As I read this article, I noticed the claim that many fossils haven’t been found yet. A nice disclaimer, but really....!! Again, with all due respect, evolution is premised on something which cannot be proven unless one accepts a whole litany of unproven and unprovable assumptions. Scientists have largely found things they cannot explain (or which have turned out to be clever hoaxes) and have attached meaning to them with no independent scientific testing to verify that those basic premises are even correct. In fact, the whole idea of the “something from nothing” theory has been dis-proven time and again by actual science (such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.) While this may seem like a separate problem, it is not. None of the fossils found actually “prove” that man evolved from lower forms of life - and that that life evolved from nothing. There are no fossils to support that. Yes, old fossils of apes exist, and yes, older forms of what looks to be man (but is it really?) exist, but where is the link? I feel certain that if the link existed it would be shouted from the rooftops - but maybe they haven’t been “found” yet...
I showed you an example of a transitional fossil ("missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term). There has been a lot of argument as how to classify this specimen precisely because it has earlier (more ape-like) and later (more human-like) traits. Even creationists can't agree where to classify this, with some holding for ape and others for human. That's part of what makes this such a good example of a transitional!
And please tell me you are not bringing up the 2nd law of thermodynamics to claim that evolution is not possible. Please!
What would you expect such a link to look like?
Not to kiss your butt, but on an unrelated note, if people simply threw these four words into FR threads of this nature every now and then, these threads would be a lot more peaceful and productive. Kudos to everyone on this thread for keeping it cool so far.
Not only must you believe in unproved and unprovable assumptions, the very fact that they are unproved and unprovable is counted as a reason to believe them by Darwinians. As in, P is unprovable; but science can't prove anything anyway; therefore you might as well pretend P is true. This is a mode of reasoning you have no doubt noticed.
Aside from the unproved and unprovable assertions (such as the ones about the aesthetic preferences of insects and birds) we are also supposed to believe false suppositions, such as "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" which, false as it is, happens to be the very engine that supposedly drives natural selection.