Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Mister Agenda]

Revy, every organism is in a transitional form compared to its descendants, so in a sense, every fossil is a transitional fossil.

You should do some research that doesn't come from creationists about evolution before you attempt to refute it.

I believe creationists do believe and accept that there are indeed changes and transitions that take place within organisms. But would not evolution have to show that at some point there was an original organism from with all organisms would of eventually evolve from?

That's what all the evidence we have currently points to, but if we had multiplie lineages, that would not be inconsistent with evolution, only with universal common descent.

---

Who are we to tell God how He should of done things.

We're intelligent designers.

---

Who or what decides this? Is evolution some sort of supreme being that says - ok, you turn into this then stop and you are gonna be this?

Evolution is a process that occurs and different rates depending on the prevailing conditions and the genome of the involved organisms.

So every one who has a religious avatar and/or believes in deity is an idiot?

Nope. My side isn't immune to overgeneralizing.

---

Part of the problem is that you have been duped by some of the books you read. Time to wake up and smell the Truth.

If this is the case, part of the problem is your inability to demonstrate how the books we've read have duped us. Merely asserting that they have isn't helpful at all. Perhaps you could read one or two of them to find the mistakes? The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is long, but if you're only going to read one, I recommend it.

---

I'm hirsute and love bananas but not an ape.

Maybe we should take this in baby steps. Are you a mammal?

---

Thank you for your recommendation. Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

Read it, cover-to-cover, twice. A lot of us have read it. May I assume that you will return the courtesy?

---

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

I would be most surprised if anyone here ever points you to an atheistic, rather than scientific, source. It's not our fault that so many Christians have abandoned science that they're poorly represented in the upper echelons of scientific endeavor. They used to be on top in that regard.

---

I am not an expert. Are you?

Compared to you, yes. Compared to Jack Horner, no. I have a good layman's understanding of evolution: I've read several books on the subject (including Evolution? The Fossils Say No by Gish) and learn from those better informed on it than I am. This is not a magic power I possess, you can do it, too.

But you won't. It would undermine your faith to discover how much lying your creationist sources do. It undermined mine. Creationism is the most effective tool for driving science-minded folks out of churches: it requires them to look at the one thing that we can be sure that if there was a God, was authored by that God directly, and reject it if it doesn't match what a certain tribe thought about nature thousands of years ago.