"You can't make this ludicrously ignorant claim true by stamping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue." "Ludicrous? Ignorant? Personal insults will get you nothing but disrespect. On the contrary, you are the one "stamping feet" and "holding your breath". Please refer me to the "Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link." It simply doesn't exist, yet it should... based on the most basic evolutionary assumptions. And I repeat... this is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Surely you can't deny that evolution is still just a "theory" as is I.D. If you do, that will only prove you to be the "ignorant" one in this debate.
"When was the last time you saw a continent drift?"
1989 in SF. I lived there at the time. Scientist are still unsure of "why" the plates move and "exactly" how the process works. Yet they have a record of major movements going back thousands of years to help back up parts of their plate tech tonics theories.
Why are your "panties" all in a bunch anyway? All of my posts are based on fact. When you are mature enough to leave your emotions in check, I would be happy to debate you and enjoy further discussion of the subject. Until then, enjoy your narrow minded scientific "fantasy" world.
"Ludicrous? Ignorant? Personal insults will get you nothing but disrespect.
As will suggesting you actually try to understand the scientific evidence, or most anything else I might say, apparently.
"Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link."
Science does not pin it's hopes for evolutionary theory on "missing links". The fossil evidence is pursuasive because of the massively correlated morphological, micro-biological, and geographic continuity between the species that are examinable. In like manner, we trust in our theories of universal gravitation, even though we have absolutely no observed phenomenon to look at in the vast regions of intergalactic space. your problem is with inductive reasoning, and the vastly simplified comic book version you have in your head of what science actually says.
It simply doesn't exist, yet it should... based on the most basic evolutionary assumptions.
Even this overly simplistic analysis is not in sync with the actual evidence; you are massively ignorant of the real state of affairs here. "Missing Links" are particularly plentiful for our ancestors, since we are recent, and inherently interesting to us.
And I repeat... this is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Surely you can't deny that evolution is still just a "theory" as is I.D.
Indeed, it is "still just a theory", as is every other natural science theory. such as plate tectonics and gravity.
If you do, that will only prove you to be the "ignorant" one in this debate.
It's not that you're right. It's not that you're wrong. It's that you don't have the tools to engage in this debate.
Please refer me to the "Holy Grail" for evolutionists. You know... the "missing link." It simply doesn't exist, yet it should... That is really a silly argument. Creationists cite this as some kind of mantra even though there isn't a particle of truth to it. The simple fact is that there is a continuous evolutionary line from early hominids to man. At issue is only how finely resolved the fossil chain is. Creationists may argue that the fossil record isn't sufficiently fine structured, but one has to wonder whether they would only be satisfied if the fossil record were sufficiently resolved that it could include their personal family tree.
If you would like to learn a little about the fine structure of the fossil record, I refer you to the Ichneumon transitional post cited early in this thread. And no, I am not going to put it "in my own words"; it is pointless to retype the obvious. However, I will post one of Ichneumon's graphs, because I have found it particularly visual and graphic.
