So people have to drag you kicking and screaming through most of modern science because you're such a fervent believer in the Big Bang? I mean, for starters, you told jlogajan not to bother linking the T.O. list of transitional species, right?
Yeah! That could happen! Lots of people ignore mountains of evidence for no reason at all. Like over two hundred fossil species that seem to be transitional from Thing A to Thing B.
OK, I'm fooled. You say you're not a creationist so I guess that's it then. Du-uh!
Except for one little thing. Jennyp asked you what you did believe and you came back with "Evolution = Wrong." A curious, one might say "tap dancing," interpretation of the question. Don't you believe anything about the origin of species besides "Evolution = Wrong?"
Now, a healthy skepticism can lead one to question a seeming preponderance of evidence, at least for a time. However, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth denial against all evidence is not healthy and not skepticism at all. It stems from a deep, irrational belief perceived as being contradicted by what is resisted.
The people who lawyer away the mountain of paleontological evidence that life on earth progressed from a few simple forms to many--including complex ones--through a branching evolution can be called "transitional form deniers." They aren't healthy skeptics. They're fighting for something. What's funny is that many prefer to wear a mask of impartiality, perhaps because they think that it makes them more credible. The tone-deafness of masquerading as a free thinker while manifesting delusional levels of denial is lost upon the afflicted.