Quotes

[artsylady]

Okay Jukia.

Which fossil record do you think is 'most complete'?

Problem is, if evolution were true, there should be millions of transitionals and at least one species should look complete. None due and the incomplete ones are too few in number to prove anything. The fact that you realize that the fossil record is incomplete tells us that you have great faith and don't care about the evidence.

So let's see just how faith-based you really are?

[artsylady]

The issue of fossil record completeness seems to really really matter to creationists

That's because we have higher standards for acceptability.

My definition of complete? How about fossils that show what evolution says happened. Fish with stumps, fish with part legs, part lungs part gills, moving onto fish with legs and full lungs, then fish with bigger lungs, bigger brains, moving on to fish with arms and legs, or many half fish half human fossils etc, etc,.

No, we have fish with strong fins and we have human fossils and that somehow proves fish turned into humans?

[artsylady]

Are you trying to tell me the story has changed? Fish didn't grow legs and turn into humans?

If this is still the bedtime story then there should be proof to show this.

Horse evolution charts show nothing. Bigger and stronger doesn't mean anything. I can show you a very tiny 'horse' - not even a fossil, but a living breathing creature and all it proves is that creatures have the ability to change.

I think it's time for a quote about 'bedtime stories' from a prominient evolutionist.

[artsylady]

Why are you looking for my definition. I'll go by the evolutionists definition because they also know they are not complete.

[artsylady]

Well, we have fish with strong fins and we have "hominid' and human fossils and that somehow proves fish over time, eventually turned into humans? I don't find that acceptable at all as proof. Sorry. We still have amphibians alive and well today. Just too many stretches - too much is based on imaginations.

You probably already know of the Colin Paterson quotes where he says he knows of no transitionals, right? If you want, I can go and grab the 'rebuttal' from Talk Origins.

[artsylady]

The story of evolution states that we all started in the water. The fossil record may show creatures in the water, but the intermediate forms are nonexistant.

Even the story of abiogenesis - or life from non life in the primordial soup is ludicrous with zero evidence and has no basis in science.

[artsylady]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean define a complete fossil record, I meant define what you mean by a species that 'looks complete'.

Evolutionists often cite the horse evolution fossils as complete. Does this satisfy you?

[artsylady]

What do you want from me?

[artsylady]

I'm at a loss.

I've stated that none of them look complete. I've stated that if evolution happened then we should find millions of transitionals (not a thousand that are dubious) and that if single celled creatures were the beginning of humans, we should see that. If everything started as sea life, we should see the transitionals. We just don't.

Evolutionists sometimes point to horse evolution as 'complete'. Do you?

[artsylady]

Okay.

But have you heard the Colin Paterson quotes? I don't mind getting the 'rebuttal' straight from Talk Origins.