Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I've already answered that question...
You can't look at something that doesn't exist.
All you've done is show your own ignorance on the subject. Maybe if you actually looked instead of sticking your head in the ground, you might find what you're looking for.
All you've done is show your own ignorance on the subject. Maybe if you actually looked instead of sticking your head in the ground, you might find what you're looking for.
I've looked... many years ago...and they don't exist. The complete absence of transitional fossils proves evolution is a lie. Now... show me the fossil photos that prove the Archaeopteryx evolved from the reptiles. Admit it to yourself... they don't exist.
You pretend those fossils do exist, that link the reptiles to the Archaelpteryx... now, SHOW them. You're the one with your head in the sand... believing anything you're told about evolution, without looking for yourself. That's called indoctrination.
Wow. Such a classic case of projection right here.
That's not answering my question. You wanted me to give you one thing that would cause me to believe in evolution... and I gave you one... yet, you avoid it because you know you can't give the needed evidence. You're indoctrinated.
Logic must not be on your skill list?
No, I gave you the links you would need in post #44. Although you have given is projection, condescension and just straight up rudeness.
Haven't found transitional fossils? Oh, you must not be looking right. Here, let me illuminate you.
And this article should be of some help for you.
Although, of course, that all entirely depends on whether or not you're willing to learn.
You gave me nothing
Those links don't show a transition between the reptiles and the Archaeopteryx. You obviously don't understand what a transition means. You would need a LOT of transitional fossils so that the steps can be OBSERVED, SHOWING the step-by-step progression of the reptile becoming the Archaeopteryx. Also, drawings don't prove evolution.
Look again.
Look again.
"… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The Quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?