Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Crossless2.0]

What about what these scholars have said?

"transitional fossils have not been found because they don't exist" (Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" (Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University).

Misquoting scientists and/or taking their statements out of context is practically a creationist hobby. Before tying yourself further to their lies, you might want to do a bit of research:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...oject.html

Don't even care: Darwin isn't a prophet and none of us follow what he says because he says it. A lot of what he thought about evolution was wrong too, but we accept that it happens because it does and we have evidence of that.

That's the difference between a real argument and the arguments from authority you're attempting to make.

Wow, now your even throwing Darwin under the bus. Perhaps if he were alive today he could get a job at AIG.

Throwing Darwin under the bus? Hardly. The point is that Darwin's belief in a deity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. You are aware that the overwhelming majority of mainstream Christian congregations have long since made their peace with modern biology, aren't you? You do know that there are Christians who work in the biological sciences and who don't have a problem with accepting the evidence for evolution and common descent, right?