Nuh uh! was: [split] AF's very own list of Transitional Fossils

[abaris]

Since when are artist conceptions fossils?

Have you bothered to look at the first page? And do you understand the concept of a joke?

[Duke Guilmon]

You can find lots of fossils.
Doesn't mean they are related to one another.
THAT is a guess on the part of naturalists.
Another word for guess is theory (sounds a lot more professional doesn't it?).

As the followers of Hitler demonstrated- the Big Lie, told often, becomes the doctrine.
Same song different words.

Yeah but it is another thing when the fossil follows the predictions made, is at a time interval that was predicted, and if it shares traits with two groups we know are related. Did you even bother to read or did you just see the title and type this?

---

Since when are artist conceptions fossils?

Seeing as how most fossils need to be scanned to see all of the traits clearly, art is used to make it easy for lay man readers to grasp what they are talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Since when are artist conceptions fossils?

The obvious comparison between fables and gods is lost on you, I suppose? The difference between an artists rendition of a fossil, and an artists rendition of a god, is -of course-...that the fossil in question can be produced, should anyone need further clarification.

LOL, Zeke..btw, nice OP - as always.

[professor]

Ok, the age of fossils are designated by the place in the geologic column, right?

But the column is a figment of one of your evolutionist ancestors' imagination.

So the fossils are dated by the column and the column is found in all your books, it must be true?
And you guys rip on us? Because we have a book?
Mirror mirror on the wall...do we see ourselves as we are?

[Alex K]

Professor, your willful ignorance becomes embarassing, and I 'm still thinking you should apologize for the hitler thing. Such disrespect for the millions of victims als well as the tens of thousands of scientists who dedicated their lives to advance our knowledge and bring us these findings, whose memory you dare to smear like this for an ignorant cheap shot.

Just admit to yourself that you currently really don't want to know the answer to your question, which is why you write these absurd loaded questions. If you ever want to learn something, you need to try and ask honest questions rather than making these silly pronouncements about topics you are incompetent in. They sound like smart "gotcha" questions from your vantage point I presume, but not from everyone elses perspective.

[Cyberman]

Sigh.

Oh Hovind, Hovind...

See what you have wrought; and hang your head and weep.

Seriously, it's like he never went inside, isn't it?

[Alex K]

Since when are artist conceptions fossils?

Huh?
What are you talking about?

[abaris]

And you guys rip on us? Because we have a book?
Mirror mirror on the wall...do we see ourselves as we are?

Aronra explains science for school kids. Maybe you get it, but I doubt, you even watch it.

[Duke Guilmon]

Ok, the age of fossils are designated by the place in the geologic column, right?

But the column is a figment of one of your evolutionist ancestors' imagination.

So the fossils are dated by the column and the column is found in all your books, it must be true?
And you guys rip on us? Because we have a book?
Mirror mirror on the wall...do we see ourselves as we are?

Well no. You see there are dating methods. Based what we know we can make predictions of what it should be. Once we date it will determine whether the prediction is true or not. Many of them are true. We don't do it because a book says like you do, we do it on past knowledge. This goes for all science.

[Alex K]

Ok, the age of fossils are designated by the place in the geologic column, right?

But the column is a figment of one of your evolutionist ancestors' imagination.

So the fossils are dated by the column and the column is found in all your books, it must be true?
And you guys rip on us? Because we have a book?
Mirror mirror on the wall...do we see ourselves as we are?

Well no. You see there are dating methods. Based what we know we can make predictions of what it should be. Once we date it will determine whether the prediction is true or not. Many of them are true. We don't do it because a book says like you do, we do it on past knowledge. This goes for all science.

He's been told many times. He needs to not know, so he acts like it never happened and will offer the same dumb statements again down the road as if nothing had ever been explained, right, Prof?