I think it's fairly obvious that if the multitude of life forms morphed slowly over millions of years into different types that the fossils would show that in large numbers. Rather, the fossil record shows a multitude of complete life forms. Where are all of the slow transitions? Many scientists and even ones that used to believe toe know that they simply aren't there. I have an article of various museum directors that admit that also which I could send to you. I believe that the thousands of creation scientists are not prone to error and idiocy because my research and common sense verifies what they see. It really is pretty evident. I mean if you look at the incredible dna code that is more complex than a computer code and actually has a specific numbering system; it is amazing evidence for a designer. You would never say that your computer codes could have developed by themselves over millions of years. It seems like someone in your past pushed God on you or something bad like that so you are rejecting the evidence and your darkside is giving you bad science to try and back that up.
How do you distinguish a complete life form from a transitional?
Human beings have been bipedal for maybe 5 million years. We have knees and backs that are inadequately adapted for bipedalism. We have high rates of backache and scoliosis. Our arms are different from our legs, but not as different as other bipedals. We are truly a transitional form between a four legged beast and a truly bipedal species.
Where are all of the slow transitions?
There are series of fossils documenting the transition from fish to amphibian, the transition from land animal to whale... how many do you need?
I mean if you look at the incredible dna code that is more complex than a computer code and actually has a specific numbering system; it is amazing evidence for a designer.
I have no idea what you mean by a specific numbering system. Could you explain?
One of the biggest difference between computer codes and the genome is that Microsoft Windows XP does not come with viruses pre-installed. Should we conclude that Bill Gates is just a better programmer than God?
It is certainly a sobering thought to think that the security of our genomes is worsethan Microsoft's. And if we need patches (vaccines) we have to make them ourselves.
I would like to switch my genome to a Mac!
as to your claims:
1. Transitionals
You have yet to answer as to how you would be able to diferentiate between a transitional and a "fully formed" organism. I suspect you are wandering around under the usual creationist's burden of misconceptions as to what a transitional is. How about you answer a simple and specific question? Once (and: If) you do, I will be better able to see where the gaps in your understanding are, and will then be better able to determine what corrective course is required (or: possible).
2. Fossil record
Once again, the absurd demand for an architect to draw a record of a building to a level of resolution comprising the specific location of every molecule... I've rebutted this before, I shall not bother to do so again.
3. Museum directors
Cough it up. Give the URL. At least type in the title, author, publication, and publication date. Until you do, the article exists in your imagination alone as far as I am concerned.
4. "...because my research and common sense verifies what they see."
And what "research" would that be, fabian?
Be very specific, please.
5. DNA
Yeah, and? You make a "watchmaker" argument, which is an example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad incredulum. That may be your honest reaction, but "oh, wow, that seems awful complex" does not equate to a scientific counterargument against natural processes.
Moreover, as you brought it up, you may as well render your opinion of known transcription errors, viral insertions, inefficiency, and redundancy in this code you find so indicative of a designer. You might also wish to compare DNA to the way computer programs are now constructed using automated evolutionary algorhythms rather than deliberate designer encoding. (courtesy ping to the more knowledgeable).
Now...
Howzabout you simply answer the three specific questions I posted to you one full week ago?
In case they have eluded your notice, they were (and remain) as follows:
1. why do you believe that the fossil record "should" be as complete and comprehensive as you describe?
Please be specific in your answer, including a description of the mechanism of preservation and a rationale for its necessary prevalence in your notional model of history.
2. what makes you believe that a representative organism from a transitional species would be in any way an "incomplete" life form?
Please be specific, including the anatomic anomalies your model predicts as necessary for an "incomplete" life form, and how "incomplete" life forms can be decisively discerned from "complete" life forms.
3. what leads you to assume that (alleged) honesty and earnestness precludes idiocy and error?
Please be as thorough as you can in your answer.