[quote]Lorisco wrote:
juerocalvo wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Sorry sport, just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.
You mean, just because there is evidence that doesn’t make it true?
Produce evidence that there are intermediate species or shut up and admit you are wrong.
You have already heard the evidence.
I’ll take that as a no.
Several people have posted evidence. You just ignore it and repeat that “there is no evidence.”
Sorry, but there is no natrual or fossil evidence of a missing link. Theories about these links don’t count as eveidence.
One more time-
transitional fossils:
fossils showing evolution of hominids:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
observed instances of macroeveolution-instances of new species evolving from other species:
These are just compilations of evidence and they are by no means a complete list of all fossils or speciation events. Also those links only touch upon fossil evidence, there is much more evidence out there.
Again you repeat that there is no evidence of evolution but if you will open your eyes you will see that it is abundant.
You see, this is what I’m talking about.
Find a piece of bone; say it’s 2 millions years old (when there currently are no reliable measures that can validate that time frame) say it looks like a chimp and a man, so it’s Homo-ape-ass, the new discovered species. They say this not based on DNA or any valid measure, it’s just done on structure. So this is again AN ASSUMPTION1
[/quote]
You say that there is no reliable way of dating fossils. That is incorrect. Also how is an analysis of the bone structure not a valid way to analyze fossils? When you look at the transitional forms in the fossils of all vertebrates the evidence of evolution is even more astounding. Pretty much your only argument seems to be that since the fossil record cannot be complete, all fossil evidence must be ignored. That is just plain silly.
I would like to ask: what is your specific theory on the origins of life, and how does an analysis of the fossil record support your theory?
Obviously you didn’t read the observed incidences of speciation link. Every example mentioned fit within the accepted scientific definition of a species. I’m sure you will dismiss and ignore this evidence too, but the fact remains- the evidence is there.
Explain this statement, it makes no sense whatsoever.
There is a whole world of difference. Creationists have yet to propose an actual testable theory. They have also made no attempt to prove their theory with evidence.