Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

This clearly answers if apes evolved into humans

Just a moment, dear:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

So basically, they're lying to you. I mean, at minimum this would mean they aren't an objective source, but since you're talking evolution what this means is that there is a one hundred percent chance that you'll only get disagreement, whether evolution is viable or not.

Try again, and this time, use the words of scientists and not conmen.

http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

And again:

Our primary goal is that God be glorified, that souls be won for Christ, and that God’s Word be shown to be inerrant and pure, while exposing evolution as an atheistic misrepresentation of earth's and mankind's origin.

How about you post sources that aren't outright biased against the truth, where it contradicts with your favorite story book, Rev. I thought you wanted to be honest about this, and yet here you are still presenting the words of liars as if they were truth.

[Minimalist]

Humans are apes.

https://iho.asu.edu/

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/nick.he.html

http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/Human...ctures.htm

And creatards haven't evolved at all!

[Crossless2.0]

Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

And there it is again: you don't understand the theory. How much plainer can I say it? Take Ken Ham's dick out of your mouth and read a book on the subject. Fucking Christ, is it that hard to dust off a library card?

And . . . "the rabbit must not have got the memo."

[Cyberman]

Rev: can inert matter produce life? Even if you had all the energy in the Universe, would a dead stick turn into life?

[Heywood]

Rev: can inert matter produce life?

Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

[Cato]

Rev: can inert matter produce life?

Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

An assumption based on our knowledge of chemistry stemming from observation of the world. The assumption of God is supported by baseless assertion stemming from the imagination of an ignorant ancient.

[Cyberman]

Rev: can inert matter produce life?

Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

I'm not asking what "Atheist" assume.

[Angrboda]

"A pigeon.... and a chessboard."

[Rampant.A.I.]

Rev: can inert matter produce life?

Atheist assume it can because otherwise their world view would be incoherent.

Once again, if the theory of abiogenesis is false, it does not mean anything else in science is. It only means we don't yet understand how life arose.

[Cyberman]

I'm actually going somewhere with this.

I repeat: can inert matter, by itself, produce life?