Many transitional fossils exist. Notable ones have also been found that illustrate some quite major transitions such as that from sea to land.
The vast majority of scientists who work in relevant fields agree that the Theory of Evolution is valid. To claim otherwise is just silly.
So would...
Nope, you are absolutely in error. The fossil record fully supports evolution and is packed with transitional fossils, that is a fact.
Thanks for proving that you are either making your claims up, parroting falsehoods from a creationist site or just massively ignorant on the subject. DNA...
You refused to accept the correct answer, insisting that only your two, incorrect, alternatives were acceptable.
Its a bit like asking what time it is, only allowing the answers "Yellow" or "Fish" then claiming that the person doesn't know the time.
This old canard again. "Coelacanth" is not a species it is an Order, there are 2 extant species of Coelacanth and they are different species to those found in the fossil record (and live in different environments).
Hate to break it to you but no geologist has ever disputed that short term localised floods occur. But a global flood has zero evidence for and plenty of evidence against, just as those hikers would also notice if they looked at exactly where that "flood evidence" lies.
Yes, pretty much like those two things in that it would leave traces.
There are no traces of a universal flood. But there certainly are traces of things that could not be formed by a flood and those traces are found in precisely the places that global flood supporters claim were created by said...
The standard definiton of choosing is:
choose
v.tr.
1. To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out: Which book did you choose at the library?
2.
a. To prefer above others: chooses the supermarket over the neighborhood grocery store.
b. To determine or decide...
No, they use logic and evidence, which is the form of common discourse that the rest of the world uses, not the form that you have invented which obviates any need for you to back up your nonsense and assertions.
It is you who does not understand what subjectivity is, let alone how it works. That is my claim and until you provide rigorous definitions of "subjectivity" and "choosing" (and all the other
terms that you misuse) you cannot even begin to refute the claim.
Your arguments are nonsense because...
Strange that all the people alive at the time don't seem to have noticed this. Human civilisations made it through that period without being destroyed.
See, you don't understand evolutionary theory or how the natural world works. "Predictable" does not mean "always" when it comes to organisms. Evolution is about possibilities and probabilities, there is no certainty when looking at the possible futures of any organism.
Learn to write more...
But it does work out. No matter what maths you (won't) provide the simple truth is that species do have many, many mutations and they don't get "lots of corruption".
One little fact, in the living members of the human species alone there are over 300 Billion novel mutations that were there at...
At this point I have to point out that yes, scientists have made a living cell (in that they have created a wholly synthetic genome for a cell). And yes it lives and reproduces.
But a more important point is that you do not need human science to make things that appear through natural...
That is your contention, and you have provided no references to any evidence that this is correct (and don't use Sanford's silly program as its been demolished already).