of evolution. " So when it happens in millions of years he cannot prove, its evolution, but if it happens in his lifetime, its not evolution? No one has observed C-14 for 2 570 years to see if half of it will decay. So how do they prove their formula correct? It needs to be tested by observation to be scientific, which is rule number one of the scientific method, you begin with an observation. In Pro"s equation, to get the half-life you need the mean lifetime, so has anyone observed C-14 long enough to tell its mean lifetime? No! If one could measure how much C-14 decays in a day, they could do simply multiplication to find out how much will decay in 2 570 years, but they can"t even measure that! So Pro can"t substantiate his dates anymore than appealing to, scientists say so. This isn"t evidence. It isn"t science. Its science fiction. Pro claims we are more like chimpanzees, than gibbons are. I simply ask the readers of this debate to compare how similar gibbons are to chimps, and how vastly different humans are from chimps, and they will know this is sheer nonsense on Pro"s part. Gibbons are more like chimps than we are. Pro even thinks evolution can tell us write from wrong, but there is no such thing in the animal kingdom. When a dog kills another dog its not murder, there is no moral dimension to it. If evolution was true, all our morality is the subjective spin-offs of cultural, social and biological evolution, based on random mutations. How could a random process create objective values and duties? When two human opinions differ how is it to be settled without reference to some higher law above human opinion? Rationality won't work, for its rational to sacrifice minority rights for the benefit of the whole - minority rights go out the window on the basis of rationality.