Can you please point out where I back tracked? I can't seem to find it. Are you saying that what you posted proves that these skulls(of apes, monkeys, early liberals or whatever) positively evolved into homo sapiens? If that is true, I did not get the memo on the discovery of the missing link! If I accept that they did evolve into current day man, that is fine but where is the evidence that they started out as single cell beings and evolved into homo erectus eragaster? What about the "explosion" of life during the Cambrian period? They seem to have "appeared" rather suddenly, geologically speaking. Nice subject switch! About a 7.
As far as backtracking, I explained this in my post #72:
You stated that there was no evidence in the fossil record, so I provided you with evidence. Now you attack my education (the nuns will get you!), and deny what I posted is "proof." (Check back toward the beginning of the thread and see the definitions I posted for "theory" and its use in science.)
So first you claimed there was no evidence in the fossil record, and I showed you evidence.
Now, in this post you discuss the fossil record briefly, then switch to single cell beings and the Cambrian "explosion." That's the subject switch; its nice, but only a 7 or so.
What I am saying is that there is evidence in the fossil record. Those who have studied it agree that it is pretty pursuasive. (I am somewhat familiar with it because I did half of my six years in grad school in fossil man and evolution and closely related subjects.)
The evidence suggests (but, like all of science, cannot "prove") that Homo erectus ergaster or H. ergaster (taxonomists disagree) is transitional between earlier, more ape-like species and later, more human species. See the chart below.
Now, you may not agree with the evidence, or scientists' interpretations of it, but your initial challenge, that there was no evidence in the fossil record, has been effectively rebutted. BUSTED! (Sorry, I've been watching Mythbusters too much.)
As far as a delay for a baseball game? Good for you. Fresh air and fine American entertainment is always in order.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Your initial resposne was addressing my question as to whether evolution should be taught as theory or as fact. What I should have said was there is not as much evidence supporting evolution as the theory itself suggests should be present. Point taken. If the theory inherently implies that there should be larger amounts of evidence in the fossil record and there is not, then the theory is, at best, severely flawed.
As for the game, it was flawed as well. Took my son to see Roger Clemens return to the Astros and they lost 4-2.
Re 240:
So first you claimed there was no evidence in the fossil record, and I showed you evidence. Evidence? Schmevidence. Just what the hell do you think you are doing with this evidence?
If faith can remove mountains and make all men blind, it is unlikely that puny 'evidence' is going to shake anyone from the deep worry that they might be mortal and not gain everlastingness.
Fear is a much greater motivator than evidence.
All of my E.coli are somewhat inclined toward the geological record--after careful training--so I feel confident in saying, "We thank you."