OK,.....one question, Read my statement again above. Is it not true? Even evolutionists in this group agree with it. Your "succession of fossils" I have said many times, is mere interpretation. 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.<quoted text>
No, many of your "catch pharases" are easily refuted, but like a politician, you think that repeating the mantra anyway will somehow make it stick.
"A fossil cannot tell you its ancestry, only that something once lived and died"
- but a succession of fossils consistent with an evolutionary pathway can tell us a LOT more than each individual fossil can.
Don't worry about falsifying it until you have observable evidence that it is true. I even quote you, "if it were true". I can't falsify that subteranian cyborgs live underground on Mars. I have no need to falsify fantasies. When observable evidence is presented, then we'll work on falsifying it.<quoted text>
"You have never directly observed macroevolution"
- but we have observed the evidence that macroevolution would leave behind if it were true, and not observed evidence that would falsify it.
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?<quoted text>I won't go any further. Just pointing out that you never answer the refutation of your talking points (because you cannot?). So you just repeat the talking points as if nobody had said anything.