You either have a solid scientific basis for your beliefs, or you accept them on faith. I called your bluff, and you folded.In fact, I didn't "fold" at all, but proved that, contrary to creationists' pretensions, evolution is science, not faith. It is you who chose to deliberately ignore the citations to the science references that I gave you. This is precisely how creationists, like you, prove that you are religious dogmatists ignoring science.
What’s so painful about admitting you have faith in Darwin? I’m not ashamed about that in which I have faith.
Do you want me to recap the basics, such as the ‘law of original horizonality’ - all layers were originally horizontal, no matter how they now appear. (Of course, then you learn the exception, so the rule becomes, ‘all layers were originally horizontal, except when they weren’t’.
Or what about the rule that younger strata are always on top of older strata, and if that causes difficulty, obviously the layers have been turned upside down by earth movement. (And guess what - the ones that haven’t been turned over are the ones that were discovered first - newer discoveries should be explained away whenever possible so that the older theories can remain intact.)
Dealing with animals, it used to be accepted by scientists that the Okapi was the missing link between horse and giraffe, or that the Coelacanth was a missing link - now both discredited, but at one time accepted as articles of faith. And, of course, scientists knew that the Duckbill Platypus was a fake.
So again, when you can show me the physical existence of the current ‘missing links’ I might acknowledge that something other than faith underlies your belief system.