Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Duke Guilmon]

Intelligence has little to do with whether someone is an atheist, a theist, or an agnostic, you blithering fool. Being smart doesn't make you right, only being right makes you right, and shouldn't you be an agnostic if people so much smarter than you are? AND most of us are AGNOSTICS anyway, you cretin. How much do we have to dumb it down for you to get that we don't claim to know that no God or gods exist, which makes (most of) us AGNOSTICS, it's not BELIEVING any God or gods exist that makes us ATHEISTS, and there's no contradiction between being an agnostic atheist, or, for that matter, an agnostic theist.

I just don't have it in me to keep being impersonal about this. Congratulations on raising your level of idiocy to a point where I can't stand it anymore. I like to think I'm one of our more patient contributors, but I have my limits.

I hear what you have to say and get your point. Please don't leave, I appreciate your posts. Would like you around to hear your views on Argument #2.

---

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

I answered that already.

If this is your idea of a transitional fossil then you are playing a game where only you can win. How? Because to you if said animal is never found evolution is wrong. However if said animal is found then evolution would be dis-proven, meaning you don't have to accept evolution.