Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Crossless2.0]

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

With such restrictions in place, poor Rev would be reduced to nothing more than impotent preaching. Oh . . . wait.

Anyway, I can't wait for Argument #2. Keep up the good work, Rev! You have so far provided dozens of pages of evidence that your brand of religion is contemptible and dangerous. That is certainly the verdict of my children, who have loosely kept up with your inane bullshit, and who have a hard time believing that an adult can be this fucking stupid. You and people like you do more for atheism than I ever could.

Thank you.