Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Mister Agenda]

Here is a source you have been pleading for, someone who believe in the so called theory as you do.

That's not what we've been asking for at all, liar. We've asked for credible sources, period. What have you allowed your religion to do to your brain that you think finding a random zoologist who wrote something you agree with fifty years ago carries any authority? The only authority in science in evidence. Who says something doesn't matter, only whether what they say is correct.

You seem to keeping beating the dead horse of ...that's dishonest, that is a lie... please, focus on the argument instead of side stepping the issues.

Beating a dead horse may be tiring and a waste of time, but it's in no way dishonest in itself. Sometimes that's what happens when you're dealing with somone incapable of taking on board new information. They want to move on to their next point without ever successfully making their previous point and are incapable of acknowledging that. That's what leads to abuse of deceased horses.

The genetic connections you speak of is not evidence at all. Some similarities doesn't constitute proof.

Science deals in evidence, not proof. Proofs are for math and whiskey. And apparently we can add 'evidence' to the growing list of words you think you understand but don't. Of what else would those similarities be evidence? Hint: evolution alone predicts those genetic similarities, all ID can do is attempt to hijack them for re-purposing to the conclusion ID has decided in advance of the evidence.