Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Sejanus]

I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution.

Evolution by natural selection is a gradual process, all evolution is 'microevolution' and non-directional. So called 'macroevolution' was probably thought up by xtian apologist scumbags like Ray Cumfart in an attempt to discredit evolution by natural selection. So your conclusion, as well as your arguments in this thread are fatally flawed. I can't say I'm surprised, coming from someone with the username 'Revelation777'.

---

Rev, macroevolution is a term invented by creationists, not scientists. There is only evolution.

Damn you, you ninja'd me.

---

---

Well, at least I hope you benefit from my wool and tender chops. :)

---

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source. I shared that at this point in this thread where I am at. Like I said I want to post A#2 so we can move on with this. We can stay on this thread for years. Perhaps, in the future we can revisit this. As for now I am not claiming victory nor do I look at this as some sort of game. I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

---

Please see prior postings for rebuttal. I am on to A#2. Thanks for your post and hope to see you on the next thread.

---

I have seen your rebuttals, and they do not address anything I've posted above. If you can't provide an adequate response to my rebuttal, then what's the point of pretending that you want to have a debate?

He probably would've spouted some such drivel as "Those fossils were put there by the devil to trick us! Hey skeeter! go get me another root beer while I bang my sister" etc