In all of your dissatisfaction about not receiving the evidence you want, you have provided nothing in return.
Almost all of my posts in this forum are responses to claims by anti-evolutionists. Usually, I make comments concerning my doubt about the validity of their claims and ask for evidence supporting them. These are rarely replied to with evidence beyond a link to some other anti-evolutionist making the exact same claim.
You guys are making the claims without providing evidence. Why should I be placed in the position of providing evidence supporting my doubts about your assertions when you refuse to provide evidence supporting them?
For example, you continue claiming that transitional fossils exist, but you don't provide any links to them.
Surely evolution fanatics would be bursting with pride when that "transitional form" was finally located. Surely they would post pictures of it all over the internet.
Please indulge us with a link, at least.
Ok
Response to the "no transitional fossils" claimFor Whales.
Talk OriginsDebate on whale transitionals Research paper on new whale transitionalSame transitional--easier to readAfter you have shown in detail what prevents these whale transitionals from actually being transitionals, then I will provide more links for other transitional fossils.
You continually claim that the science of all these scientists, teachers, physicists, and professors is "laughable" (your word) when the conflict your personal claims, yet you have not provided any specific information showing why you claim they are at fault.
Please, pick a point, be specific, and tell why you are correct and they are at fault.
How can I "pick a point" and "be specific" when you won't even provide a link to a You Tube video that you feel provides "proof" of your claims? You said "look it up yourself". I could easily find videos by the silliest goofballs on the net that just happen to be on your side but that would be stacking the deck in my favor. Maybe you could actually provide links to those scientists that you feel present the best evidence and then I could respond appropriately. I might even find their evidence compelling.
You have claimed to be a Christian. Then you claimed to have misrepresented yourself. Now, when I ask you about your own claim, to deny me an answer.
I did answer in the Inquisition of LinearAq thread. I also said there that I would not discuss my faith on this forum...and I won't. Learn to live with disappointment.
You are probably aware that one of the other active evolutionists here turned out to be very dishonest; Creating multiple accounts, posing as different people, and writing volumes of hollow, baseless information to support their religion (evolution). You probably also know that what a person believes is central to their morality, and therefore their conduct.
Aside from the implication that evolutionists have low morals, what is this paragraph supposed to accomplish. I already know that you think I am a liar, stupid, and of low moral character. So what? Argue the evidence, not the person presenting it. Do you have a problem with me because you think that truth is dependent on the person telling it?
You have made some curious statements yourself about your belief system while claiming to be a Christian, so the questions I asked about your belief and about your daily Bible reading are important indicators as to whether you are being honest with us.
Your problems about my past statements have no bearing on the truth of the statements that I make today. You don't believe what I am saying then check it out for yourself and then show me where I am wrong. BTW: I don't recall saying that I read the Bible daily.
I think it's reasonable to know the character of the person we're debating with.
And I think it is unimportant since it is the information presented that is to be evaluated, not the person presenting it. A belief that the person is honest might make you less likely to investigate their claims but that would be a mistake. An honest person could still be honestly wrong.
