What we have going on here right now is this:

"I'm right because I said so."

"No, I'm right because I said so."

Maybe I shouldn't have been so vague because that post didn't lead us anywhere. But it really is getting beyond the point of the argument. Unless we establish if evolution is even possible in the first place, we're just going to keep going back and forth like this. Yeah, I made a few stabs at evolution, but it really doesn't need to be argued.

However, one thing that does need to be argued is this:

Quote:

---

Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.

---

Interpreting fossils isn't evolution. That would be forensics. But I get what you're saying. However, seeing evolution in the fossil record is just one viewpoint, that doesn't mean its right. We've also interpreted a lot of things into fossils that we later found out were false outright, so you're not dealing with an exact science in these fossils. But this is another bunny trail. We're not going to solve anything by worrying about this.

Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.