This probably isn't necessary, but I have a little more time now, and can address a few specific claims in more detail.

I think your statement 'Dawkins for the most part says he's not going to cover the details' is disingenuous, because it implies that Dawkins' book as a whole does not provide a detailed case for evolution (in contrast to what the poster in another thread said).

Dawkins does say he's not going to cover the details, but he's referring specifically to whale evolution, which he says is better covered in books such as Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. He is not talking about his book as a whole, which I found detailed and well-argued.

When Pakicetus skull bones were originally found, they were recognized as belonging to a whale ancestor because of features of the inner ear found only in Cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus). The subsequent pictures of it as a crocodile-like creature are just that, pictures. They are artists' representations. I doubt serious scientific conclusions are drawn from them. I don't know much about paleontology, but the bones themselves seem to provide a surprising amount of information.

For instance, in 2009, 8 years after the more complete skeleton was discovered, it was argued that Pakicetus had semi-aquatic features. The orbital bones suggest the eyes were close together on top of the skull, like a crocodile. The limb bones are heavy to provide ballast, just as those of whales are.

But, even if Pakicetus were purely land-bound, this would not stop it being an ancestor of whales. The ancestors of whales were land-bound - isn't that what evolutionists are trying to say?

I don't think you fully understand what 'vestigial' means. A vestigial structure is one which has completely or partially lost its original function. In a land mammal, hind legs would obviously have been used for walking. Since Basilosaurus' hind limbs were too small to be used for this function, they may have been used in a reduced capacity as reproductive claspers. Evolutionists do not claim that vestigial structures should have no function at all.

ahahaha, and Festering idiot vanishes.

Oh, believe me, I have a lot more to say, and I'm not going anywhere.

we're waiting FI

He's gonna read up a bit more on creation.com propaganda website and then come back..

I believe the OP was directed at me. Was going to write an answer but Funology beat me to it. When I pointed out the fossil record regarding whales it was not as if that is the only evidence for evolution. However if you accept micro evolution but not macro evolution then those fossils are pretty hard to explain.

BTW, LOL imo, ldo.

This is what every thread he's in looks like. He posts some cut and paste and makes some questionable claims. People ask questions/request proof... he ignores. People counter his evidence, he ignores and/or starts name calling.

Eventually thread gets locked.

He starts new thread and the same pattern emerges.

He's quickly become at the top of the list of worst contributors to the forum.

Yeah, anyone that has the ability to knock Splenda off that perch is a hell of a talent.

By talent, of course, I mean A-hole

I have noticed that there has been a slight increase in those type of theists. Obnoxious hit and runners.

You have to admit, RGT is shamelessly easy to troll.

It is, looks like mods have abandoned this place..

truth

Actually the pattern is, I post some stuff, and Kurto comes in and
posts some slander and lies about me repeatedly.

Show where in this thread I posted a cut/paste, and made questionable
claims. When you're done looking you can come back and apologize and
admit you're a liar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=164JK6tTzZY

Start at 5:55 and listen well IMO.

Hey FesteringIdiot

We're waiting

+1

But you're clearly not denying that you hit and run, right? Because I can post all the times you were asked to answer a question more than once and you completely avoided doing so. I guess it's hard to be so wrong so often in this forum -- too many hard, probing questions, right?

Just to be clear festeringZit, you will not be debating me over the scientific evidence for macroevolution for $500?

I issued a counter-challenge, you can accept or reject.

I just want to be clear that you have no faith in yourself or your intellect or you ability to debate what you believe, but you DO have faith that god exists, Christianity is the right religion, and that there is no scientific evidence for macroevolution.

Just to be clear, k bro?

OP, I am waiting to hear your counter-response to Funology's posts. Since he spent the time to carefully and respectfully address every one of your points in detail, I think you owe him the same, no?

ITT a zit gets popped.

LOL Maybe you can give him better odds by hosting your debate in front of the Texas school book selection committee.
(I would still bet against him tho!)

I do believe that the Atheist Kool-aid is a lot less harmful than some religious brands...

We make ours with splenda