Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Rampant.A.I.]

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

You've been given several extensive lists of transitional fossils. Straw manning this extensive list as "a part of a jawbone and some teeth" is extremely dishonest.

Now you're not even confronting the objection. You're off in left field somewhere, with a personal insult twist.


What you don't realize is the you've latched on to a source not only laughed at by atheists, but the entire scientific community at large, secular and religious scientists alike.

If you're fine with throwing away your argument and admitting you've lost, sticking to this source is a clear indicator.

Instead of dismissing the source, retort it. Many shrugged off and laughed at Jesus' words as well. Doesn't mean it isn't true. They said, "Is this not the carpenter's son?"

Hello in there Rev, can you hear me? Is this thing on?

Your source, AiG, has already been thoroughly retorted, disproven, shown to be a biased and false collection of fake straw men.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism by interpreting scientific evidence in favor of a young earth, which differs from the scientific consensus on the matter. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Your source is being laughed off because it has been examined, and shown to be fake science, and yet you keep posting it, because it says what you want to hear. Not unlike a Flat-Earther, Bigfoot believer or Alien Abductee.

Claiming it hasn't only shows you have not bothered to click a single link in any of the replies in between searching AiG for something to copy-paste.

The biblical passages you're quoting do not support your argument about transitional fossils, and every claim you've made has been thoroughly debunked.

Time to hike up your Big Boy Pants and move on.