Wibble: As an analogy, imagine in a million years time we looked at the sedimentary record in England for squirrel fossils in a layer spanning our current times, it would appear as if our native red squirrel was suddenly replaced by the American Grey (an invasive), rather than a gradual replacement.
With your oft repeated argument about lack of pre bats etc., and using bats as the example, what you are missing is that they are an incredibly diverse group of mammals that are found on every continent bar Antarctica. In fact I have given you a fairly detailed response to this before but you ignored it. With your lack of pre bats fossil argument you assume that that the bat ancestor was equally as widespread, abundant and diverse as bats themselves. Like a wide trunk of species gradually evolving into an equally wide trunk of bat species. Why should that be the case ? Look at it this way: the bat ancestor was some insectivore mammal species inhabiting a region with poor fossil preservation potential, such as a forest. It gradually evolved leaping, gliding, eventually flying capabilities. This stem species was then open to many different niches so it diversified into the wide range we see today and since the Eocene (when the earliest bat fossil has been found – funny how they are never found fossilised with pterodactyls or Mesozoic birds
This is the problem Wibble, you don't undertstand logic and critical thinking to a high level so you tend to just dismiss it and carry on arguing the same things.
Even if we suppose your scenario is true, to expect the same scenario for each type I mentioned but to name a few, where you get their fossils but never their ancestors, would be to argue a double standard fallacy called special pleading.
Yes we've argued it before but the difference is I remember all of the incredibly significant logical rules you forget. One of them being that you are arguing the non-existence of certain forms is expected but you don't argue it's not expected we find fossils of what they allegedly evolved into. Can't you stop and think that through for a moment; "hang, on, so I am arguing all of the non-evolution of these completed forms is to be expected from evolution but no evolution would expect to be found such as pre-bats...but isn't that the opposite of what evolution should argue?"
For a theory to predict it's own lack of evidence by explaining that we should instead find nothing except things that have already completely evolved, seems rather desperate to me. So what you can't see is that is actually the correct logical prediction for creation/kinds, not evolution. It's evolution that said we evolved, and creation that said we didn't, remember.
That is the key problem and it doesn't change - that in the rocks we can find jellyfish, we can find bats, we can find octopus, we can find pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, what we can never find is their ancestors. The problem is even "old" species like a pterodactyl, are complete fliers already. No matter what stage of the record you look into you can place a million pound bet that the organism you find will already be a viable flier, or a viable swimmer, and will never be something evolving into a flier or swimmer. So for all the fliers you could plot different stages of history they evolved flight, but you will only find complete versions of them in the fossil record. You will only find the "completely evolved" stage, because the truth is, they didn't evolve, which is why they are all complete, like the bible says they should be.
Conclusion; Can you still argue conjecturally, as you are now, in weak science, by for example, forever arguing, "there may be a way they existed but were never recorded." Sure, as it pertains to this topic, that is the beauty of historical science. Technically you can always appeal to some unknown factor, but you would never appeal to me on behalf of oxygen or germs, you would never say, "Mike, somehow germs don't exist. Mike, somehow linear momentum and centripetal force don't exist and I promise this time the bus takes the tight corner at 90mph, I give you my solemn word it will hold the corner. Mike, people are falling into space on the other side of the world because they're upside down."
So that's what I'm arguing in this topic. Not fossils and rocks. I'm arguing that it's very obvious that with strong science, operational science, those things are basically proven. Yes, there will always be a pedantic hair-splitter that says, "nothing is proven", but if he says that then his own statement is also not proven.
So you have to ask yourself; sure, you can explain how pre-bats may have existed somehow, but if you are honest you have the same evidence for their existence as the spaghetti monster so why should mike believe it? What does mike see, and what has mike studied? Because what I see is the direct and expected evidence in nature of the intelligent designer, and I can actually go through all of those features of design in life, giving examples for every feature which directly match.
So I see all of the direct evidence I would expect to see if God created the creatures, but no convincing evidence of evolution. You can spin a tall tale about how somehow evolution is missing in action, but that doesn't satisfy me. Evolution is a big claim, to back it up only with just so stories isn't impressive to me, even if it is sufficient for your own standards.