Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Lemonvariable72]

Sure hope it wasn't on AiG, or any similar site... Even the wikipedia is a better source of information.

And the abundance of fossils doesn't defend yours.
Either we're both wrong, or my position, with its full awareness of the nature of that absence of fossils, is the most accurate available.

Indeed, it doesn't.
But it allows them to make educated guesses as to the shape of the head... from there, more educated guesses as to the shape of the body.
And usually they insist on showing you exactly what the fossil is and how they pieced it together to arrive at the overall body.

Look at this skull... see if you can tell which parts are actual fossil (replica) and which are extrapolations:


They can even then extrapolate a face:

---

---

Of course, we know this isn't exactly what the person looked like, but it's an approximation.

If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution

---

Who cares? What matters, all that matters, is can you demonstrate any of it?

I can if we had a time machine...

But my take is that no, inert matter can't produce life

Actually no you couldn't. Our ancestors have larger canines and more protruding and they all have much stronger brow ridges then homo sapiens.