No transitional fossils, you say??

 It doesn't you believe the Bible. And you can not prove evolution so why would I believe it. Science needs proof. Face it, evolution is a religion not science.

As I said, many who believe in the Bible, also accept Evolution as a valid scientific possibility.

Hundreds of millions, in fact.

And while Evolution may not yet be "proven" it is better supported by the evidence, than any other theory attempting to explain the development and diversity of the Earth's biosphere, to date.

And why would I believe the deniers, who promised me we would never, ever, ever, ever, EVER find a single fossil of a "crocoduck" like the one I just posted above.

And then broke that promise.

Just one of over 300 such "crocoduck" fossils, spanning 30 different species.

You might be thinking of someone else, I do not remember saying that

Read it again, slower this time.

You will notice I said "Evolution Deniers"

And that I did NOT say "Trump2020maga1."

They broke their promise not only to you and I, but to everybody else, as well.

This, however, was a very good, and engaging question. Rather than getting sidetracked answering it here, if felt it worthy of its own thread.

So I created the following:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/theistic-evolution-should-christians-consider-evolutionary-creationism?page=1#last_comment

My favorite link in evolution: Dinosaur -> bird:

The trouble with looking at fossils and declaring anything about them other than they are fossils is pure conjecture. I could show you a picture of two people, and on the back of the picture, you see the names of two people sharing the same last name. If that was all you knew, you could surmise that the names have nothing to do with the picture, that the two people were married, that maybe they were brother and sister, or some other family connection. It could even be possible they shared the same last name with no close family connection! Looks can be deceiving, and coming up with a possible connection because you see something doesn't mean it's true. You can see similar possible connections with life living in the same time frame; it doesn't make one the other's ancestor.

No, it is not pure conjecture.  You are making erroneous statements about things you don't know and don't having any direct experience with.  (It never ceases to amaze me when non-paleontologists think they know more about my profession than I do!)

Are you sure?

Is there any reason I couldn't tell what species they were from their picture?

What gender they were?

That Effil tower behind them, wouldn't tell me the picture was taken in Europe?

I would have no idea what their eye color was, from a simple photo?

That $3,000 purse the woman was holding, would tell me nothing about her social status?

I couldn't look at the cast on the man's arm, and determine he may have been in an accident or fight recently?

You may know what it is your looking at and even there it could be misleading, the more you claim to know about something you cannot be sure of the greater the chance you introduce error.

You are talking about things that you believe are how old, and so on? It isn't like you were there to see all the things about fossils that you believe are true or not.

Actually, I can see the fossils every day by hiking the Grand Canyon and I can do this repeatedly to test my conclusions and see if that historical record of life has changed.  So far it hasn't.  Every time I study the fossil record that evidentiary record is still the same.  In fact, that is actually an advantage with so-called "historical science" as YECs falsely call it, because the fossil record as a record of past history will never change.  It is what it is and will remain so.  By contrast, "observational science" falsely so-called by YECs still has to rely on inductive reasoning where it is assumed that what holds with a limited sample size in an experimental group holds true in all cases even though we are unable to confirm this.

But on top of that your comment is simply one of ignorance.  You, a non-paleontologist, are trying to tell me, an expert in paleontology, that paleontology is not what I say it is.  That's like trying to tell Carlsen that your understanding of chess is better than his.  Good luck with that.

Every time you look at a fossil, you see a fossil; what you believe about them, true or false, maybe consistent, just not necessarily a reflection of reality. If we had a time machine, maybe we could go back in time and see, but we are just left with our thoughts as it is.

Again, you are speaking from ignorance.  You think that paleontology is just about digging up bones.  You have no idea how sophisticated modern paleontology is and in combination with sedimentology, taphonomy, paleoenvironmental analysis, stratigraphy, geochemistry, petrology, ichnology, and a host of other related disciplines how much solid empirical data we are able to obtain.  Your claim that it is "pure conjecture" is ignorant and ridiculous beyond belief.  You literally have no clue what you are talking about.

All I said was you cannot know many things just by looking at something, some details are just out of our reach. You have an issue with that, so be it.

Reminds me of players saying things like "Anand doesn't know how to play the Ruy Lopez!"

No TruthMuse, you said "The trouble with looking at fossils and declaring anything about them other than they are fossils is pure conjecture."  Are you now changing your statement?

ikr

No, I'm not changing my statement; if you look at something and see it, you can measure its dimensions; things like that, there are things you have right in front of you, on the other hand, if you start speculating as to it being an ancestor of another lifeform or things along with this nature it is pure speculation, not an observable fact. Finding several fossils in one area and putting them together to build what may have been one creature or two is all speculation since no one knows if the fossil actually belongs to one creature or twenty. Having someone find fossils, declared this is a creature, they tell an artist to make some representation of what they think the creature may have looked like, and the artist creates something that is pure speculation. If they make a movie about what these things may have looked like and acted like, that is all pure speculation, not factual. People may go to the movies and start thinking this is how they looked and behaved only shows our imagination plays a greater part in this historical fantasy than it should when it comes to the distant past.

That's the problem TruthMuse, you've seen too many movies and have no knowledge of how paleontology actually works