[atlaw]

"Also, I thought someone said earlier...have to look back...that there was not enough fossil evidence (I know I said it). Are we going to get some conjecture here, or is it all about the evidence?"

What amount of fossil evidence will suffice for you? You have been presented with reams of evidence demonstrating transitional forms in the fossil record, and you say it is simply not enough. Yet simple earthquakes are sufficient to convince you of continental drift. As you stated in a prior post:

“Can we not measure movement along the fault lines?Isn't it continual? I have been ON the san andreas fault. I have been in earthquakes.
Oh, I get it, I believe that, so I should just believe your inferences (however weak and unobservable they are) about evolution. Two completely different subjects, one observable and one not. One tangible, and one not. One backed up by "science" and one not.”

With this scant evidence, you are perfectly willing to infer the movement of entire continents. Yet with considerably more evidence, you are unwilling to infer evolution.

You seem to be stuck in the “bible worship” mode of so many here. I simply do not believe that God can, or should, be shoe-horned into a book. It is a hubristic underestimation of God to assume that the bible constitutes the sole and immutable vehicle by which He has spoken. His creation speaks volumes. Yes, we are just beginning to understand the universe He created. And I agree that evolution as a theory is effectively in its infancy, with enormous amounts of information yet to be learned. But to simply deny that the theory has any merit whatsoever is to utterly ignore the faculties that God gave you, and to effectively label God a two-bit huckster for planting all that deceiving evidence. I think you’re alot smarter than that.