These comments are good- but I am more interested in comments about the scientific topics that were brought up, especially those related to origins.
For example, what about transitional fossils?
I'm not aware that such a complete record exists for any species, let alone all of life.
If there is, it is probably a marine invertebrate. I recall hearing that the image of six snail shells lucaspa recently posted in the "When does creationism fail" thread are six from a sequence of over 3,000. Our hubris means we tend to focus on terrestrial vertebrates which leave a much spottier fossil record.
This means that it is very unlikely that transitional forms that clearly link one species to another would be found.
Unlikely, but not impossible. The talkorigins FAQ on transitional fossils does cite some species-to-species transitions. For obvious reasons, these are rarer than intermediate forms between higher taxonomic groupings.
It is worthwhile noting that the architects of punctuated equilibrium both did discover such transitions in their fields of expertise (Gould among snails, Eldredge among trilobites) which matched their predictions of speciation along punk eek lines.
What he should have said is that, in his opinion, an evolutionary theory that claims that there is an unbroken link of organisms between the first living cells and present day life forms is suspect.
And he would have had to back up that assertion with evidence that makes it suspect. The usual approach of anti-evolutionists is simply to say there isn't enough evidence yet, without any indication of how much evidence would be satisfactory. Nor any explanation of why any evidence at all does exist.
2. the fossil record is pretty poor, and therefore drawing any conclusions about transitional forms that link one species to another would seem to me to be pretty speculative at best, and poor science at worse. Of course, I'm not a specialist paleontologist, so maybe someone with more expertise could enlighten us, or at least steer us to a thread where this topic has been discussed before (which I know it has, probably many times over).
Not as speculative as you might think. For one thing, scientists don't necessarily mean by "transitional" that this fossil is a direct ancestor of any living being.
Think about it. Evolution is a change in species. Fossils are remains of individuals. We can never say of one individual that it was the ancestor of any progeny at all. What we can say is that it is a member of a species with certain characteristics. It is likely that some members of the species had progeny, even if the individual whose remains we have found did not.
So even if we could prove that particular individual whose fossil remains we discovered had no descendants, it doesn't mean other members of its species had no descendants. The species, if not the individual, may still be ancestral to a modern species.
Now take it a step further. What if we could show that the species in question is not directly ancestral to a modern species? Does that belie the concept of the fossil as transitional? No, it doesn't.
What the fossil establishes is:
1) that at least one individual once lived with the requisite transitional characteristics, and (since individuals are part of a species)
2) that at least one species once existed with the requisite transitional characteristics, and
3) that possibly more than one species existed with the requisite transitional characteristics.
Suppose that in the relevant time frame, there were actually six species with features transitional between ancient species X and modern species Y. All six could be descendants of species X, but only one can be the direct ancestor of species Y. Our fossil obviously can come from only one of the six species. But it may not be the one that is the direct ancestor of species Y.
Does that mean the direct ancestor of species Y never existed? No, it just means we have no record of that species. We do, however, have a record of one of its sibling species. This is sufficient to show the possibility of the transition is real.
Finally one other possibility. Suppose we do find fossils of all six transitional species. How would we determine (in the absence of DNA evidence) which of the six is the direct ancestor of modern species Y? We probably couldn't figure out which is the great-grandfather species, and which are the great-uncle species. But would this mean the transitional species never existed, and the transition from species X to species Y did not pass through any of the six intermediates?
Clearly not.
These scenarios show why scientists are reluctant to say a fossil or its species can be known to be a direct ancestor of a modern species. But this does not imply that there is no relationship between the modern species and the fossil. It may only be that the relationship is more of an uncle-nephew than a parent-child relationship, and we have no way of establishing which it is in particular cases.
So, it comes down again, to how much evidence is necessary to establish that a transition occurred. If you require an actual direct ancestor and need a blood test to show it is an actual direct ancestor, a fossil is not going to tell you that. But if it is sufficient to show that intermediate species of the sort predicted by evolution did exist, and therefore the transition is plausible, fossils do tell you that.
You might also reflect on why any transitional species exist at all if evolution doesn't happen. Or why the transitional species we find are the type predicted by the standard phylogeny, and never weird chimeras mixing characteristics from disparate branches (e.g. a six-legged mammal with antennae like an ant).
The theisitic evolutionists can use the evidence from their science to back-up at least part of their claim, a creationist (for the reason already stated above) cannot- they have to move from science to faith to support their position. There is nothing wrong with this- you just have to appreciate the difference between faith and science and not get into an argument over things- like apples and oranges- that shouldn't be compared.
I appreciate the difference between faith and science. Science tells me my species evolved from earlier proto-human species and my faith tells me God created me. I accept both statements as true.
But I would say there is something wrong with a faith or theology that requires a denial of the facts of God's creation.
