Going further, paleontologists often argue about whether a fossil belongs to either one ordinal category or another on the evolutionary scale. I cannot think of better examples of transitionals or intermediates. In any event, Dawkins speaks of intermediates at length. Here is a small sampling: <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>
You are going to have to think a little deeper next time. Lets use your "ball" analogy to totally destroy your argument. First, I'm going to play along with you and pretend that what you just said is the truth, so we at least have a basis to start with even though I dont believe evolutionists predicted anything or that evolution is a scientifically demostrated fact (since nobody has been around for 100 million years to observe it) But lets get started.... So lets say I throw a ball. You use some quick trigonometry(we will make you as smart as rainman for that quick calculation) and you tell me exactly where the ball will land, how many times it will bounce and where it will stop. Pretty impressive. But you assume the beginning of the calcuation was when I actually let go of the ball. You can never calculate which direction I will throw it before I throw it. You dont even know which color ball I will throw before I throw it. You can only calculate the trajectory. See thats the mistake evolutionists do. They do all these calculations but never follow through to the end (or the beginning) Don't feel bad though...smarter people than you have been mistaken as well.
its clear how incapable you are of admitting you are wrong. when you produce proof of abiogensis... or admit you can not - perhaps you will be worth a substantive response. Remember, I have no problems if evolution is true, even all the way back to the primordial goo. I am just pointing out current scientific understanding differs from your zealous arguments.
Nietzsche: The most fundamental form of human stupidity is forgetting what we were trying to do in the first place.
I don't need to provide proof of abiogenesis, so why do you keep demanding it? The science which shows how the critical molecules for life can and do occur from inorganic material is proven. You can skirt dodge and deny all you want, but it won't change the fact.
I have not engaged you on your silly parse the definition and change the subject ploy. do you have proof of abiogensis? yes or no.
You haven't engaged because you can't. Your religon keeps getting in the way of the science. Is it understood and proven the critical components for biological life can and are formed from inorganic material? Yes. Is every step of the process understood and proven? no. What you're trying too hard to do is make the answer to the first, the same as the answer to the second. But you can't succeed.
My religion does not get in the way of the science... your zealous atheism does. I do not see evolution as being inconsistent with the bible. I told you before time is relative and probably an illusion. so once again to be clear... do you now deny you have proof of abiogenesis?