OOPS, you *must* be engaging in a straw man attack, because no one in this thread has dismissed the article just for coming from a creationist website. And in order to make your disingenuous screed, you've had to pretend that many people haven't addressed the actual contents of the article, when indeed they have.
Perhaps you'd care to discuss things next time instead of sling unfounded slurs.
Oh have you researched the evolutionist movement much? It always comes down to that. Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution. Like I said, we cut to the chase.
All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means. It comes down to a choice - the stuff is preexistent and impersonal, which leaves you with the question of how life and intellect and morality arose from it (since spontaneous generation has been disproven... or are we to suggest that we need to reexamine that theory?). OR there is a transcendent power which brought it into existence. Once you have decided for one or the other, you will by faith (be you creationist or evolutionist) fit everything to support that one presupposition. The thing is, the creationist's puzzle pieces fit much better and leave less room for faith than do the evos. Yet they insist the opposite. How can there be any meeting of minds when one party insists black is white and white is black?
Gasp! Who, me? Never!