http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlList of transitional fossils.
Incidentally, the process of fossil formation (and the conditions required) can be put within a better context; the fossils of every person that has lived on the North American subcontinent, throughout recorded history, would be expected to yield about 2 complete skeletons. That is, the amount of bones equivalent to that.
There are shale fossils discovered that show the development of micro-organic live, specifically the development of new phenotypes.
Of course, if the fossil record was complete for all history - that would be a miracle. The current situation is what is to be expected with the geological/chemical processes in action; only a tiny percentage of life on earth will ever be recorded in the fossil record.
Of course, selecting a 'theory' like Id, which is untested, designed to be untestable and has no evidence, might make someone be a little blind as to the realities of scientific investigation. Perhaps being spoonfed answers makes you believe the real world would do that too, i don't know.
[q]because you're over here saying that religious evidence doesn't qualify as evidence. and i'm saying yes it does. religion > science in this world we live in. therefore you have to accept religious evidence.[/q]
Only by your belief. Not by any empirical system.
[q]so when people say "the sun sets". (<--common expression nowdays)... that's not literally true either. the sun isn't "setting". don't see what you're getting at by quoting this verse[/q]
The bible said the sun stopped moving and stayed steady in the sky. How does that mesh with a moving earth theory?
[q]See, in Genesis 1:9,10, "And God began calling the dry land Earth"... therefore, God is referring to the land. not the planet, when "Earth" is referenced. therefore when the writer refers to "foundations", or "fixed", it doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat, or resting on something. if the Bible does state the earth is flat, then why would it (as i quoted) refer to it as being a "circle". that wouldn't make sense, would it.[/q]
A circle is flat. Take a cd, turn it on the side. See? Flat. Would you make that interpretation if we - science - hadn't proved the earth was spherical? People 5 or 6 centuries ago didn't, after all.
[q]
four corners = North, South, East, and West. did you ever think about that? Ask any kindergarden kid what the four corners of the earth are, and they'll understand. the four winds = North, south, east and west... [/q]
Sphere doesn't have corners. Again you're interpreting based on what science has proved true. Again, an interpretation that you would - history has shown - not make without the evidence of science.
Robert Jastrow has a Phd... in theoretical physics. Not biology, or evolutionary science. So he's not even qualified.
On the other hand; page 101,
The Enchanted Loom;
" The fact of evolution is not in doubt."
As an aside (because someone will doubtless try and use Darwins eye example, which confused Jastrow 'ere years after it had been solved), here's how a complex fish eye could evolve in about 350,000 years;
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.htmlEDIT; perhaps I should put your Jastrow Quote in context
[q]The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, — longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.[/q]
Using false or misleading quotes is just pathetic.
