<quoted text>OK,.....one question, Read my statement again above. Is it not true?
<quoted text> Even evolutionists in this group agree with it.
<quoted text> Your "succession of fossils" I have said many times, is mere interpretation.
This is an assertion which only proves you are not actually acquainted with the fossil record.
I gave the example of Paul Wright. Piltdown was interpreted as an intermediate, and look how that turned out. Nabraska Man was interpreted as an intermediate....all interpreted from a pigs tooth!!! So scientists can make all these claims, but it is all interpretation, and often proven wrong.
No, professional scientists did not have access to the fossils at first and debunked them quickly after they did.
<quoted text> Don't worry about falsifying it until you have observable evidence that it is true.
That leaves out creation/IDism.
<quoted text> When observable evidence is presented, then we'll work on falsifying it.
The observed evidence is 100% in support of evolution (and we are talking hundreds of BILLIONS of observations).
<quoted text>I just proved you wrong in the same post. I addressed both points and you know you've seen me say the same things before. You don't have to agree with me, but you are forced to admit that I address your claims each time!! Do I not?
No, you don't actually ADDRESS anything. That is the point. You just repeat the same nonsense over and over and are immune to our constant refutation of your points. You PRETEND the refutations never happened and repeat it again.... and repeat it again,.....and repeat it again......