The point of the answer is partly to indicate how silly the question is and partly to draw the questioner out. You can't answer the misconceptions underlying the question until you know what they are. And then you can explain that the evolutionary tree is very like a patrilineal (or matrilineal) family tree, with branches constantly splitting off.
Creationism is for the stupid, the ignorant, and the dishonest ?
quote: That's the first sign you think it's a good argument.
So a good argument is one that the ignorant keep using, despite the fact that it is easily seen to be nonsense.
A pretty clear admission that you don't care about the truth.
quote: That's the second sign you still think it's a good argument.
Because it is repeated by a lot of ignorant people who can't see how stupid it is... That's not what I would call a good argument (it's what I would call a very bad one, but then I'm an honest person interested in the truth - not someone who wants to fool the ignorant).
quote: That's you saying the evolutionists explanations are mind games they play with us.
No, it's him saying that he wants to lead the reader through an imaginative exercise. As anybody who reads the quote in context can easily see.
Well thanks for admitting that creationism is all about deceiving the ignorant. I think that you're the first creationist here to admit that.
If you want a complete record, I don't think that fossils are the way to go, for two reasons.
Firstly, we don't have any thing like a complete record of every species that ever lived. A large majority have left no fossils. Hard-shelled marine species are best, but I somehow don't see that as being very useful in convincing a creationist.
Secondly, species transitions often take place in small isolated populations over a geologically short period (likely around 1,000 years). And that is unlikely to show up in the fossil record at all.
So I think that you are better off showing that the argument is fundamentally mistaken.
There will always be more ignorant people. No answer will stop that.
And you need TWO branches, at least for your story to work. I think that that;s going to be tough, specially when you're dealing with people primed to reject the existence of transitional fossils, who will be looking hard for gaps.
Even if we find twice as many species as we currently know, we'll still be missing a good many. Don't forget that not only is fossilisation rare (very rare indeed in some environments, which is why we probably won't ever find much of chimpanzee ancestry), erosion may well have already destroyed the only remains of some species, especially the more ancient ones.
quote: Your suggestion that YECs are presuppositionalists interests me however. I suspect they are. And that they are not alone. Are you saying that scientists in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, geology and cosmology have found some epistemic foundation which involves no presuppositions?
The term "Presuppositionalist" does not refer to someone who merely has presuppositions, instead as suggested in the post that you reply to it refers to a distinct position on apologetics. The core of that position is that the existence of God cannot be adequately supported with evidence, but must be presupposed (by everyone - they have a horrendous mess of argument - and I do mean a mess).
While Presuppositionalists are very likely to cling to YEC belief, there is also a strong pseudoscientific strain within creationism that must be considered a branch if evidential apologetics, which Presuppositionalists reject.