Darwin himself stated in Origin of the Species that if the fossil record did not prove the biological links asserted in his theory, the whole would not stand. After these many years and these millions of fossils found, labeled, recorded, and categorized, the links are not there. A Darwinist Believer may claim, "We are VERY CLOSE to finding them!" Close may be good enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and government work, but that is not how Science operates...at least, it ought not operate that way.
Do you ever get tired of parroting the same things over and over again?
We've found plenty of links, I'm not really worried on that account.
Even with bolding, this evaded my notice amid all the brew-hee-hee.
Let's examine your follow-up on this thought.
A Darwinist Believer may claim, "We are VERY CLOSE to finding them!" Close may be good enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, and government work, but that is not how Science operates...at least, it ought not operate that way.
You are definitely saying that scientists are scratching their heads wondering where all the transitionals predicted by Darwin might be. That should clearly preclude the conversation following this kind of template. You are ABSOLUTELY NOT saying, "Yes, science THINKS it has the transitionals but it is wrong." You are saying, "Science DOES NOT THINK IT HAS THEM and is--however belatedly--wondering why not."
Remember that. One more time: In one version, the statement in your post, science knows it does not have the transitionals. Thus, you're not going to change your story to one in which it does think it has them but you personally know it doesn't really.
So, the only question before us is whether science itself thinks it has found Darwin's transitionals over the last 150 or so years. Here's a sample of why I say it does and it has.