Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Anomalocaris]

Because they're conning you and many others, perhaps? They're misrepresenting what science actually claims to people like you - and not so coincidentally, raking I'm some dough while they're at it. Have you seen what they charge for admission to their sham of a "museum"?

So if a museum charges for admission so they can pay their bills, and staff, it is a sham? Come on now.

If a museum makes up stuff and present it as real, it is sham.

That bullshit museum would be a sham even if it paid people to go visit.

---

God's Word is true,

If it were not, how do you find out?

however, if that were flawed, which it is not,

What did you do to ascertain this?

then I stand on sand. ,

And you pretend you are not because?

I have found it to be true and consistent in my life and in the lives of many.,

In science, whenever something is claimed to have been found true, The claim remains a mere hypothesis. For the hypothesis to be taken seriously, it is required that for the claimant to produce a rigornous analyze of the mathematical probability that if that thing was in fact false, it could still have produced the very same evidences which led the claimant to interpret it as being true. This is called the null hypothesis. The probability of the null hypothesis must be demonstrated, not merely asserted, to be very small, for the original hypothesis to be taken seriously.

If the claim refuse to do this, or is unable to do this, then "finding something to be true" is considered bullshit, because claimant failed to demonstrate the same evidence that had led him to believe something to be true could not have been produced even when that thing is in fact false.

The null hypothesis to your original hypothesis of "I have found it to be true and consistent in my life and in the lives of many" would be "Revs would have found it to be true and consistent even when it is not true, and/or not consistent." Analyze the probability of this null hypothesis, and demonstrate the possibility that the mathematical probability of this hull hypothesis is very small indeed, small enough to exclude the null hypothesis.

Do this, or else your hypothesis is indistinguihsalbe from bullshit, for the same reason as any claim made in science would be dismissed if its null hypothesis can not be excluded through probability calculation.

If you can't conform to basic standards of scientific integrity, what business do you have making claims before those who respects scientific integrity as the basis of truth finding?