Re: Creationist Psychology Revealed

For example, when asked what was the precursor to the "horse" "line", this was your reply:

Where did it come from? Like other every other animal it evolved from a previous form. Your complaint about a lack of fossil is the same tired old excuse brought up by every other creationist who will never be convinced unless every single fossil from every animal/plant that ever existed is found.

Fossilisation is a rare condition that occurs under very specific conditions, most biomatter is quickly consumed by other organisms - predators, lichen, bacteria...

Never mind that I'm not a creationist. Without any evidence whatsoever, you offered evolution as "of course" the precursor to the horses, and then gave some lame-ass excuse as to why we hadn't found it yet. In other words, despite a fossil record that goes hundreds of millions of years before that, we somehow have simply failed to find even a single likely candidate for what came before the "horse". (Because, after all, fossilization just magically stopped happening for awhile during that extinction event that appeared immediately before the "horse" "line".)

Right.

In other words, you reject the simple obvious datum that new species appear after extinction events because it conflicts with your belief in evolution (that there must be some unbroken chain to explain it, even though there is no evidence at all for this unbroken chain), and you go on believing in evolution anyway.

What a real scientist you are. (Since I'm not sure you'll get it -- that was sarcasm!)