Bible contradictions?

[NoMoreFaith]

That definition appears to leave an opening to interpretation. All organisms have cells therefore that's a trait they share. and what exactly is the "pattern" of variation you speak of?

Pattern being identifiable related to prior or future forms based on bone structure etc.

It appears that variation is completely random, not a consistant pattern.

Mutation variation is random, but for it to to become a species variation, usually requires natural selection. Important difference.

It appears easiest to atheists to understand a transitional form when speaking of apes to humans,

Liar. Horses actually provide the easiest to understand transitional form.
You know.. those things that aren't directly related to Giraffes lol

so tell me what fossil has been found to show transition of apes and humans that has not been faked or misinterpreted?

I'll let you know if you donate your bones to science.

Sorry, mean and unnecessary joke, human evolution isn't a speciality, but wikipedia can answer that if you cared enough. You're going to pretend theres a controversy about any mentioned, even where there is none except the paltry mewing of people like you who thinks their faith relies on evolution being false.

Secondly, the evidence is more than bones, something you wish to ignore. I take it you avoided reading the recent mapping of the Gorilla genome. I'm aware of the creationist take on it, and we can show how ignorant that is too if you wish to go there.

That is not at all what I said. I said it has been shown repeatedly that scientists are willing to fake evidence,

Faking evidence which complied with ALREADY EXISTING evidence.

As opposed to religionists who have faked ALL of their evidence.

You don't see a big difference. There was already evidence, and unscrupulous sorts faked a new bit for fame and glory.
You simply cannot claim every fossil is a fake.. theres just too many of them, and far too many of them. Hence why we deride your conspiracy and mass forgery theory.

therefore maybe we should be skeptical when they present "evidence."

Thats the scientific method, you can't just hold up a bone and say "missing link". Its peer scientists who examine the evidence presented. Maybe they can be fooled, but they don't get fooled for long. Decades maybe, certainly better than being fooled for 2012 years.

Once again, because its not sinking in. Scientists expose the frauds. Why would they do that if they were trying to convince you that your God isn't real?

The trick is to question everything. You do your best, and don't always get the right answer, and I agree with you totally that any discovery should be treated skeptically, but we question in the pursuit of truth, and you question to try and save a superstition.

Those theories of flat stationary earth were not derived from the bible.

Four corners of the earth ring any bells.

That God, his word is awfully tricksy, lucky he has people like you to change wha.... I mean "interprete" his words correctly eh.

Do you really think that the scientific method was used to say a single tooth was evidence of a missing link?

Is this the scientists spend their time drawing pretty pictures thing again? I thought we discarded that silly line of reasoning already.

Sure, a tooth takes a lot of extrapolation, and it may easily be very wrong. I agree. Now what? Does it disprove all the bigger skeletons and DNA evidence? Nope.
Does it mean the extrapolation IS wrong, nope. Do I take it as "gospel" that its right. Nope.

They drew pictures of what they thought Nebraska man would look like. Him and his wife in great detail all derived from a single tooth. Science? No, just wild imagination. That's what evolution is and continually shows itself to be.

It IS the "scientists just draw pretty pictures all day" argument!

I'm not going to credit that with an answer I'm afraid. Heres another SHOCKING PROOF of how false evolution is....
ssh, don't tell anyone..

We don't really know what colour dinosaurs skin was.. its mostly faked in the interests of promoting public understanding.

Of course that doesn't disprove the skeleton, and we know they probably weren't luminous pink.. but still.. .it must be a conspiracy.

So anyway. What happened to the flood evidence, I was dying to hear that.

Going back to fossils, lets focus on the more complete record, such as that of the Horse, Hyracotherium to the modern day. Plenty of full skeletons found, showing smaller scale changes in mass and structure leading to the modern horse.