Really?
Let's revisit that post.
-------
As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between?

@@ There are plenty, and here you are talking about a time span that is well-dated to about 6 million years, as opposed to the 10,000 years or less covered by your later rise-and-fall of civilzations post. Not the same subject at all.

Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?

@@ Depends on what else is evolving in the same habitat. Creatures on the bottom of the food chain evolve too. Sometimes evolution may create progeny that occupy a different niche in the food chain than their distant ancestors. We do. We are apex predators now. Our distant ancestors were little furry vegetarians that got probably got et regularly.

Where did they go?

@@ Some lines where not as successful, and died out. Others continued (and may continue) to evolve.

Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?

@@ Gradual change over 6 million years is hardly a radical jump, and the process is pretty well documented by lots of "in betweens" - although more are always better, and the search continues.

I'm sure, as a scientist, wouldn't that be worth gathering information about?

@@ As I said, the search continues. In science, an endless string of unanswered questions is revealed by the answering (provisionally) of one.

I mean, isn't science the gathering of information?

@@ Plus the altering of Theories to incorporate that new information. But new information is mercilessly challenged. Truth can withstand this assault. Nonsense eventually is driven away.

Why jump to conclusions with so many unanswered questions?

@@ No jumping is involved - it usually happens very slowly (ask Alfred Wegener...oops, he's dead, damn). And the spot that is landed upon is always open to demolition by the new answers to currently unanswered questions.

Why turn 'theory' into fact, with so much unexplained?

@@ You are using "theory" in a completely different way than it is defined in science. Theories are very well-supported explanations of a body of facts. Gravity is a fact (drop your axe if you don't believe me), but the Theory of gravity is the worst in all of science. It sucks (haha). There is no good "Theory of Gravity". But gravity is still a fact (we need more proof...drop it again).

and has science delved into the possibilities of other dimensions that could be affecting this dimension

@@ Oh Yes. Go Google Multiverse Theory

and have all the answers, to draw conclusions, that rule out those possibilities?

@@ Sorry, you lost me on that one, but it's okay.

In that case, all one can draw a partial conclusion from is partial information...wouldn't you say?

@@ Yes! Double Yes!! We will always have partial information. That is why all scientific hypotheses and theories and even facts are provisional. They will ony stand up until (and if) new information comes along to force their abandonment...happens all the time, and people get really famous doing just that. It is the dream of every scientist to turn the science world on its head. But when you try to, you will be met by merciless scrutiny. This makes the whole process self-correcting, and the results as reliable as any way of the understanding the *natural* world. Spiritual world is awhole 'nother ballgame that science cannot address. But make a testable assertion about anything, and Here Come the Scientists!

Hope that helps. You might see that I agree with you on several (many?) things about this subject, but would like to have a conversation about it using terms the way they are defined, and the way they are used in science. Otherwise we don't even know what we are discussing, and everyone talks right past everyone else. LOTS of that going on here.