How many steps does it take?

[Jimmy D]

It's ard to say....considering transitionl fossils don't exist. You see, mutations don't add up.

What is a transitional fossil?

 

[-57]

What is a transitional fossil?

I don't know. They don't exist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know. They don't exist.

Do you have evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

 

[-57]

Do you have evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

Are you claiming that just because one fossils is similiar to another...they're transitional? That seems to part of the evo circular reasoning.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you claiming that just because one fossils is similiar to another...they're transitional? That seems to part of the evo circular reasoning.

Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
Because you simply claiming they don't exist when other people have presented evidence that they do doesn't really make your case.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know. They don't exist.

How do you know they don't exist if you don't know what one would look like?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you claiming that just because one fossils is similiar to another...they're transitional? That seems to part of the evo circular reasoning.

I already addressed this misconception in post 101:

When all of these similarities fall into a nested hierarchy, yes it does mean that they evolved. Creationists always ignore the observation of the nested hierarchy. The prediction made by the theory of evolution is that you will find specific mixtures of features in fossils but not others. For example, the theory predicts that you will see mixtures of human and ape features but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

 

[-57]

Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
Because you simply claiming they don't exist when other people have presented evidence that they do doesn't really make your case.

Considering descent with modification is impossible....how are transitional fossils possible?

 

[-57]

I already addressed this misconception in post 101:

When all of these similarities fall into a nested hierarchy, yes it does mean that they evolved. Creationists always ignore the observation of the nested hierarchy. The prediction made by the theory of evolution is that you will find specific mixtures of features in fossils but not others. For example, the theory predicts that you will see mixtures of human and ape features but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features.

Your argument is old and based upon what YOU think. There is no reason as to why God could not have created using "nested hierarchy"

God created with different degree's of splendor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Considering descent with modification is impossible....how are transitional fossils possible?

Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
Again, you simply saying that it's impossible or doesn't exist without backing it up with evidence is not proof. It's just a claim.

 

[-57]

Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
Again, you simply saying that it's impossible or doesn't exist without backing it up with evidence is not proof. It's just a claim.

I have pointed out on several occasions the odds are against a repeated mutation adding to a particular trait in the progeny of a species.

NOW, when you can show how that is possible...get back to me. You see, for transitional fossils to be possible, this must happen. So, show me how it's possible. If you can't, and I fully expect you can't...that's OK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have pointed out on several occasions the odds are against a repeated mutation adding to a particular trait in the progeny of a species.

NOW, when you can show how that is possible...get back to me. You see, for transitional fossils to be possible, this must happen. So, show me how it's possible. If you can't, and I fully expect you can't...that's OK.

So you have no evidence that transitional fossils don't exist. Just you repeating your claims again and again and again.
Gotcha.

 

[-57]

So you have no evidence that transitional fossils don't exist. Just you repeating your claims again and again and again.
Gotcha.

Now I find you doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe...avoiding the question. If you truly are a "Warden_of_the _storm.....you would address the question.
Then again in my above post I said....I fully expect you can't. So far you've proven me right. But, that's OK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now I find you doing the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe...avoiding the question. If you truly are a "Warden_of_the _storm.....you would address the question.
Then again in my above post I said....I fully expect you can't. So far you've proven me right. But, that's OK.

I would address the question if you actually addressed my question instead of doing the creationist two-step.
And what does my username have to do with it? I honestly cannot see the connection.

 

[-57]

I would address the question if you actually addressed my question instead of doing the creationist two-step.
And what does my username have to do with it? I honestly cannot see the connection.

SWING AND A MISS....STRIKE 1

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

SWING AND A MISS....STRIKE 1

Nonsense post, as per usual. So let's try this one more.
Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

 

[-57]

Nonsense post, as per usual. So let's try this one more.
Answer the question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

SWING AND MISS......STRIKE 2.

You see....I have pointed out on several occasions the odds are against a repeated mutation adding to a particular trait in the progeny of a species.

NOW, when you can show how that is possible...get back to me. You see, for transitional fossils to be possible, this must happen. So, show me how it's possible. If you can't, and I fully expect you can't...that's OK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

SWING AND MISS......STRIKE 2.

You see....I have pointed out on several occasions the odds are against a repeated mutation adding to a particular trait in the progeny of a species.

NOW, when you can show how that is possible...get back to me. You see, for transitional fossils to be possible, this must happen. So, show me how it's possible. If you can't, and I fully expect you can't...that's OK.

Yeah, here's the thing: you simply saying that odds are against it, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS FACTUAL! You have not presented ANY evidence that transitional fossils are not real. You have just repeatedly made the claim that they aren't real and stuck your head in the sand and basically just been incredibly infantile about the whole thing.

So I will ask you, one more time, and actually TRY to follow through with this: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

 

[-57]

Yeah, here's the thing: you simply saying that odds are against it, DOES NOT MEAN IT IS FACTUAL! You have not presented ANY evidence that transitional fossils are not real. You have just repeatedly made the claim that they aren't real and stuck your head in the sand and basically just been incredibly infantile about the whole thing.

So I will ask you, one more time, and actually TRY to follow through with this: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?

SWING AND A MISS....STRIKE 3. YOU'RRRRRRRE OUT....seems as if you can't explain how mutations add up. Oh well, you avoided the question 3 times.

But, speaking of so-called transitional fossils

Lets take 3 fossils. The evo claim. Fossil 1 evolved into fossils 2 then fossil 2 evolved into fossil 3. Ta-dah....PROOF!!!

The evos forget there are other options, such as fossil 1 had offspring with fossil 3 and the "intermediate" looking fossil was fossil 2.....a genetic combination of fossil 1 and 3.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

SWING AND A MISS....STRIKE 3. YOU'RRRRRRRE OUT....seems as if you can't explain how mutations add up. Oh well, you avoided the question 3 times.

But, speaking of so-called transitional fossils

Lets take 3 fossils. The evo claim. Fossil 1 evolved into fossils 2 then fossil 2 evolved into fossil 3. Ta-dah....PROOF!!!

The evos forget there are other options, such as fossil 1 had offspring with fossil 3 and the "intermediate" looking fossil was fossil 2.....a genetic combination of fossil 1 and 3.

*sigh*... do you lack ANY reading comprehension? I asked you a question: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist?
You have repeatedly refused to answer this question and have pointedly made every attempt to AVOID answering this question.
Which proves one thing to me: you don't have any evidence for your claim. You have a claim, and a claim only. All you have repeatedly done is avoid answering, repeatedly bluster and posture for no reason whatsoever (this whole 'three strikes' obviously shows that you don't actually care about the discussion) and just wish for do nothing more than simply big up your own ego.

However, I fully endorse that idea that a person should be given a second chance. So, one more time: do you have any evidence that transitional fossils don't exist? If you actually answer this question, it will show to me that you're a person who wants to engage in a genuine scientific discussion. If you don't, then it shows that you don't actually care for a genuine scientific discussion and just want to inflate your own ego ("Oh, these evos won't answer this obviously rigged question. They must be scared of my knowledge!").