Summations Only

It is hubris that causes humans to believe that reality must conform to their beliefs.

You do appear to be easily fooled by creationist websites.

That would be engineering, not science.Do you know what the scientific method is? Can you describe it? I already gave you a list of my posts where the theory of evolution was applied and proved to be useful. You can't even reply to them.Also, you know nothing of what I do. I think you would be a bit embarrassed if you realized how much science I do apply in my work. Said by someone who knows nothing about biology.

Your claim is disproved in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 in this thread alone.

This is rich. Creationists refuse to even look at a single fossil. The last thing they want to do is produce an honest definition for "transitional fossil" because they know the moment they do they will be presented with fossil after fossil that fits that definition.

Perhaps you are ignoring the mixture of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features found in the fossil itself, outside of any artistic reconstruction of the species. This is the part creationists always seem to ignore.You don't need a whole, perfectly preserved fossil in order to determine that a fossil species had a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Take Lucy for example. Looking at just the bones in the actual fossil you can find an apelike jaw, upper torso, brow ridge, and other apelike features. You can also find humanlike features such as a broad and squat pelvis and inward angled femurs (adaptations for bipedalism).Like almost everything in science, creationists have to run away from the observations.

Then ignore the depiction. Why are you so afraid to address the bones they did find?The truth of the matter is that Lucy has a mixture of ape-like and human-like features, the very definition of a transitional fossil.

Which of these is Piltdown man or Nebraska man?

Yet more dishonesty from creationists. Lucy's pelvis and femur were human-like, not ape-like.

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdfThat is a quote from a devout Christian and famous scientist. I would suggest that creationists give that article a read because it feeds right into this thread. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash that preserved the footprints.40Ar/39Ar Dating of Laetoli, Tanzania | SpringerLink

I will take that as a tacit admission that those fossils are transitional.

Given your sudden attempts to change the subject, I will also take this as a tacit admission that you accept Lucy as a transitional fossil.

Go to posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Try to explain those same observations without using evolution.The whole point is that you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution. This point is further supported by your inability to even address those posts, much less explain them.

Given your pathetic attempts to dismiss radiometric dating, we will conclude that you have nothing to counter the dates given in the peer reviewed literature.