If I’m not proposing any theories, what is it I’m supposed to be providing evidence of?
>>>>> Huh?
If they’ve got a theory, I’d like to see the evidence.
>>>> I thought you just said it’s indeed theory, and therefore needn’t require “evidence”...as theory is just that, “theory” and not fact. Theory advances, well THEORY, therefore what evidence are you talking about?
Do I have to have a competing theory before they’ll show it to me?
>>>>>> A better question would be, since so many darwinists keep parroting that ToE doesn’t address origins, then why do they get into such a snit every time ID DOES address origins?
Also, everytime someone shows it to you, you make comments like “Well, I don’t go to creation sites...but I’m sure they’re nice people”!
A theory is well supported by evidence.
If your going to try to speak the language at least learn the terms.
Show me where I said that.
>>>>>> A better question would be, since so many darwinists keep parroting that ToE doesn’t address origins, then why do they get into such a snit every time ID DOES address origins?
I'm not "so many Darwininsts", and it's not a better question. You keep arguing about question. You keep arguing about "Darwinists". It looks like when you sit down at that keyboard to argue crationism vs. evolut8ion you assume your "opponent" collectively and monolithically. As far as you're concerned the person sitting at the other keyboard might as well be Richard Dawkins, and will get treated accordingly.
Also, everytime someone shows it to you, you make comments like “Well, I don’t go to creation sites...but I’m sure they’re nice people”!
Show me where I said I don't go to cretionist websites.