I'm still waiting for the "evidence" for your claims that man evolved from some lower life form. A picture of a series of skulls didn't impress me in college, and they still don't impress me. I don't understand why you are so ready to accept common decent when the fossil record is sooooo incomplete when it comes to providing those "transitional" fossils that would clearly indicate a progression of skelatal changes which must be there somewhere if common decent is true.
Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!
IOW, you will keep moving the goal posts.
Is my mind made up? No. Has the evidence been presented as requested? NO!
There is no amount of evidence to "prove" what you are trying to prove. And that has never been a requirement.
You do know that the Atomic Bomb was built based almost completely on theory and inference. Before the first one went off, there was a lot of conjecture on what could happen (up to and including cataclysm).
With your kind of thinking it never would have been built.
You:When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.
Me:Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.
If you really have an open mind, you could and would provide what I am reasonably requesting. You state you require specific evidence to convince you, and that nothing presented to date is sufficient, yet you will not describe, in any detail at all much less detail sufficient to identify it as such, what this evidence would be, while claiming all of the evidence presented to you is insufficient.