OK. Sorry. All the transitional forms that I know of have been hoaxes.
According to evolutionary theory, every form would be a transitional form because all forms are in a constant state of change.
I am acknowledging nothing, I was simply asking what hoaxes you were talking about. I made no claims that nobody has made a hoax in creation, I don't happen to know of any, so I was wondering what you are referring to. If you don't know about the evolution ones I can provide details. So I ask the same.
May I say that many of the links you provided below contain some of the previously mentioned hoaxes.
Quite a few accounts, stories and annecdotes but very little in the way of actual evidence. Care to link to actual evidence. At least an image, but location would be nice. Take note if a paleontologist found such findings he would immediately upon verification report it to the scientific community and the world at large, and become a very famous and rich individual. Nevermind revolutionize science.
So you beleive this is some sort of conspiracy? The data is there perhaps you can reinvestigate and uncover the truth?
Try it have a coyote and poodle interbreed.
So at which point are they too far apart so that they would have to have been created like that? Is a crow too different from a crane? What about a Jackdaw? Bluejay?
Jbuza wrote:Misinformed. (Are you trying to say I am the result of inbreeding and retarded? LOL) What did dogs evolve from? And what did that evolve from?
Dogs apparantly are related to coyotes according to you.
Interesting that the only one which has actual evidence doesn't support your view at all. All of these fossils are from the Pleistocene and not concurrent with dinosaurs.
Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
How did you come to this conclusion? Because you refuse to beleive does not make it a fabrication.
IT doesn't exist it is a fabrication. [In response to a question about the geological column]
I can't stop you finding random material to support your beleifs. But ask youself this? Are annecdotes and other personal accounts really a basis for scientific theories? Have you actually critically analyzed any of the relics or footprints for yourself? Or are they repeatedly mentioned over an over to the point that you dismiss any other evidence or beleifs?
Jbuza wrote:That my dog will be a chicken eventually
I specifically stated without knowing all the data. Terrible example it is well known dogs don't become chicken. But I suppose coyotes suddenly appearing in my kitchen is more likely.
I don't know all the Data. She is pregnant and the litter could contain recessive genetic matter or could mutate or something equally ridiculous
Rediculous like a dog with smaller teeth or larger ears? Or perhaps an extra eyelid? Or more eyelashes, perhaps thicker eyelashes? Is this what you mean by rediculous?
Then why are you being so unreasonable in your arguments? At least try to see things from another perspective. Otherwise don't even bother, because from your own perspective everyone else is wrong and needs to be convinced. In this world view you see proponents of opposing views as people trying to convince you. No need to project your approach.
Sorry didn't know I was being unreasonable. I believe the Theory of evolution is trying to convince everyone that it is true, and perhaps your right that could be transference. Sorry I don't mean to be coming across that way, I will try harder. I had made the thread pointing out there are some grave problems with evolution and wanted to know what made people believe it in spite of them. I guess you feel that If I were reasonable that I would see the validity of the argument for evolution in spite of these numerous problems I am pointing out.
No that is not what I am saying, it is evident that you did not sincerely want to know why people accepted evolution. You ask for reasons and then unreasonable dismiss them.
Jbuza wrote:Is there something wrong with being utterly convinced that my beliefs are true?
Jbuza wrote:Given enough evidence it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that I could change my views. I am being genuine, I cannot understand believing evolution from the evidence I have seen so wondered what else convinced people that it was true.
As I pointed out earlier you dismissed all explanation off-hand so I doubt you are sincere.
Jbuza wrote:For instance Blob seems convinced in part by things he sees as weaknesses in alternative explanations. You had, instead of saying what was causal in your belief of evolution, simply refuted that there are any weaknesses or that the things I pointed out are weaknesses.
The following is what you considered weaknesses. Some of them I did not consider weaknesses.
Jbuza wrote:Numerous fossil hoaxes.
So the cold fusion hoax invalidated all of physics? The stones from the temple of David invalidated christianity? This is not a weakness of science but of your logic.
Jbuza wrote:Numerous human bones and artifacts as low as the cambrian.
Again you are entitled to believe random web-pages but there is no actual evidence as far as I am aware.
Jbuza wrote:No real cases of speciation. No transistional forms.
This I agree could be seen as a weakness.
Jbuza wrote:A history of extinction rather than adaptation.
Again how is this a weakness?
Jbuza wrote:Nowhere in the world does the geological column actually occur.
I will have to agree to disagree here.
Jbuza wrote:Evolution is mathmatically impossible
Jbuza wrote:Population studies indicate about 6000 years for man to reach his current number.
I suppose these population studies considered wars plague and advances in medicine and agriculture?
Jbuza wrote:The evidence simply is not there; the only place evidnece exists is within the theory itself.
Then why do you suppose so many people are studying it? Is it a mass dillusion?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson