MR: Again, when you write that paper and win a Nobel prize, I'll believe you, cause I'm open to actual evidence, of which you've demonstrated none. Without evidence, you just come off to me as a naive and gullible person repeating discredited propaganda... or a Russian shill, I'm not sure which. Evolutionary science is based on the same principles of research as any other science, and if you so distrust science, I suggest you quit using it. If churches forced people to choose between church and the benefits of science, the church certainly wouldn't last very long! We all know the benefits of science, and especially when someone's life is on the line, people may pray, but they sure as hell hedge their bets and go to the doctor, don't they!? I have a dear Christian friend who "doesn't believe in evolution" getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science. It's working.

Martin: Isn't it strange how you claim Evolution is science yet you cannot demonstrate it. Science is what is observed and demonstrated, repeatedly. Evolution doesn't fit that. And no, your friend is not "getting treatment right now with medicine based on evolutionary science", they are getting treatment based on real, experimental, empirical science. MR: Which is based on what we know about evolutionary science. It's why we use other animals in medical experiments, particularly animals with which we have a closer common evolutionary ancestor. Based on what we know about the evolution of cells and viruses. You don't have to accept it, I don't care, but scientists do. I trust the scientists who have cured me and my friend more than I do some anonymous science-denying internet dude. When you give up the benefits of science, that's when I'll believe that you take your own arguments seriously. Martin: One of the fallacies of medicinal experiments is that you can test satisfactorily on different organisms. It leads to errors in the design of medicines. Nether cells nor viruses evolve, although they very within their range. MR: Says the non-scientist who hasn't provided a shred of evidence for his view. Scientists are well aware of their limitations. Nor does everything need to be recreated in the lab to come to a conclusion. Forensic scientists don't need to recreate a murder in order to solve a crime. I don't have to know what every little gadget in my car does to understand the basics of how a car works. The same for evolution. Every time I travel to another part of the world, I read up on the geology of the place, the fossils, its ancient past and compare it to what I've learned. It's always consistent. Every time I travel, the evidence supports science. You've not given me one reason to believe your view. Unsupported assertions mean nothing. Until you write the paper that overturns the scientific consensus, I think we can safely ignore your opinion. Just because you have heartburn about evolution doesn't change a thing. All of your "Answers in Genesis-style" talking points have long been debunked. Even religious institutions are understanding that you can't keep asking people to check their brains at the door of the church, and have come around to the evidence of evolution. Fortunately, science and scientists keep on doing their thing without regard to your willful ignorance. Tell me again how scientists are wrong. You can tell me any lie you want. Until you provide actual evidence they're wrong, we can safely dismiss your protestations. I eagerly await your Nobel prize winning paper.

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution, not merely missed out a little. My evidence is the Bible. That fossils match the strata they're in is no surprise, for the strata are defined by the fossils. Consensus is destructive of science, it was scientific consensus that Galileo had to battle against. The evidence of the rocks and fossils is entirely consistent with the Genesis Flood narrative, scientifically. No, the evidence and interpretations from Creationist organisations hasn't been debunked. In the main they've been ignored.It isn't a case of not using your brains, rather it's a case of actually using your brains and looking at the evidence. Exactly the same evidence you claim for Evolution supports the Genesis Flood much better. MR: Science has provided a mountain of evidence for evolution. You've provided none. The Bible isn't evidence any more than the Vedas are evidence for a Hindu version of the universe. Creationists haven't provided any evidence, even gave up providing evidence. If they had evidence, then they'd have convinced scientists. They haven't. They just keep asserting nonsense, like you keep asserting nonsense. I'm to believe some anonymous internet dude over people who dedicate their lives making this world a better place? Wait..., have you written that paper yet? No? Oh, well, then a shout out to Frances H. Arnold, George Smith, and Sir Gregory Winter in today's news for winning the Nobel Prize for their "pioneering work in evolutionary science." Thanks for continuing to provide us with evidence for evolution. Great job!

Martin: You have provided no evidence for Evolution. What you need to do is provide a demonstration of the descent of all life from the LUCA. Anything else is just interpretation. I await your demonstration. Creationist have provided plenty of evidence, there are papers that examine and refute the claims of Evolution. The reason many scientists will not be convinced is because then they'd have to admit there is a Creator.