Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

No, they aren't.. We have LOTS of links, and they are NOT missing.. geez

 

You "know"..? How can you "know" that when every actual TEST we have shows that's NOT correct..?
Truth is you "believe that".. With mountains of evidence which shows its completely impossible, you cannot "know" that.

 

Oh good grief.. If there was a science organization that accepted a young earth or creationism, then you'd be able to name it..
But you cant, because like i already said, there are NONE..
This was established IN COURT in 2005 in the Dover PA Intelligent design trial..
2nd, the Grand Canyon is NOT evidence for a global flood. Its evidence AGAINST ONE..
The Grand Canyon has been and is the most geologically studied landmark on the entire planet.. And once again, NO GEOLOGY Organization in existence attributes the canyon to a global flood.. If you know of one that does, once again, present it here..
3rd, Radiometric dating is NOT "faulty" after a certain age, since there are a whole slew of elements that take billions of years to decay.. and as such, they can be used to date things billions of years old without issue.

 

We're not testing God, we're testing the actual earth.
The earth is RADIOACTIVE.. That means it expels HEAT as the radiation dissipates.
If the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago, it would still be completely molten.
We can actually measure how much decay has occurred in geologic elements. If all the decay we have measured occurred in just 6000 to 10 thousand years as creationists claim, the resulting release of heat would be enough to melt the planet back into a completely molten state.
The very fact that the planet is NOT completely molten shows that it can NOT be young.

 

i can name a heck of a lot more than just one.
<quote>

people who don’t understand evolution still use the notion of the missing link to mean “one great empty chasm where man’s (or perhaps another species’) predecessor should be.” And these individuals use this idea to argue that evolution must be wrong.

And this notion, to be frank, is absurd. We have a host of human transitional fossils (and fossils from our ancient cousins). There is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which is some 6 or 7 million years old. Then there is Ardipithecus ramidus, which is 4.5 million years old. We also have Homo rudolfensis, at 2.5 million years old. Australopithecus sediba,1.9 million years. Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis…okay, I am going to stop now. But I could go on.

In the end, there is more evidence indicating that you should accept evolution than there is evidence for some well-know dinosaurs. Really. We have more fossil evidence supporting the idea that humans evolved from non-humans than we have fossil evidence that shows that Tyrannosaurus rex really existed.

From "There is no missing link in Evolution" MAY 7TH, 2015

And these are just a few from the hominid line alone..
We have links from fish to amphibian, Reptile to Bird, 4 limbed Tetrapods to whales, etc.. The List is endless.

 

For some reason you seem to be suffering from this delusion that if you repeat these things to yourself enough times, that somehow its going to make it true.. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way..
You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la, cant hear you cant hear you" until you are blue in the face..
Doing so wont make all the evidence for Macroevolution magically disappear..

 

According to whom..?
I suggest you read the trial transcripts of the testimony of Curator of Fossils at Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology Kevin Padian from the Dover PA Intelligent design trial..
He lays out slews of transitional fossils, and his testimony went unchallenged.

 

Clearly that's NOT where you are getting your ages from, since NO geology organization, PhD University or peer reviewed geology journal claims that the earth is young.. So if you're not getting that date from GEOLOGY, where's it coming from..?

 

"la la la la".. Cant hear you cant hear you.. lol
Try using that defense in court.. See how far you get..
THIS is why creationism loses every court case its in..
Denial of evidence does nothing to refute it.