Evolution

Thanks to con for responding. :)Point 1: Fossil EvidenceCon claims that there are very few transitional fossils, most of which are dubious, when there are many. As said before, there is a very complete set of bird-reptile fossils, such as the "Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba", as well as many others.(http://www.talkorigins.org...)Out of those, only the Archaeopteryx has been seriously scientifically contested. There are no morphological gaps between dinosaurs and birds.We also have quite a complete set of reptile-mammal fossils, and these transitional fossils prove how the mammalian jaw and ears formed from reptile fossils. These transitional fossils document the step-by-step process of how the mammalian jaw and earbones formed through evolution, changing slightly step by step between the reptile jaw-and-earbone to the mammalian one over a long period of time. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)We also have a nearly gap free timeline for human evolution, as well as all of the transitional fossils. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)The statement that there are few and very dubious transitional fossils is simply untrue.Claim 1: Nebraska ManThe Nebraska Man was never widely accepted as an ape-man by the scientific community due to the fact that there was only a decayed tooth. The drawing was never supposed to be scientific, but rather artistic in nature and was not accepted in the scientific community at that time. "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted." (Smith, 1922 emphasis added by talk.origins.)(http://www.talkorigins.org...) The hominid fossils that are supported by scientists are much, much more complete. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)Claim 2: Evolutionist quoteMany, many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then.Point 2: MacroevolutionI have provided evidence of new species forming from other species through evolution in the last round, but con requests evidence that a fruitfly can turn into an elephant, calling that macroevolution.The problem is, a fruitfly turning into an elephant would be evidence against evolution, as evolution takes place though several generations, and a fruitfly suddenly turning into elephants would violate evolutionary theory.Macroevolution, as defined by biologists, is just "new species forming through evolution". (http://www.talkorigins.org...) It is not "fruit flies giving birth to elephants". I have proven such speciation events do occur, and that there are enough transitional fossils to prove that the type of evolution con wanted to see did happen in the past.THE MICROEVOLUTION POINT IS CONCEDED AS WE BOTH BELIEVE THAT MICROEVOLUTION IS TRUE.Conclusion:P1: If macro evolution happens, then evolution is possible.P2. If we see transitional fossils documenting change in the fossil record leading up to the creatures today, then evolution is likely responsible for life on Earth today.Fact 1: Several examples of speciation (not just fruit flies and flowers), which is how biologists define macroevolution, have been observed.Fact 2: Evidence of macro evolution has been found in the fossil record, including proof of exactly how mammalian jaw bones evolved from reptile ones, a complete linage of reptile-bird fossils, and more.Conclusion: Evolution is supported by scientific fact, therefore the Theory of Evolution belongs in the category of science, or at least has enough merit to be taught in science classrooms as a plausible explanation of the development of life over time.Notes:-I hope you don't mind me using your format. I did used your format because it makes the rebuttal easier to read.I don't mind that at all, as a consistent format makes the debate more clear and easy to comprehend for those unfamiliar with the topic of the evolution controversy.- Also bird were made be dinosaurs according to Genesis which goes against the evolutionary hypothesis that birds came from dinosaurs. Science has been wrong before but the bible hasn't. For example science use to teach the earth was flat even though Job 26:10 says the earth is round. Also science taught that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing"( Job 26:7). In short theistic evolution is not plausible unless you say that that Genesis was mistranslated. Science follows the scientific method, which ensures that it corrects itself if an error is found. Also, Job 26:10, in the original King James Translation, says "He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." (https://www.biblegateway.com...) That does not seem to be about the horizon.Also, the Bible may use hyperbole, metaphors, exaggerations, similes, and etcetera.