"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Sat 30 Jul 2005 05:01:49p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:1VRGe.6080$Tk6.5106@trnddc02:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Fri 29 Jul 2005 07:47:51p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:HezGe.63$4e6.53@trnddc04:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...

If you want to believe everything evolved or "just happened" by
pure,
random chance, then that same logic would have you believe that a
tornado
could pass through a junk-yard and spit out a functioning Boeing
747,
just
by pure, random chance.

That, of course, is a -thorough- mischaracterization of biological
evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html



It is an over-generalization, but the root-point is the same. The
fossil
record provides evidence of many different forms of life -- but there
have
been no transitional forms found, save for a scant few lizards that
appeared to have feather-like features that have been presumed to be
the
onset of birds. Well, that's still a presumption, or a leap in logic or
faith that is loosely based on fact, but not completely supported by
the
historical record. Perhaps one day it may be, but not yet.

There are quite a few more transitionals than you realize.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html



Which still requires "leaps in logic/faith" to span the gaps. It is
sprinkled with phrases similar to "we don't know", "remains unknown", etc.

Another creationist fallacy. Anytime a fossil is found that neatly fits
between two others, creationists point out that the new discovery merely
creates two more gaps. If we have #1 and #3 and then add #2, the question
immediately arises "Where is 1.5?" It's never ending, no amount of
transitionals will satisfy, and a perfect line of of descent with
mother/daughter type relationships isn't going to be found. The therapsid to
mammal chain is particularly fine-grained, though. It's worth investigating,
for so-inclined.

But the evolutionist is "convinced" in his belief nonetheless. Because of
that, I see little difference between the two camps.

I humbly suggest you look much harder.