Why would you use a link that loops back to FR if you are quoting from “29+ Evidences”? And why would you select a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence in response to my challenge to demonstrate “step-by-step example of macroevolution using any of your proposed mechanisms”? And finally, surely you are aware that creation scientists have thoroughly debunked Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” point for point???
- 1.) Why would you use a link that loops back to FR if you are quoting from “29+ Evidences”?
- 2.) And why would you select a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence in response to my challenge to demonstrate “step-by-step example of macroevolution using any of your proposed mechanisms”?
- 3.) And finally, surely you are aware that creation scientists have thoroughly debunked Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” point for point???
1.) I have already explained and apologized for having messed up that link. Let's move on.
2.) "a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence" as part of a section dealing with possible falsification, (proof against the theoretical contention), would logically not contain empirical evidence, as such empirical evidence would constitute a refutation, and cause further study before publication.
Secondly, it is not up to you to pose challenges to those questioning or finding fault with your spurious contentions, with which you build your personal fortification against logic, it is rather for you to defend your allegations if possible. That's the way real science works.
3.) And no, I am not aware that "creation scientists", (a colossal oxymoron if ever there was one), have ever even made any kind of case to support their so-called "science", much less produced a refutation of any real science.