It is not that hard to summarize an article, it is not that hard to post a paragraph supporting your position and then linking to the rest of the article. It is the height of arrogance to force the readers of this thread to wade through seas of verbiage to see if your point is correct.
Furthermore, your articles, and specifically the 29 garbages of evolution are just a pretty name, but they do not prove what they claim to prove. You and the evolutionists constantly misrepresent the content of articles and claim that they prove what they do not. AND WHEN YOU FINALLY POST WHAT ANY OF THESE EVIDENCES ARE I WILL PROVE MY POINT THAT THE ARTICLES YOU LINK TO IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION DO NOT PROVE ANY SUCH THING.
This plea would be touching if you weren't always claiming that there's no evidence for evolution what-so-any. But let anyone link a substantive article (such as Theobald's that summarizes in barest outline 29 separate and distinct lines of evidence all pointing toward evolution), you cry foul on the grounds of "seas of verbiage."
There's too much evidence for us to be posting in-line on thread after thread just because you're born new and trolling for suckers on thread after thread. Get Duane Gish, Walt Brown, or Ken Ham to write 29 Excuses not to See the Evidence. Then you'll have something that summarizes your position to link in response.
Working my way down the thread, shaking my head in awestruck sadness at the slow, oblivious train wreck...