I don't post them to "overwhelm" anyone, I post them to correct the overwhelming flood of lies and disinformation that "you and others" post in misguided attempts to attack biology.
prove
Science does not deal in "proof". Neither does anything else in the real world. But it does rigorously demonstrate the evidence which validates, in multiple cross-confirming ways, and in tens of thousands of ways, large and small, the conclusions of evolutionary biology.
that we all originated naturalistically and could not have resulted from creation?
Define "resulted from creation". In any case, most people have no problem accepting the validity of naturalistic processes originating [fill in the blank], *and* the possibility that those processes were set in motion by some kind of act of creation. It's not either/or.
And, since you state that 12 transistional forms have been found are you disagreeing with evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz of Pitt U when he suggests that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet, but argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding from years earlier? (Recently posted, I think.) Or are we just in for another round of revision of your biology?
No, I'm not, because I understand what he's saying, unlike yourself. It is not in contradiction to existing models of Darwinian evolution. Hint: As Stephen Gould correctly points out, "sudden" change at one time scale translates to gradual change when viewed across longer periods of time. And no, Schwartz is not suggesting that "poof", a reptile egg hatched out a bird, or that an ape gave birth to a modern human. That's *not* the kind of "sudden change" he's talking about.
Stop grasping at every new hypothesis in the desperate hope that it "overturns" everything that came previously. It's certainly not true of Schwartz's paper, even if it turns out to hold water, which is rather questionable at this point.
And (I can't resist), "May the Schwartz be with you."
"I don't post them to "overwhelm" anyone, I post them to correct the overwhelming flood of lies and disinformation that "you and others" post in misguided attempts to attack biology."
Questioning is not lying. Why is questioning your biology mis-guided? Are you really that perfect?
"Science does not deal in "proof"
So, you are not really interested in origins, correct?
"Define "resulted from creation"
Originating with a Creator. Actually, I believe it is either/or for any Bible student. Law of the excluded middle. For your side, Lewontin said you cannot allow a divine foot in the door. For my side the genesis of "yom" is "warm" meaning a day, period. For anyone that has to try to marry the two he will face multiple difficulties.
"No, I'm not, because I understand what he's saying, unlike yourself."
Insult aside, I was referring to his statement that no transistional forms exist. You say they do.
"Stop grasping at every new hypothesis in the desperate hope that it "overturns" everything..."
You presume too much. I am certainly not desperate. Surely you are not saying that your doctrine is fully matured and not subject to change.