[metmom:] And the best they can do is say that the fossil record supports the ToE. [Ichneumon:] This is a lie, and you *know* it's a lie -- you've been shown links to the vast amount of data from multiple independently cross-confirming other lines of evidence as well, such as the overwhelming molecular data (DNA and otherwise). The fossil record is just the *tip* of the huge iceberg of evidence for evolution. Please explain why you're purposely lying like that.
[metmom:] So the fossil record doesn't support evolution after all? Then what is meant by "evidence" for evolution? Isn't evidence used to support something?
Is your reading comprehension really that bad, or are you just being coy in order to annoy?
No, I didn't say that the fossil record *doesn't* support evolution -- it most certainly does.
What I objected to was the way that you said that pointing to the fossil record is "the best we can do", as if there's no other (or no better) evidence. The point of my reply is that contrary to your false implication, there's *vastly* more to the evidence for evolution than just the fossil record, and indeed the DNA evidence is even *more* overwhelming and compelling than even the very strong fossil evidence.
MetMom,
I have went to the links also. And in both the fossils and the DNA, whether one sees evolution is in the interpretation. This is not meant as a diss to science.
Interpretation is not reality.
Remember, here is how it works. Evolution is already decided to be fact by the evos (even though to be pc they must call it a theory) but how it happened is all theory, or a conglomeration of contemporary fad theories. So evolution happened, but all theories are unproven, and the glacier of evidence in the theories makes evolution as much a fact as the theory of gravity.
This is a wonderfully elegant solution that always returns back an evolution answer
Wolf