[PatrickHenry]

Until you can tell me how Darwinism can be falsified

The fossil record could falsify evolution, if it fails to show that species developed in the expected sequence. But this never happens. DNA could have falsified evolution, by showing no genetic relationship as expected from the fossil record. But DNA confirms evolution. Evolution passes every possible test that comes along. If you want to see a tiny bit of the evidence that exists:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.

[Vive ut Vivas]

But DNA confirms evolution.

This is the part that I see ID advocates forget all the time. They go on and on about the fossil record - which supports the theory - but even if it didn't, DNA is like a track-record of evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, man! Those Ichneumon posts!

It's time for a stunning prediction. The "no fossil record/transitional forms" dialogue has this sequence.

1. Tap-Dancing Science-Denier declares that the fossil record lacks instances of things changing in an orderly series from some Thing A to Thing Z. As this kind of evidence is to be expected, the lack of it must weigh against evolution having happened. By the very statement of this objection we are invited to believe the Tap-Dancing Science-Denier would accept such evidence IF ONLY IT EXISTED but the thing is it doesn't exist.
2. Someone who disagrees demonstrates many instances well known in the literature of fossil series intermediate in form and time between some Thing A and some Thing Z.
3. The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?

But wait a minute! Wasn't fossil series evidence relevant when it was supposedly missing? There's only one other possibility, and that's the chirping of crickets into the night.

[Timmy]

Yawn. Same old garbage. Dinosaurs to birds, eh? Would you say this is a proven and accepted "proof" of evolution? Well, of course it is, except for the legions of just-as-zealous-evolutionary-scientists who don't believe it. Look. If Darwinism were true, you wouldn't have to reach into your bag of tricks with these highly disputed theories and maybe-it-happened-this-way scenarios.

There is a reason so many very intelligent people don't believe in evolution. It's that the evidence is so weak. Period. You and VadeRetro and others like to flatter yourselves and think of those who disagree with you as idiots. In this, you are no better than Hillary Clinton or Charles Shumer. Wouldn't we all enjoy this discussions more if we had a little respect for one another? But, like expecting reason from Cindy Sheehan, that is too much to hope for from the pro-evos on this board.

BTW, Dawkins "proves" evolution by saying, "Suppose you had . . ." I s'pose Kipling would qualify as a great evolutionist if that is what's acceptable.