Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[pocaracas]

First, rev is shown the actual science:


And then he goes on to show just how he didn't read, much less understand, that science...


And this, ladies and gentlemen, was only argument #1.... I wonder how open to research rev777 will be for the other 6 arguments...

Such seems to be the creationist model: spew faulty arguments and refuse to listen and acknowledge the corrections made.

My desire to participate in debunking the other arguments is waning...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I respect everyone's views. However, please consider mine as well. If you are not interested in Argument #2, I understand.

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.