Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[pocaracas]

So H_M has replied!
And he's taken on the kind of debating strategy I like: counter the points of the positive claim head on! kudos for that!... but only that...
You "americans" (yeah, esq, you're now american!) and your "formal" debate things... I hate that format. It does not lead to a discussion, rather a feeble "I'm better, look at me".
Anyway...
On to the meat of the matter.

Microevolution is ok, kinds lead to same kinds.
Chihuahuas and Great Danes are still dogs... If we were to find those two, fossilized, in the same strata, we wouldn't categorize them as being the same species, I'd wager... One cannot physically reproduce with the other! So, in our fuzzy definition of "species", it would not fit.
But in H_M's even fuzzier definition of kind, anything fits.
Wolf and dog. Fox and Wolf. Lion and Cat. Bacteria and Bacteria. Virus and virus.
It must seem like a daunting task to consider that the small changes that lead from wolf to dog to great dane or to chihuahua can't, with a bit more time, lead to great changes that yield a walking dog-like species.... walking and talking, eventually.
Time, more time than we have available, but which can be probed in the form of fossils.
Which brings us to the other meat:

There is no fossil record. When you (in general) find a fossil, the only thing you can logically determine is "this once living thing has now died". Anything beyond that is speculation. There are no transitional fossils..how are you able to determine what is a transitional fossil as opposed to just a specific kind of animal that just died off...what gives you reason to think fossil X is the evolutionary predecessor of fossil and/or animal Y? You certainly don't have the entire fossil track record of any specific animal...which I would EXPECT for you to have considering all of the animals that have died in their respective "phrases".

The entire thing is one big lie.
[...]


The only thing we see from the past are bones of animals that once lived, and are now dead. To draw any conclusion besides that is unwarranted. There is no reason to believe that the animals in the dirt was able to do things that the animals of today havent been observed to do, and that is produce a different "kind" of animal (such as a reptile to a bird).

This here underlines just how much H_M doesn't know about fossils and, as a result, he arrives at wrong conclusions.
Fossils, for the most part, are not bone... they're rock!
And rock can be dated. (foretelling a reply to the dating procedure: "it's a lie. Based on wild speculation that the laws of nature were the same in the past, radioactive isotopes may have decayed much faster in the past, giving the impression of older rocks", right? -.-')

In different strata, so different ages, successively similar, but with noticeable differences, fossils have been found... they are all transitional from one to the next.
And it occurs over millions of years. It's written in the rocks. Just (learn to) read them.
But H_M will refuse that, because he's already preformatted to accept whatever confirms his holy book and reject whatever can deny it.

H_M, I'm sorry if your holy book was written in a time when people didn't know a lot of stuff. Now we know some stuff, enough to see the holy books for what they are... but not enough to convince those heavily indoctrinated as yourself... tough luck... try not to have children, ok?