I had actually just assumed it was some lurker that saw this and just absolutely had to throw his two cents in.  That's what was cute -- THIS thread was what finally got him here, and it couldn't even apparently keep his attention long enough to see the replies. 

The truth is, hm, not cute. 

Ok bluxx, I know that other people have answered you, but I just can't leave a post like this hanging in the forums.

First of all, it is very clear that you have not attempted to understand evolution in any way outside of the blatant lies Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind have told you.

1. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a transitional fossil as evolution is a constant process. The "lack of transitional fossils" is a creationist fallacy. I can draw on thousands of examples of midway species between two other species. A kind of animal B between animal A and C. I imagine that fossil B is what you called a "transitional fossil", in which case all fossil are transitional fossils in some way or another (I believe a link has already been posted which examples of these). Heck, I have a fossilised ammonyte on my desk, I'm actually looking at a transitional fossil as I type.

Want to see a future transitional species? Look in the mirror.

2. Fish can live between the land and the sea, in fact it's fairly common. Here's a video of a mudskipper (link), a mudskipper is a fish which lives on both land and sea. And the mechanism is simple, predators live in the sea, so for fish that can exist on land for brief periods of time could escape, would live, and pass this trait. Eventually you have an animal that can exist between land and sea, and eventually exclusively land.

In fact it's not just fish, plenty of amphibians and reptiles live between land and sea. And the process works in reverse, we have a lot of evidence to show that cetaceans (whales and dolphins) evolved from land mammals to water mammals.

3. What mathematicians say this? I have found no evidence from a reliable source that this is true. And I'm instantly sceptical because this in no way falls under a mathematicians job, in fact I find it laughable that you believed this. Why would a mathematician be concerned with such a thing? Mathematicians do not understand the functions of evolution enough to be able to categorically say this, it's not their field. No mathematician would even be interested.

I wouldn't move away from my area of academic research (virtual reality) to tell a chemist that they are wrong, I just wouldn't be able to comment on their field, even though I have a sound understanding of chemistry. This is the same thing.

It's not fact, it's a lie, and it's blatantly obvious. Billions of years is plenty of time. Evolution may be slow, but it's not that slow and this has already been demonstrated in this thread.

An evolutionary biologist with even the most basic of maths skills (most of them have very good maths skills) would be far more qualified to work out the timescale of evolution.

4. Ah! Complex cell structure, another common creationist fallacy. Creationists are always in the mind set that one day a complex cell just popped out of nowhere. Such an idea is obviously not true, and no-one who accepts evolution should claim so. I've already spoke about this in this thread, so look at my older post for more details. 

Basically cells didn't start off complex, they started off simple, more simple than an actual cell. They started off as a self-replicating molecule, which exist in nature and have been synthetically created in laboratories. the self replicating cell would have grew more and more complex over thousands of years and eventually evolved into a simple cell... and then everything evolved from there. Oh, and self-replicating molecules have be shown to evolve just like life does.

5. Random chance, this is another good creationist fallacy. For evolution to be "random chance", members of a species would have to survive at ranom, this is not the case, only the fit survive. Basically evolution is a non-random process. The chances of evolution to happen are not one in a million, this just demonstrates a clear lack of understanding, the odds are more like, oh let's say, one in one.

Your dime analogy is grossly incorrect.

To be honest, I know I am being harsh on you, but you have fallen for so many creationist fallacies I fail to see how I can react in any other way.

It's very admirable that you have taken the time to study evolution. That's the quality about Slimebeast that I like. Even though he disagrees, he does his homework.

But I just want to mention one thing, if I may. Of course you are going to find evolution absurd if you look at it from a young earth creationist point of view, the two ideas are just hugely incompatible. If I were to look at evolution from a young earth position, I would find it absurd, despite the amount of evidence that has been shown for evolution.

When you look at the evidence towards the age of the Earth it is clear that it has existed for billions of years, and opposing arguments are more or less always based on speculation (light slowing down, radioactive decays speeds decreasing, etc... All of which there is no evidence for). Look to study evolution from an ancient earth point of view, just for kicks (not asking you to fundamentally change your beliefs), as opposed to the literal Abrahamic creation point of view, I'm sure it will make much more sense.

I'll get back to this thread, I have a few posts to reply to but I feel worn out at the moment.

While I feel that I have been able to view evolutionary theories from a farily nonbiased (so to speak) viewpoint ( that is, I thnk that, if I were not a young Earth creationist, I would still find evolution unacceptable), I do acknowledge that I would do well to continuously study both viewpoints closely while keeping in mind that my own stance might be clouding my judgement.  I probably haven't done that enough, actually.

This is sort of the same as the chicken and the egg, which one came first? The egg (evolution) or the chicken (creation), which in a majority of cases is stated to be the egg, an egg of two non-chickens. But those non-chickens, how did they come to be?

I cant say that evolution as we know it is the right answer, but i do know that we can prove that christianity, islam, hinduism etc, as we know it, isn't correct. And that is basicly how it works, you eliminate all the wrongs to find the right.

@smidlee

Well I think it is safe to say my blistering logic burned you, and you have skulked off to lick your wounds. So I will take my I owned you trophy, and add it to the rest of my collection. I am not saying I would have respected you more if you decided to keep fighting a battle where you were hopelessly outmatched, but I would have respected you more had you just said you conceded the match. Admitting your own defeat isn't the same as conceding that you are wrong. Just that you can't make a good argument that proves that you are right.

@highwaystar

Bluxx was a ringer brought in to raid these forums. He will probably never return, and thus will probably never read your well thought out response. He really didn't want to debate the topic. He just wanted to spread some propaganda.

@STEKSTAV

You make a very valid point. Science is allowed to be falsifiable, or subject to refinements over time. Religion on the other hand if you take it literally cannot in any part be falsifiable. Once that happens the entirety of the texts are by default false. The fact that many religious believers don't grasp this is shocking. Even more shocking is the intentional blind spots, and even the notion that they can salvage the texts. When I say salvage I mean take bits and pieces they find useful while leaving the things they don't like, or don't agree with.

@Topic

What always bewilders me about these debates is that the victor is a foregone conclusion, but the losing side continues to carry on with the fight. Religion has inevitably lost every point it has tried to defend historically. Examples such as Astronomy, Gravity, Anatomy, Anesthetics, Geology, Sexual Equality, and Freedom of disent. They have lost this war time and again, and they have even been fighting dirty. You know burning, torturing, and terrorizing people. Even with all that horrible stuff they did they still couldn't defeat Science. This is a hopeless battle, and I think most of them down where they don't want to admit it know it is hopeless. That is why so many zealots get so upset they see themselves losing ground every single day. Anyone would get frustrated facing an unstoppable force.

I bet you think the bible was written just by men.

If you do then evolution should get the same respect in your eyes. Written by men who's reputations and money are riding on it.

I don't know science so good, and I was raised to be religious.

Still, Young Earth Creationism has never made any sense to me.

Every time I look up into the sky, I can see stars that are more than six thousand light years away. With a telescope, it can be tens of thousands of light years. The Hubble telescope can see who knows how many light years into the gulf.

The age of the universe being tremendous seems kind of indisputable to me.

That what I found interesting about these debates  is you can learn alot about people.

- He obviously already determined in his mind what "THE TRUTH" is.

- "The Truth" is  extremely dogmatic.

- Don't trust what you read from a book.

- Trust more what you read on the internet.