of course the fossil record would show the slow developement of one life form into another over the millions of years that toe calls for. Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional. Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable. If it were convincing, no reputable scientist would see it as false. And so many do...not just peons like me.
Not just unconvincing, but unfalsifiable. Any and every biological entity known to man could be crammed into a supposed evolutionary tree, with no way to test whether the connections have any basis in history.
It is the development of populations, not just one lifeform. And none of the lifeforms will have half a body.
Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional.
I still don't know what you expect a transitional to look like. If you think "transitional" means half mammal, half lizard, you are mistaken.
Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable.
What "mounting evidence"?
"of course the fossil record would show the slow developement of one life form into another over the millions of years that toe calls for. Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional. Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable. If it were convincing, no reputable scientist would see it as false. And so many do...not just peons like me."
I just gave you multiple links showing transitional fossils. It's not very impressive that you raise the same claim after it's been refuted. What "mounting" evidence for ID or Creationism? IC or CSI? Falsified.
From a previous post,
"Is ID or Creationism:
A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?
The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease. (BTW, evolution does not meet this criteria. Any life form found today can be crammed into the imaginary tree, or lawn, of common descent.)
B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?
Inasmuch as science is subjective and does not attain to a full understanding of how things work there will always be modifications involving interpretive and expressive elements, just as the work of intelligent design itself is subject to change, sometimes even in mid course.
C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?
The word "natural" is not scientific, but arbitrary. Unless you can answer on what basis science determines what is natural and what is not, the word is scientifically meaningless. It certainly does not apply to intelligent design, since intelligent design is an observable phenomena and has been since the dawn of science itself.
D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?
It attributes the organization of matter performing specific functions to a most likely cause: intelligent design. Moreover, the inclination is to assume a single intelligent designer for the sake of simplicity.
E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.
Intelligent design predicts we will find organized matter performing specific functions, whether it extends to the fossil record or matter as yet unknown by science.
F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?
Intelligent design recognizes the dynamic processes that take place as result of the implementation of a well-designed machine. As such, it expects to find change within a limited scope.
G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?"
If they aren't all of the above, then neither ID nor Creationism are scientific theories.