If you have nothing to contribue but your usual litany of insults and falsehoods, please take yourselfabelcainsbrother wrote:First off the reason a lack of transitional fossils is brought up is because Charles Darwin was proven wrong that transitional fossils would be found,they never were found and yet this did not stop evolutionists from pushing evolution,instead they just made up their own chart and made a chart and called them transitional fossils and it shows how dishonest scientists are in their attempt to push the ToE on the world as true science. Evolutionists might have ignored this and came up with talking points to explain it away,but the bottom line is there are no transitional fossils like Darwin predicted would be found. This is why it is brought up when it comes to evolution.
All of your points about what a transitional fossil should look like is just a talking point you've picked up from somewhere. It is evolutionists playing dumb because they should already know what a transitional fossil should look like based on Charles Darwin's book "The origin of species" because it tells us what Darwin meant by transitional fossils and atheists know all about Charles Darwin,they have read his books,they know all about evolution,yet play dumb when called on something he was wrong about.It is to try to cover up the fact Darwin was wrong.
"playing demb" "just talking points" "made up" "cover up" "a lie"
I asked you several times to say what you conceive of a transitional or non-complete organism might be. You' ve not said 2 words in response.
IF you can say something honest, and ON TOPIC, please do so. If not, please go-away.