Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Revelation777]

I could have sworn it was normal for theists to ignore the facts; ergo, Faith.

Ostensibly though, lying is supposed to be a sin, and he should at least give the appearance of shying away from that.

Oh, and by the way Rev, you complain that I attack the source rather than the argument, but stop to consider the fact that the source is the majority of what you've presented. If you wanted us to hit up arguments, you should be making them, rather than just copying urls or large swathes of text presented without comment. What else do you expect?

If you want our responses to be more than "this person's fantasy does not impact the demonstrably real facts of evolution," then perhaps you should start formulating arguments for us to respond to.

your taunting is unsavory, please refrain from labeling and lets discuss matters as rational adults

[pocaracas]

So, rev, which is it?
1: You lied
2: You were induced in error by your lying sources

[Esquilax]

please don't try to incite by using false accusations

False?! Is your memory that bad?! Do I need to go back and find the quotations where you've lied? It was only a few days ago:

Okay, now you've gone and made my blood boil. This is nothing more than a lazy con job, or a deliberate lie, Rev. The Gould quote is a fairly common creationist quote mine, and it's horrendously dishonest on its own, but I'll admit, I actually had to go and check out the Schwartz one myself, something you should have done before you posted it. Do you know what I found? Do you know why he said that?

I do, because I bothered to look.

Or perhaps the apt demonstrations of how untrustworthy your sources are?

Rev, take a look at this. That's a picture of a fishing lure that Yahya put into his book as a supposedly real organism, and that happened more than once. A fishing lure! You can see the goddamn hook!

Nothing false about what I said, Rev. Everything I called you on is demonstrably true.

[Esquilax]

your taunting is unsavory, please refrain from labeling and lets discuss matters as rational adults

I tried, I really did. But you eschewed rationality with your every post in favor of referencing the lies and half truths of a bunch of conmen, and when called on it you wouldn't even admit that you were wrong.

You know what I find unsavory? Being lied to- either on purpose or through omission- by creationists, and then finding that they lack the sense of personal responsibility to even own up to their mistakes when they are proved in black and white.

[Mister Agenda]

your taunting is unsavory, please refrain from labeling and lets discuss matters as rational adults

You first. No one has been more childish on this thread than you.

[Crossless2.0]

False accusations, Rev? Really? You have copied/pasted walls of text without attribution from creationist sites. Those same sites make an explicit point of saying that they will not consider any evidence that they cannot square with their presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant word of their god, and to that end they will (as has been repeatedly demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere) lie about the nature of the evidence, twist and distort facts, and indulge in dishonest quote mining. Though this has been explained to you repeatedly, you will not acknowledge how sleazy and dishonest their tactics are, and you seem utterly unashamed to have used such bogus sites to represent your position. At no point have you demonstrated that you have even the barest understanding of the science you presume to dismiss. And when others have taken the trouble to correct you, your responses have been throw-away one-liners.

Has mendacity always come so easily to you, or did you have to get religion to learn to be so clueless and dishonest?

Oh, and how is that book by Prothero coming for you? You know the one: you said you'd read it if I read the Bible. Well, I have so it's your turn. Or was that just another of your lies? Since the only way I can get much of a response from you is to offend your too-sensitive feelings about old Anglo-Saxon words, allow me to add: Fuck you. Looking forward to your response.

[Bad Wolf]

Rev, take your damn fingers out your ears and listen. You have lied to us, this has been demonstrated. Please admit it and apologise for it.

[Minimalist]

[orogenicman]

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?

Bump