Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source.

In your case Rev, attacking the source is addressing the issue, insofar as the issue concerns whether or not the people feeding you information are educated or unbiased enough to be able to accurately represent the science involved with this subject. In every source you've presented, there have been lies, misinformation and half truths presented by people who demonstrably do not have the qualifications to be able to make the conclusions they have, especially where those conclusions disagree with those of the people who do have the relevant knowledge.

You are aware of the concept of credibility, right? As I've asked before, and you've failed to answer every time, if I showed you a source that said upfront that it presupposes that the bible is wrong and every aspect of christianity untrue, would you accept that source as unbiased and capable of rendering an appropriate conclusion about the world? What if it then turned out that this source was written by someone who has never even seen a bible? Oh, and the source is a conman with a history of lying to propagate his views, and owns a business selling products that rely on all this religion bashing. Is he credible, to you?

Chances are, you answered no, and why wouldn't you? Yet you continue to expect us to accept the views of uneducated, biased men and women with histories of lying and businesses built on the backs of the views they're propagating. Why should we, when you wouldn't do the same?

Not to mention... oh yeah, we haven't just been attacking your sources. Multiple times you have been given the work and findings of actual scientists working in the field that have demonstrated that the sources you have given us are demonstrably, objectively incorrect, and your only response is "I don't feel like this is the case."

Rev, this is a dishonest way to conduct yourself.

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.

Like right here: "I disagree" is not an argument, Rev. It's you being intractable, and frankly, a liar. You have no reason to discount the findings of actual, educated scientists, and yet you are, simply because of your own biases and refusal to educate yourself.

Frankly, it's pathetic, and deeply unchristian of you to be this dishonest in the face of verifiable facts. That's why you won't even bother to extend a little accountability and define what you would accept as a transitional fossil: so long as you don't state criteria you can continue to move the goalposts and just reject everything.