Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

Percy we have been in the water long enough here.
It has always been the timeframe that was the problem
It is not me that must address the evidence for the time. Its for you to show any evidence for it. Which was not and can not be done.
And it would take a great piece of evidence to show the truth of the timescale you suggest.
Rob

Thats just the point. The attempt here is not to reconstruct animals drom the bits of fossils BUT rather from the bits of fossils reconstruct a great biological (yet unobserved) theory.
The fossils barely tell the story of thier own looks and life history MUCH less the great story of thier ancesters and connections to all around them as described by Toe.
They are scraps only of a past story that is great in its claims and so great claims need great evidence. Indeded great scraps would only be a first step and Toe doesn't even have that.
Rob

I read carefully what you said but don't know the problem.
Percy introduced suddenly about timescales, which indeed is dating/geology subject, not me.
Its not for me to prove wrong dating methods! And of coarse not for me to accept them as a premise! Its for the other guy who is making the claim to back up another claim.This subject has drifted from the fish to geology.
I can't believe your telling a creationist he must accept TOe dating ideas. Thats the whole point of this debate! Everthing is interconnected here.
Dating ideas isn't in my orbit anyway.
I see nothing wrong in my debate with Percy. It simply has come down logically once more to evidence about past events and the questioning thereof.
Rob

You say Toe has great evidence. We say they do not. Next step I insist is yours. Not to show evidence but to show that there a accumulation of evidence that if true would justify a great idea like Toe.
Now you ask what evidence would do. again we say its up to you. You are making the Toe claim. You are claiming Toe IS SCIENCE. This forums title.
Yes. I do insist if Toe is true then evidence to that should be doable. (a real word in Canada).
Perhaps even if true its very difficult because one is dealing with past and gone events.
Anyways though it isn't being done today or in the past and I'm confident creationism will show this to the world soon. And leave Toe where it only can claim itself as a learned subject of speculation of origins of things. Is that not good enough if you have confidence in Toe.?
Rob