Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

Yes, that is the problem: we see things as transitional fossils based on detailed cladographic, genetic and morphological study done by qualified scientists over decades, and you don't see anything as a transitional fossil based on the fact that you don't understand what half the words I just used mean, all the while bolstering your opinions with the words of uneducated creationist conmen whose arguments essentially boil down to "in my ill informed opinion, this doesn't seem transitional to me."

One of our two sides is bothering with evidence and research, and the other is being an intractable bore.

And before I go, I did ask you to admit that you were wrong about the quotes that you sourced a few pages back, and that you were lied to from the people you got them from. Any progress on that basic level of accountability, Rev?