I have to stop posting in a few moments, but will try to answer quickly. My problem with the idea that transitional fossils have been found (they haven’t), is that one must ASSUME a great many things to arrive at the conclusions that are the basis of evolution. One must ASSUME, for example, that because two species look similar in some ways that they MUST have a common ancestor - not because fossils have actually been found to support that, but because certain scientists have a decidedly vested interest (and I would say a very un-scientific one) in making sure their conclusions are “proven”. Perhaps this is why they have been so eager to embrace every hoax find out there. The famed “Lucie” wasn’t even found intact, but was found over quite a bit of ground, but hey, it must be all one skeleton - right?? Evolutionists, in rejecting the concept of an intelligent creator, have to begin with the BIG BANG - which turns every proven scientific theory (”proven” being the operative word here)on its head. There was nothing, then - boom! Spontaneous life - which - PRESTO - turns into something else and adapts over time (but we really don’t have any fossils to PROVE this definitively). And they say Christian creationists must have to have a lot of faith for their belief.... WHEW!!
Evolutionists? You mean cosmologists and those other astronomy folks. Most of the folks who study evolution have no clue about those fields of science.
Or are you being a "lumper" rather than a "splitter" and using this well-known creationist definition:
“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them. Source
I don’t understand why you answered my simple question with all that stuff about hoaxes and the Big Bang. You assert, quite strongly, that transitional fossils have not been found. All I’m asking is how we’ll know a transitional fossil if we find one. How can you deny they exist if you can’t even say what one is?