Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

I also think Esquilax would become a great Biblical apologist if he becomes a believer someday. Him and Ken Ham probably would be friends and share the same accent.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one; biblical apologia strikes me as an unnecessary action if the bible were actually true. One doesn't need to apologize for true things, after all; they would just show the evidence that it's true and that would be sufficient. It's how every other segment of reality is demonstrated- we don't have heliocentrism apologists, after all- but when it comes to the bible, suddenly you need people to spin and interpret it so it still sounds realistic in the modern world. Sounds shady to me.

To be clear, if the truth of the bible was as clear and obvious as you feel it is, Rev, then we would all have the same lack of credibility as those who believe in a flat earth. The people who go against clear, obvious evidence aren't usually afforded the level of respect that those of other religions and atheists sometimes are.

Also, Ken Ham's accent is way broader than mine. I have trouble placing it, actually.

Not nearly as much holes as Darwinism.

Could you present some of those holes, rather than things you imagine are holes, but later turn out not to be because science has resolved them decades ago, as was the case in this first argument?

I know things got pretty muddy here, but your initial argument was that there were no transitional fossils, and we put that to rest pages ago.

I am learning that if I cite anything from AiG that you will instantly reject it. So I will try to incorporate other sources.

I will say this: if AiG got rid of that statement of faith, and started supporting their claims with real evidence that I could investigate independently and find that it's actually true, I would start believing AiG that day. The only reason I don't is that when I look at other sources I find that the things they say are untrue.

I don't disagree that evolution takes place in small but significant changes within species. I do take exception when you say a single cell organism eventually evolved into a human being. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Well, that's good, because that's not what evolution teaches. Evolution teaches that those small changes that you believe happen build up over time, making each organism a little bit different every generation, until eventually they're so different that we have to call them a different species to what they came from, because they're genetically and physically so different, and they can't interbreed with what they were before.

So far, you haven't demonstrated a mechanism for what would stop this from occurring and keep the changes within species boundaries, you're just saying it can't happen, which is like saying I can walk in one direction forever, but never walk a mile.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Can't we learn from the artful rendering of Nebraska Man?

I always find it interesting when people bring up these hoaxes, because it's clear that they've not bothered to look into them at all when they do. Here you go. Of particular interest, to me, is that there was significant doubt as to Nebraska Man's authenticity amongst the scientific community, to the point that it was labelled inconclusive. Also a fun read is the part where the scientist who initially examined the remains called the artistic rendering of the creature "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value," and the part where the drawing was done by an artist outside of the scientific community, and not within it.

You've been lied to again, Rev.

Oh hey, speaking of which! Can we get that retraction and acknowledgement that you were wrong about those quotes a ways back, now? And this Nebraska Man thing too, now that it's been demonstrated to be wrong too?