Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

Hold on just one cotton pickin' minute! You guys are putting me in a no win situation here.

You're being put in a no-win situation because your beliefs cannot win when you're required to provide evidence for them. The fact that you're incapable of winning doesn't mean we're all being unfair, it means you're playing with a lackluster hand.

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.

No, actually, it's not okay to use any source you want. If I was arguing for the existence of magic and quoted Harry Potter as my source, telling me that that's a fictional source isn't being unfair. It's simply true; in that case, as in yours, the sources being presented aren't conducive to the discussion being had. If you want to talk science, use a science source. If you want to talk lies and equivocations, as you have been so far, use AiG. But you don't get to pass the latter off as the former, and you don't get to cry foul when people note that the only sources you've seen fit to present are known liars, actively in the process of lying in the sources you present.

2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.

This is a discussion forum, which means you have to discuss. If you don't, then you've broken rule one, which is what you did when you filled this thread with link upon link of spurious lies told by detestable men and women. You got what you deserved.

3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.

When you cut a full quote in half to make the person you're quoting look like they're saying literally the exact opposite of what they said, then yes, you are lying. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should stop doing that, or re-evaluate the sources you are using, where they lie to you.

If I quoted the bible by skipping through the entire text until I made the sentence "there is no god," out of individual words, would you say I was being honest in representing that as the actual intention of the book?

4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus

I'm sorry your beliefs are nutty and ignorant. We've all offered to help you get better ones; it's not our fault you haven't accepted that offer.

5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals

When your jokes aren't funny and come on the back of a steadfast refusal to talk amidst a flurry of lies and glib half-truths, you bet your attempt to dodge the issue with humor will be met with unpleasantness. Telling a joke doesn't make all the shitty stuff you've done disappear, it just makes it seem like you're not taking it seriously.

6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

Refuting your nonsense, over and over, is not unjustified, given the raw content of your posts thus far.

what gives?

Actually, yeah, we do need to stop for a moment and deal with an important issue; it's really very hard to get creationists to take responsibility for the things they do and say, so I'm not going to let up on this until we get an answer from you.

You presented us quotes from Stephen Gould and this Schwartz fellow. Did you look them up yourself, or did you get them from a creationist source? If it's the latter, which source did you use?

When we looked up those quotes, what did we see, Rev? We found, in the former case, that the quote was part of a larger paragraph of text that represented a complete thought, and what you posted was that thought torn in half so that it said the opposite of what Gould meant. There was no way for the person who took that quote to avoid seeing that he wasn't finished talking, Rev. They had to have known that they were misrepresenting what Gould said.

With your Schwartz quote, it took me only a few seconds on google to find that he does accept evolution, which means that your quote, attempting to make it seem as though he was a creationist was wrong too. You posted two quotes that had been manipulated into saying exactly the opposite of what those quoted actually meant.

So what I want you to do is admit that those quotes you posted were wrong. If they came from a creationist source that isn't you, I want you to admit that those sources lied to you, and to us.

Shouldn't be hard for you, since that's what did happen. Just observe where you were in error and were misled, and we can move on. You are genuinely here to find the truth, right? Well, you've just been shown that something you posted wasn't that, so it's time to retract what you said and take responsibility for that.

Well?