Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Duane Bozarth"
...
The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.

It is unless you believe by faith.

No... that you can't prove a negative is an axiom.

It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it. If you
want to believe it, you do so by faith. You aren't
doing it by evidence.

And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.

But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.

So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.

Hell, we don't even know what's presently alive in the deep oceans or
remote jungles, what's more what may be buried in inaccessible
locations.

To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.

That's what ID precisely isn't...continues to make presumptions and
selective interpretations.

Which differs from Darwinian theory...how?

In that their selecivism is so grossly biased by the preconception of
the mandatory result in many instances as to be absolutely ludicrous.

The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.