No worries, this thread isn't solely about me. You guys are free to take it in whatever direction you want.

The only form of proof you'll accept is DNA from an entire evolutionary chain spanning thousands of years from millions of years in the past before you'll accept one descended from the other?

Clearly, I am wasting my time.

At the very least I hope you don't use the "crocodile pond scum", the "2 suddenly appearing" or the "dogs with wings" arguments as evidence that evolution is incorrect from now on.

---

I was pointing out your double standard.
You accuse us of just stating things without proof, and you are clearly doing exactly what you accuse us of. If you were consistent, then you would be an agnostic on evolution, but instead you state, categorically, that evolution is untrue. Hence, my point.

No, you are. You insist on using it as an argument against evolution, but whether or not abiogenesis (life coming from inorganic matter) is true does nothing to disprove evolution (the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations).

Of course we can't prove that abiogenesis is true. Even if we manage to replicate what we assume to be the conditions for it, and manage to create whatever self replicating proteins that were the basis for life on Earth (which, as far as I know, we haven't), it still wouldn't "prove" that that's what happened, at least probably not to your standards. But, unlike the Bible, science doesn't claim to have the answers, it's just a tool that we can use to make hypothesis, test them, and then refine our working knowledge of the way the world works.

And I'm not. What's your point?

Reductio ad aburdum.

Dude, if different species can't mate, then why can horses and donkeys (two different species) mate to create a mule? To be the same species they have to be able to produce offspring that can reproduce. Same thing with lions and tigers. They can mate, they just can't produce offspring that can reproduce. So, different species, reproducing, but not producing offspring capable of reproduction. Thoughts?

As a side not, I would also like to point out that, no matter how thoroughly you debunk evolution, you haven't done a damn thing to prove creationism. So, yeah, creationism...still nonsense. Or whatever pseudo-creationist nonsense you seem to believe in.

3. - moral absolutist systems & their followers are not content with being second best. They continually argue & proselytize to prove they're the best, or adapt when necessary. No one who views themselves as "moral" says, "Oh, I'm following a 3rd rate system of morality but that's ok with me".

If you're willing to adapt, then you recognize your morals aren't absolute.

If people find genuine happiness through their faith, I don't see a problem with it. In fact sometimes I get envious of it. Just as well envy isn't a sin for me I guess.

But then your morals include "willing to adapt". And you think it's best if everyone else would also be willing to adapt, which is your moral stance.

Maybe not, maybe he thinks it's fine if other people don't adapt.