Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Duke Guilmon]

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.

Looks like they did a nice job...could use a bit more rouge

---

And what precisely are their findings? They have a museum with 100% fake contents and a land-locked boat amusement park that's sinking faster than it would have done at sea.

Dear Stimbo,
Then don't go and visit. Simple.

---

I am quite certain Christianity stole this mythological idea from the Jews and their Golems.

---

I would venture to make the assertion that anyone who who claims to have experienced anything supernatural is not right in the head. [/i]

---

May your delusion be swiftly swept away from you one before it is too late for you to join the ranks of the rational here in reality.

---

That is because you prefer the comforting lie over the harsh truth.

You believe in harsh truth, I believe that the Truth can set you free.

---

This is especially hilarious. Artist renditions based on evidence? Clearly fake.

Museum based entirely on a 2000+ year old book with no evidence? All of it must be real.

You rely on artifacts, I rely on Biblical facts

---

Let him stay, but I'd like to see the other arguments with a bit higher frequency...
One a day would be nice, but I guess rev would be overwhelmed with all the replies from each thread.

Sorry,
My personal life has been really busy. I have about a free hour now.

---

Nature is indifferent to the survival of species, hence a high rate of extinction. If an insufficient number of individuals within a species are able to pass on their genes, the species goes extinct. It could be just bad luck, like a species that only lives on one side of a particular mountain and is wiped out when the mountain turns out to be a volcano. Other species are also part of the 'reproductive fitness landscape' of a species, extinctions alter the course of evolution.

I wish the Dodo bird were still around. Bet they would of made for some mighty fine grub.

---

Did we ever get an argument or evidence from a reliable unbiased source that there are no transitional fossils, to respond to the clear demonstration there are many transitional fossils?

If no, can we agree this argument has been an utter failure and poorly researched at that?

Id like to see the next argument, and it seems like rev is out of steam and just tossing assertions out with nothing to back them up.

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

Alright lets get bias out of the way. First lets know our definitions.

a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice

So what is a tendency scientist have? Evidence. of course every one has a bias it is just where it lays. For scientist evidence is more important than anything when it comes to knowledge. But the way you are using bias is of course saying that they consider one idea(science like evolution) and not the other (creationism). But let me ask this, is it bias for a astronomer to find evidence and not consider it for a geocentric model? Answer, no. Why? Because there is no evidence for a geocentric universe, no different than there is no evidence for a spontaneous creation without a progressive order of biodiversity by common descent. There are some creationist in science labs and universities. The problem is that when you guys realize that the consensus of people doing the same thing you are conflicts with your most precious belief, then you must yell CONSPIRACY in order to keep your beliefs and "evidence" no matter how wrong you are. Also here are some things about the move Stein didn't put in his movie. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...u-to-know/

Funny how you try to use this man to prove a point about bias, yet his whole move was based on one.