[Elsie]

The first two sentences are false.

Oh?

It's considered proper etiquette to cite your sources. (So says PatrickHenry )

---

The next two sentences are perhaps literally true but are hollow as "challenges."

HMmmm.. perhaps.... Can something bee TRUE and NOT be 'literally' true?

[VadeRetro]

More creo amnesia, Elsie? What if I made you recap every point you wanted remembered, on every thread?

Toward sentence one, here! A sampling of transitionals. Not rare. Predicted by evolution, scoffed at by creationism. Found.

Toward sentence two, here! Reptilian features of Archaeopteryx. As to more and more scientists deciding that Archy is not a transitional, who the hell are they? I think it's the same five guys each year. (Wells, Meyer, Dembski, Berlinski, and Johnson.)

HMmmm.. perhaps.... Can something bee TRUE and NOT be 'literally' true?

The question is whether something can be true and not what some ingenious idiot cracks it up to be.

[VadeRetro]

It's considered proper etiquette to cite your sources. (So says PatrickHenry )

Note that I was making an assertion, not cutting and pasting someone else's words. And there's no reason for you to be unfamiliar with the evo position by now, Elsie.