All species are transitional

It is a death blow. I am currently writing a paper that will prove how. When it is up I will post the link. IOW, an assertion of incompleteness somehow negates the actual evidence = the absurdity of Darwinism parading as science. Why can't you be loyal to the evidence and accept the verdict of the strata ? Answer: because of an a priori agenda that has decided evolution must be true regardless because Genesis is not an option = atheist philosophy operating under the protective disguise of "neutral objective science". Does this sweetheart standard apply to Palestine and Sinai and Egypt when the Bible is the focus ?Obvious double standard.But the three locations mentioned above corroborate the Bible when we ignore minimalist dating and groundless Egyptian chronology. A necessary conclusion based on the hindsight of the fossil record showing no intermediacy. You only reached your conclusion by including it in the premise.Reality remains: no evidence of connection and relationship between the species exist. Macroevolution is assumed based on the needs of the anti-Genesis worldviews.The fossil record is the ultimate time lapse photographic event. It is not sentient deliberately concealing the crucial evidence your theory rides upon. Logically, the lack of this evidence means your theory is falsified. The fact that your theory is thriving exhibits the power of faith.Ray

Untold hundreds upon hundreds of thousands species have come and gone and geologic formations failed to capture any of them transitioning ?We know Darwin grudgingly admitted - over a hundred years later Gould confirms while offering an excuse as to why. Richard Milton says the world has been searched thoroughly with well-funded expeditions and zip.We have the horse sequence and if I were to actually post the amount of evidence a non-prejudicial observer would have to conclude the evidence has been grossly exaggerated - plus the fact that there is no actual evidence connecting the species.Why don't you describe the patterns your last phrase is talking about ? What makes a person even think in the first place such a thing as a transitional fossil may exist ?The intermediacy claim is made by Darwinists and they admit the formations show none. Whatever intermediacy is - it is the ***reason for being*** evidence that supposedly justifies the existence of your theory.In hindsight Darwinists have been forced to admit the prediction of Darwin did not come to pass. This conspicuous fact is now eviscerated of any falsification meaning by the only option left - assert all species are intermediate, and by doing so we are back to square one: macroevolution still assumed because there is no actual evidence connecting the species showing relationship between them.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-19-2005 03:25 PM

We are incessantly lectured by Darwinians that the main evidence for evolution is observation.Now that Darwinians have been forced to accept face value observation reflects design the aforementioned is a "mirage" or as Dawkins puts it an "illusion". This is concluding for the starting assumption despite the evidence. When the age of the Earth is at issue face value observation says old and YEC's utilize "illusion".Resorting to illusion/mirage is introducing non-scientific excuses to keep theories alive. This is nonsense on its face and Eastern mysticism. IOW, you are describing complexity: the now known indicator that a Designer was involved. The inability of our brightest minds to figure this out shows there is a behind the scenes super-intelligence and not some man-made substitute called Natural Selection.NS is an admission that something has to be running the system so atheists re-name God - Natural Selection. I also observe the inability of Darwinians to produce one universal and coherent definition of NS is because nature is SO complex and the Designer has confused your ranks.Ray

Your thought experiment is the theory of evolution/macroevolution. We are still back to square one: no commensurate evidence for the extraordinary claim exists. This is a hindsight explanation accepting the lack of transitionals. The lack of transitionals, logically, means the/your theory is not true but because special/sudden creation looms in the backround your explanation MUST be true. Only problem is explanations do not qualify as evidence. You have a beautiful mind that matches your face; we could get busy - email me.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 10-23-2005 02:25 PM