Well I have two particular comments on that above paragraph:
Science allows questions within narrow rules. For instance question evolution and you get what we have going on now. There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact. The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal. In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.
Oh, very clever. He uses the term "adapted" instead of "mutated," thereby making it seem as though evolution posits that every mutation is an advantageous adaptation to the environment. In reality, what he's describing is a disadvantageous mutation that occurs in certain members of a species and then those members die off. The current mechanism of natural selection, however, does not allow for a disadvantageous mutation to spread throughout a population. Though as I understand it, there is debate going on as to whether natural selection is the only driving mechanism behind evolution.
But a transitional species going extinct is not disallowed by natural selection. In fact, that's the whole point of being a transitional species. Transitional species serve as stepping stones.
As for reptiles evolving into humans ... whatever. I'd love to see some sort of source on that. Chances are he's referencing some ridiculous fringe science publication.
and another one...
In other words evolution interprets what it sees through a preconceived idea of what it wants to see.
I find that statement incredibly ironic.
There are fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans but since there is no real evidence of this being true evolution is taught as a disprovable theoretical fact.
Evolution is falsifiable. If a modern mammal were to be found in a strata dated at 65 million years ago, that would put current theories into question, for instance. Fossils are "real" evidence. And what are these "fossils that seem to indicate reptiles evolving into humans"? Care to provide them for peer review and analysis?
Anyway, evolution has been observed under controlled conditions. It is no longer simply a descriptive theory, much less a mere hypothesis.
The fossils looked on as transitional could in fact be animals that "adapted" and then went extinct because the "adaption" was in fact fatal
All forms are transitional. Anyway, this person claims that it is conceivable that animals adapt, yet he also says that it is just as plausible to claim that those fossils he sees as transitionals are really dead ends and then decrys the lack of transtionals? LOL![/quote]