[sawmill trash]

Very true, and that is my point.
For the religionist, only faith is required to believe that God created all that there is - but at the same time the religionist requires absolute proof of science. If there is any perceived crack in the proof, than they claim that science is wrong and religion is right.


I do believe that God created it all.

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

[sawmill trash]

But how do you come up with all that without either evidence of it or Faith ?

[PatrickHenry]

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

What might be found that you would regard as evidence of evolution?

[Dimensio]

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

Are you suggesting that evolution predicts that there will be creatures that aren't of any species at all?

[R. Scott]

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

“All the fossils that are scattered all over the world”?
There aren’t that many, but the ones that have been found do show a progression from type to type.

In the words of Stephen Jay Gould:
Every time a new fossil is found which fills in a gap in the sequence we have found a "missing link"--but one can always insist on more and more links. This is a variation on one of the Greek philosopher Xeno's paradoxes, who said that no matter how precisely you measure the position of an arrow in flight, between one point and another you can always imagine another intermediate point. Scientists don't use the term "missing link." This is a bit of biased vocabulary from the 19th century used by opponents of evolutionary theory who trusted that scientists would fail to find enough links in the chain of evidence to link us with our prehuman ancestors. In the sense that there can never be a wholly unbroken chain, they are right; but in the sense that we have lots more links now, and the evidence overwhelmingly favors the evolution of apes and hominids from a common ancestor, they have been outdated by science.

[R. Scott]

yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

Here’s a simpler explanation -
Suppose we have the fossils of an early hominid, species “X”. We have another, later species, “Z”. Another is discovered from the time period between them. It has half the features of “X” and half the features of “Z”.
Is neither species “X” or “Z”. It is a newly discovered species - “Y”.

[VadeRetro]

I just figure that with all the fossils that are scattered all over the world there would be some evidence of evolution if it were true, yet all that is ever found is species of one type or another.

Any fossil find will sooner or later be assigned to a species. That this happens does not change that many fossils form seemingly obvious (except to creationists) transitional sequences. Creationism builds its "science" upon not seeing, upon ignoring away the obvious. That's not really very useful.