Darwinist evolution lacks such evidence and has been called pseudo science in the scientific community - it is anything but “settled.”
Hence, I call Darwinism a \'fake.'"
Whatever are you talking about?
In the past 150+ years of field work, thousands of species of fossil-critters were dug up, studied, dated & classified.
Sure, it's estimated these fossils represent less than 1% of all species which ever lived (hence the "missing links"), but still they add up to an impressive catalog of ancestors in every major biological classification -- phylum, class, order & even many families.
To cite just one example, the number of fossilized ancient horse species is already hundreds, and growing every year as new fossils are found.
So for you to claim no such evidence exists is simply a massive exercise is eyes-closed hand-waving.
The evidence is everywhere!
PapaNew: "The most glaring and relevant example of the lack of for Darwinism is man and the “missing link” (AKA missing evidence of transference) of monkey becoming man.
There have been many hoaxes forwarded by Darwinists claiming to have found this “missing link”, including the so-called “Javaman” and Neanderthal Man”.
Hence, I call Darwinism a “phony”."
Yes, there are occasional honest mistakes, but very few real "hoaxes", and none -- not one -- in recent decades.
So-called Piltdown Man, a hoax perpetrated 100 years ago, was exposed as a hoax 50 years ago, remains the best known.
Neither Javaman nor Neanderthals are considered in any way fraudulent, though interpretations of the fossil data have changed over the years.
Javaman is today considered just one of dozens of early homo-erectus bone finds, and Neanderthals, of which there are many hundreds of bones recovered, are today considered our own fourth or fifth "cousins".
So, how many times do I have to post this particular photo before its point begins to sink in?
Do you have a problem with it?
PapaNew: "Darwin himself, who began as a church-going Christin, died not having reconciled grave doubts about the unexplained but critical holes in his theory like these “missing links” (or lack of evidence of “transference”)."
Again, in Darwin's time (died 1882) just a few dozen fossil species had been found, so naturally many "missing links".
Today many thousands of fossil species have been found, analyzed, dated & classified, such that the catalog of ancestors includes "links" from every major biological classification -- i.e., phylum, class, order...
Still, it's estimated the total number of fossils found represent fewer than 1% of all the species which ever lived.
But more are found every year, and so more "links".
PapaNew: "True science and the Bible are friends."
Not according to most Creationists posting on Free Republic.
Most insist that natural-science is not real science, and that their own religious beliefs are somehow "scientific".
Ridiculous!
PapaNew: "Since you don’t seem to argue against the tonnage of prima facie evidence for Intelligent Design, I can only guess that your argument is that God created man from the dust through evolution from primordial goo and put in all the necessary coding in that primordial goo to evolve into the different animal groups and man."
Well.... my religious beliefs go by a specific name: "theistic evolutions" and stated simply, it means: whatever truths about the natural world science can discover or theorize, those describe the way God created and intended it.
We don't argue against science, even when, as it happens, science sometimes changes its mind, discarding one theory in favor of a new one -- we see no religious implications in any particular theory, and no theological harm when old theories get replaced by better ones.
What we insist on is: no "random chance", no "accidents", no "coincidences", everything is God's plan, God's reasons, God's actions and God's purposes.
So the Universe is not a cold unfeeling place, hostile to insignificant specks like ourselves.
Instead, it is a house carefully prepared for us to live and grow in.
And if evolution was one of God's tools of creation, then so be it -- God bless evolution.
PapaNew: "That is not Darwinism per se, but again, if that is your interpretation of creation, it lacks any, much less a preponderance, of physical evidence of the critical 'links'."
First of all, every individual fossil is a "link" between its ancestors and its descendants, if any.
So every fossil can be classified and has a place on the evolutionary "tree of life".
And today's catalog of such fossils is orders of magnitude more complete than it was back in the day of Charles Darwin.
So your conclusions here are very, very wrong, FRiend.
PapaNew: "The Bible says God made everything, including man, by the Word (John 1:3), which he spoke when he said... "
Sure, but here you are only talking about God's plan and purposes, not the natural science of how He did it.
And, believe it or not, the Bible does tell us intriguing hints of how He did it.
First of all, the Bible clearly tells us that He didn't just issue orders for things to magically appear, but rather that He worked hard at it, because after six long days he rested.
And it says something about His work: He created (heaven, Earth, every living thing), He separated (light from darkness), He made (the vault of Heaven, solar system & stars, all animals), He placed or set (celestial bodies in their positions), He blessed (all living things), He formed (man) and finally, He finished the work He had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all His work.
But that's not all the Bible says, it also tells us that God "formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
Here's the point: God went about constructing the Universe in the same way that you or I would construct a new home -- metaphorically cleared the land, dug the foundation, placed the footers, etc., etc.
Like us, God worked hard, and then took a well deserved rest.
It wasn't all magic, most of it was just plain hard work!
And, He created us from the "dust of the ground", so as far as I'm concerned, God is the first Darwinist!
Sadly, Charles Darwin was a rather poor image of his creator...
PapaNew: "All of this is Bible evidence that God created man in a way that we today would call a miracle..."
Sure, but the Bible does not preclude natural explanations for some of what He did, including evolution.
PapaNew: "So, again, there is scant physical or biblical evidence that God created man to evolve from goo through monkeys to man.
The fact that we really don’t know how God made man from the dust through his Word, doesn’t validate our attempts to fill in the gaps with our own explanations outside of sufficient evidence before us."
What you here call "scant... evidence" is, in fact, literal mountains of fossil evidence and millions of species DNA analyses, all, without exception, confirming a "tree of life" pointing back to common ancestors many millions, even billions, of years ago.
Basic evolution theory (descent with modifications and natural selection) is confirmed daily by scientists working in the field, and has never been seriously falsified -- not once.
So, in terms of scientific ideas, that is just about as close to "settled" as it ever gets.
PapaNew: "the Bible easily accommodates geological and fossil evidence of countless ages gone by that in no way contradicts the creation by his Word.
The fossil record does not interfere with the Bible record of creation."
Agreed.