Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[SteelCurtain]

No, Rev, you're right. If a source is written by a Christian, even a Young Earth Creationist, it is worthy to be read, if they are looking at, testing, and interpreting the available evidence objectively.

If the source is starting out from the standpoint that no other viewpoint but the one they are espousing can possibly be correct, that is what makes it an unreliable source. The very mission statement from AiG is that evolution cannot be true, before they even look at the evidence.

How can you possibly think this is a reliable method for testing the evidence that we see around us?

ETA: If you see any of us post a source from a site with a mission statement along the lines of "Our mission is to disprove religious claims, because no matter what, there are no gods and we seek to prove that through our research and bring people to atheism. Atheism is inerrant truth, and everything we look at will be through that lens." Feel free to disregard that source. Just get in line.

"Molecule to Man" evolution can not be true because it goes against what Scripture teaches. That is probably why they take that stance.

Do you just not care to respond with something coherent? You literally just parroted back to me what I already stated. Taking that stance you are eschewing all science, Rev. It does not matter what the evidence says, it doesn't matter what you experience, it does not matter what reality dictates, it is wrong if it contradicts the Bible? You really are taking that stance?