Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

Dear Sir,
1. I didn't know what quote mining was.

Well, now that you do, do you accept that it's dishonest, and that it means the source you got it from lied to you?

2. I got both of those quotes from someone who was debating online with someone else. These were isolated quotes. I didn't fish them out from a website and just grabbed what I wanted and left the rest.

I'm actually pretty sure that's true, because you really do seem like a person who will accept anything that confirms what you already believe at face value. Would you admit, then, that the source you got those quotes from was lying, and admit that they aren't arguments for your position?

3. By having the names of who said that quote I thought I was fulfilling my obligation

The names are a start, but we shouldn't have to go google trawling to pull you up on your misquotes; you should do your due diligence around creationists as, as this incident should show you, they tend to lie a lot.

4. If you think I have the time to create some cunning stunts to defend my points when I am up to my eyeballs trying to respond to these replies, please pardon me I do have responsibilities to tend to outside of this place.

As we've been telling you, we'd rather you reply to one post in depth, than ten posts in one sentence each. I get that it can swamp you, we've all been there; focus in on points where you can actually make thoughtful arguments. Hell, if you cut out all the "I know it because god says so," crap, you'd give yourself way more time to work with, and actually appear more thoughtful.

5. You guys are quick to make judgments and put labels on people. You don't know Ken Ham from Adam, no pun intended. You guys also do not know me, yet make me out to be this complete deluded religious fanatic with the IQ of a common house fly. Then just ignore my posts then? Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

Personally, I reply to you because I don't think you're stupid. I do, however, think you're intellectually lazy, and just out for easy answers that don't challenge you. I'm trying to rouse you out of that behavior and show you that the people you've been listening to so far are lying to you.

I may not know Ken Ham personally, but his arguments stand and fall on their own merits, not on the strength of the person saying them. Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it is demonstrably true that Ken Ham's claims are not true, that mainstream science has not only refuted them, but done so decades in the past for some of them, and that he willfully misrepresents science in order to accomplish his goals.

For example, you keep saying "molecules to man evolution," and you got that from Ken Ham, didn't you? Well, I want you to listen very carefully to me: that entire premise is a lie. Ken Ham knows this, he's been told it before, but he keeps going on about it, but that's not at all what evolution is. Saying "molecules to man evolution" makes no more sense than saying "yoghurt to soap gravity,": it's not a thing. Evolution only happens to things that are already alive; it's an aspect of population genetics, which obviously needs a population before that happens. The "molecules" part of Ham's misrepresentation is, in fact, a completely separate field of science called abiogenesis, which Ham conflates with evolution deliberately to make it harder to demonstrate that evolution is true.

It's a lie, Rev. A downright, dirty lie, and a simple trip to any mainstream science website will show you this. Ken Ham lies when he tells you this is a thing; ask me for it, and I'll point you to the work of reputable biologists who can tell you the truth. You just have to want to learn. So far, you haven't even been willing to acknowledge there might even be things about evolution that you don't already know, no matter what we show you.