[Coyoteman]

srweaver was not asking for that kind of specifics. The question he asked was quite reasonable. If you have some fossils from before the proto-mammal or proto-insect and some, or many, after, there should be some way of determining what characteristics it should have had, what it could have looked like.

How do you know that the specimens you and srweaver are seeking are not already known?

I don't know the answer, but it is possible that it is known to some reasonable certainty. Did either of you do a google, or did some creationist website pose the question?

(You should be very careful of the "science" you find on creationist websites. They do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want. That is not science!)

[Between the Lines]

You should be very careful of the "science" you find on creationist websites. They do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want. That is not science!

LOL, the same can be said of many evolutionists past and present.

[srweaver]

Perhaps you could do the google.

These are my own questions.

You say you are talking about science, and not religion. Perhaps we should talk about truth, and what is or is not truth. Jesus claimed to be the truth, and to speak the truth. If His statements contradict the statements of macroevolution theorists, then I would submit that at least one set of statements has to be wrong.

If evolutionists are wrong, they will change their theory. If Jesus is wrong, and the Bible is wrong, all sincere Christians will lost any absolute, objective authority for their faith.

Still unwilling to talk about the topic of truth?