Replies

I'm not trying to insult you. If you really don't have a problem being corrected, you shouldn't defend a patently, demonstrably false statement long past the point of good faith, and then try to portray yourself as the aggrieved poster amongst the bullies.

I will state again for the record: I have no desire to try to convince you to believe in science. If you choose to ignore the overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence that supports a scientific theory, that is your concern. It doesn't matter one whit to me whether you believe in an earth that sprang into existence five thousand years ago or whether you think the earth was created from drops of giants' blood.

If the work of countless biologists, chemists, and archaeologists isn't enough to convince you, I'm not so vain to think I'll succeed where they failed.

It doesn't matter one whit to me whether you believe in an earth that sprang into existence five thousand years ago or whether you think the earth was created from drops of giants' blood.

And, where exactly in any post I've made have I claimed that I believe the planet is only 6000 years old? My original question was much more scientific than that, as you well know. I asked (one more time into the breach) WHERE ARE THOSE FOSSIL TRANSITIONALS WHICH SHOW DIFINITIVELY THE MICRO- OR MACRO-CHANGES OF ONE SPECIES BECOMING A DIFFERENT SPECIES? I've yet to see those fossils anywhere in the fossil record. What has been presented are fossils which are similar in structure, but obviously from different animal species. As for the rest, well, as a fisherman I really enjoy putting bait out there for the little fishies to bite on. And, boy have they bit hard;)