RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
April 26, 2014 at 5:53 pm
(This post was last modified: April 26, 2014 at 6:01 pm by Revelation777.)
(April 24, 2014 at 8:27 am)pocaracas Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 7:59 am)Revelation777 Wrote: 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're, of course, aware that science isn't made from the drawings and artistic depictions which are based on very incomplete fossils, aren't you?
The science that comes through to the masses is very simplified and the drawings help the public relate... the actual scientists couldn't care less about those drawings.... so I fail to understand why you keep bringing them forward...
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man? So now I have to buy into every rendering made from fossils that are supposed to be the missing link or a proof of a transitional organism? No, sir, no.
http://rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html
(April 24, 2014 at 10:00 am)Chas Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 7:59 am)Revelation777 Wrote: I hope someday in the future you evolve from foul language and insults.
I hope that someday in the future you evolve from ignorance and closed-mindedness to knowledge and wisdom.
You are worse than completely ignorant of what evolution is - you have adopted lies and misinformation.
Read a book on evolution written by an actual scientist or just shut the fuck up.
What book do you suggest?
(April 24, 2014 at 10:29 am)Kitanetos Wrote:(April 23, 2014 at 10:10 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: but can you respect that?
No, because silly personal beliefs are not above reproach and do not necessarily deserve respect.
Well I respect you but not your silly beliefs.
(April 24, 2014 at 10:33 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 7:59 am)Revelation777 Wrote: 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.
(April 24, 2014 at 7:59 am)Revelation777 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
If AiG is soooooo disreputably, then why did Bill Nye bother wasting his time debating Ken Ham?
