You’re just spewing out the old evolutionist garbage – the fact is there are NO non-debatable transitional fossils. Oh yes, you’ll here about this fossil and that fossil and they’re all presented as if they are bonafide irrefutable proof but, the fact is, there is none. If there were, creationists would have conceded long ago. In fact, if you compare what evolution said 20 years ago in regard to cold, hard factual transitional fossils, you will find that the evolutionists ideas have changed a great deal also. Now, that doesn’t stop National Geographic or any other publicly read ’science’ magazine from declaring the ‘overwhelming proof’ for evolution but, truth is, there is none. Bottom line – don’t believe anything you read that states the proof for evolution as if it’s fact, cause the whole neo-D ToE is nothing more than a fanciful hypothesis that is suffering from an extreme case of frustration due to lack of that elusive evidence that just doesn’t want to come on out.
Also, don’t ever be intimidated by the those who claim to be highly intellectual or intelligent – they will use this tactic to try to intimidate – don’t fear them – it’s hot air.

Later…

Copache said, “there are thousands of transitional fossils”. Well, bing them to light! Can list them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteolepis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusthenopteron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elginerpeton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obruchevichthys_gracilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hynerpeton

That’s from one line of species. Here are some more from another line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yixianosaurus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedopenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confuciusornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyornis

…And for good measure, let’s have another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parahippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merychippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliohippus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae

Ever heard of any of these? No? Didn’t think so. But yet all of these are transitional forms in one way or another. Where has Strobel mentioned this? Didn’t he speak directly against this?

And in the next lines he said, “Then there’s the problem of finding them. They’re not easy to find”. If there’s a problem of finding them how could you have “thousands of transitional fossils” today?

This proves you have absolutely no idea what you’re even fighting me against.

Fossils are what’s hard to find, not specifically transitional ones, you idiot. The fossilization process — the process required for fossils to form — is an extremely rare situation. Wikipedia tells us;

Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment.

Charles Darwin himself made note of the extreme rarity of fossils and how hard it would be to find many transitions due to this:

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that “the extreme imperfection of the geological record,” combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil.

But hey! Haven’t you creationists always said that Darwin figured there would be millions of transitional fossils by now? I’ve certainly heard that a lot from the creationist crowd.

“Missing” fossils is not the term used by ID adherents as you said, Mr. Copache. Darwin himself used the term “missing links” regarding transitional fossils.

I’m going to go ahead and say: [citation needed]

Surprisingly, you used the same terms to present your case: Enough microevolution (like small variation in dogs, which he talks about) leads to macroevolution (such as other types of animals).

I’m using his terms to make a valid point. His terms may be complete and utter bullshit, but I can’t just say they’re bullshit. They’re bullshit because they don’t work. If you walked one step a day, you’ll still reach a mile eventually unless you die or stop. This is like evolution, it takes slow steps until species die out or until they suit their environments.

Regarding 500 scientists who dissent from Darwinism. It is said that Strobel wasn’t aware of Steve’s List. I think that doesn’t help. The Project Steve website says it is only 1% scientists who are skeptical about Evolution and it declares, “We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!”.

Then what was their goal? There will always be someone willing to sign something, whether due to Poe’s Law or because they genuinely believe it. If 1% of the American public believed in a flat Earth, it wouldn’t make them less insane because there happens to be a decent amount of them.

Likewise: the scientific community decides scientific issues based upon research, evidence, discussion, theories, and mathematics. The ID community has completely and utterly failed to provide any research, evidence, valid discussion (especially as it relates to evolution), theories (leading proponents note the inability to have a full-fledged biological theory), but they do have some mathematics. Their mathematics rely on how improbable evolution is claimed to be and then say if it’s this improbable the designer did it.

Sadly, that’s not science. It’s not been for a good two hundred years.

Hey, what evidence you have for this! Can take pains to establish a cause (micro evolution) and effect (macro evolution) relationship between them?

Evolution happens in baby steps. You’re not going to have a crocodile/duck mix at any point. Small changes over a large period of time lead to large changes.

For instance: the chihuahua dog came from the same wolves that humans selectively bred about ten thousand years ago (this is artificial selection; we selected them the same way nature selects them). The chihuahua dog looks nothing like the big wolves; it’s more like a rat, isn’t it? Furthermore, the chihuahua is so distant from its wolf relatives that it can’t interbreed with them. It’s well on its way to becoming a new species of animal entirely.

But on the other hand, when asked for the evidence, Evolutionists must stop pointing towards a host of scientists who accept the theory of Evolution without even presenting a single piece of evidence for the theory.

The fossil record shows plenty of transitional fossils and more are discovered every day. It shows a uniformity of life that you wouldn’t find unless all creatures were related.

Genetics, which Charles Darwin couldn’t have even dreamed about, shows that all species of life on the planet are related. It also shows how you pass down your features to your kids and this provides a generational change that will eventually lead to new types of human beings… maybe even eventually a new species of animal entirely.

Modern medicine is built upon evolutionary findings. There is a new flu vaccine every year because we know how the flu evolves and that it evolves so rapidly. The same goes for many other deadly diseases like smallpox. In fact, if you ever have tuberculosis and don’t die from it, it’s thanks to evolutionary knowledge. Tuberculosis became resistant to many of our drugs because of overuse, but we still have drugs that can take it out if caught early enough. This isn’t just adaptation (which, for your information, is evolution), this is full-fledged evolution.

There is a ton of proof of evolution out there, but when presented with this you argue from the standpoint of whatever holy book you have or stick fingers in ears and shout “la la la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la” because you’re threatened by it. You’re scared you may lose your belief in the man in the sky. You’re scared of death because that’s something you’ll have to face and everyone else will have to deal with. And you know it. Which is why you fight so hard against science and the scientific community, both of which having made your lives so much more comfortable.

You’re both sickening individuals.

Strobel publishes the ‘list’ as an answer to the popular claim that almost all the scientists accept Evolution without any reasonable doubt.

So now over 800 out of 400,000 is now almost all? One side or the other is almost all. Which is it? 1/500 is not almost all. I think the 499 to 1 is almost all.

It’s not the outcry of a big majority of scientists, evolutionists, or atheists that prove Evolution but the evidence supporting it. So stop sneering and start substantiaing your position with enough and valid proofs!

Ironically, it’s not a list of scientific misfits who are motivated by creationism who disprove evolution, but evidence. Show me evidence that opposes observable reality. Oh wait…

What you did do, however, is use a bunch of pointless rhetoric to try to make some sort of a point. It didn’t work, just so you know.

As I said: the best way to disprove your nonsense is by letting it stand as is.