to draw your conclusions this would be like claiming that the statement planets orbit the sun is circular reasoning because the word orbit itself assumes that gravity is a thing transitional fossils are evidence for evolution just as the orbits of the planets are evidence for gravity even saying that evolution predicts intermediate forms and intermediate forms exist therefore evolution must be true well that's using the affirming the consequent fallacy discussed back in episode NUMBER_TOKEN. except the difference here is not just that evolution predicts the general concept of transitional forms it also predicts exactly where they can be found tiktaalik for instance was found based on prediction we had never found a non-fish vertebrate fossil that was NUMBER_TOKEN million years old but there were terrestrial tetrapods that were around NUMBER_TOKEN million years old so it was predicted that something like tiktaalik would be found in between those two dates what's more the type of environment that it was likely to be found in was predicted the researchers who went to ellsmere island to find it were not just digging randomly looking for any old fossil they went there specifically to look for something like tiktaalik and they found it important finds like this are almost always deliberately looked for based on predictions that the theory of evolution makes it is a rare thing indeed to have one of these important finds be a complete coincidence ultimately a little biblical critical thinking reveals that far from being proof of evolution intermediate looking fossils often cause problems for evolution they only cause problems in the sense that sometimes we have to re-examine the timeline to make sure it's correct that's the whole willing to change our minds when presented with new evidence thing yet are consistent with biblical interpretations only superficially if you ignore the vast majority of the data help not even then because aig can't decide where the line is between human and ape when looking at the fossil record a line that they claim repeatedly is clear and obvious that's it for this one today's comment of the day comes to us from doc will who says a college freshman with geology NUMBER_TOKEN can take his argument apart this guy is really low hanging fruit now it's hard to tell tone from text i can't tell if this is a criticism of me for tackling the low-hanging fruit or if it's just a comment on the general quality of creationist apologetics given that this was on a video where i responded to one of the creationist bigwigs but either way the low-hanging fruit is frequently the best arguments that are exposed to the general creationist population most of them don't go to the answers research journal and read through all the technical sounding papers they watch things like the NUMBER_TOKEN club which just give oversimplified and erroneous summaries of the arguments which can be torn apart without even getting geology NUMBER_TOKEN under your belt i personally try to get a mixture of the two so i can respond to the arguments that they are more likely to be directly exposed to but also so i can go more in depth into some of the quote unquote better arguments to show how they really don't work either thanks for watching thanks to this week's paypal hero edward and special thanks as always to my patrons mark mcmanus mark hetchem clenchies with lindobs what jesus and all the rest who are the transitional forms that prove the evolution of my
START_INTERACTION_TOKEN thanks to this week's paypal hero edward and special thanks as always to my patrons mark mcmanus mark hetchem clenchies with lindobs what jesus and all the rest who are the transitional forms that prove the evolution of my END_INTERACTION_TOKEN