No, the problem is the responses are coming all on one email, and it is hard telling where one begins and ends.
And testifying would entail speaking about Christ. I’ve not done this. I’ve produced evidence contradicting the so call science of common descent evolution.
That is what this site is for, is it not?
It isn’t, actually. We do get creationists every so often, but that isn’t the purpose here.
As for responses coming in email, have you considered using a web browser to visit the site? That might make it easier to tell what’s going on.
And you may not technically be testifyin’, but you do show no interest in understanding and responding to what people are saying to you. Instead you just lecture without regard to anything said. Also, you have produced no evidence, just various quotes from creationists and quote-mines from others. That’s not how evidence works.
Thank you for your response.
If you think that any of these apologetic videos or article have been missed here, be assured that most have made their appearance before.
Whale evolution is a classic example where creationists ask for evidence of transitional forms, and then when that is discovered, they just invent excuses and continue to ask for evidence of transitional forms.
The Tale of a Whale: An Ideal Case Study for Introducing the Evidence for Evolution
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Nearly everything you have referenced is from presuppositionalist apologetics ministries. You are not dealing with evidence or discussing science of anything. You are passing out tracts.
This response is at best irrational. No, it is not incorrect to point out that Darwin’s views were closer to Punctuated Equilibria than to Phyletic Gradualism. The quote demonstrates that - and you can verify it yourself. It has nothing to do with Gould and Eldredge’s motivations in coming up with P.E.
But since you chose to make this worthless response - apparently without reading even the sentence you quoted - I’ll point out that P.E. is of no help to you.
Modern YEC views include very rapid speciation - even more so than PE, and of course these speciations do not appear in the fossil record either. However, we do have quite a number of fossils like tiktaalik and morganucodon linking groups that Creationists claim to be unrelated. Creationism has no satisfactory explanation as to why such fossils should exist at all.
Not a single datum has been provided by you to contradict common descent. I suggest you educate yourself on the basics of evolutionary biology because your comments so far smack of profound ignorance about the field.
Can I get an acknowledgement that you have understood that there is a difference between not supporting a specific theory of evolution, versus not supporting all theories of evolution?
You can have evidence that supports that a person was murdered, without that evidence supporting that a specific individual was the murderer. This is how your constant appeals to Gould and others fail to show any issue with the theory of evolution, because their statements concern particular conceptions of how long and gradual certain evolutionary transitions occurred.
Can you now acknowledge that you have misunderstood Gould and others?
They are not claiming, as you did, that there are no transitional fossils. They think there are transitional fossils and examples have been given. You have given no reason to think they’re not transitional fossils.
A theory is a conceptual framework used to explain a body of facts by making testable predictions. As such, explanations can make predictions that can be tested against data. That data, which if found and conforms to predictions, can then be evidence for the theory (the explanation of the facts).
The theory of common descent says different groups of organisms are related through common descent, and evolved over time from different ancestral organisms. As such, it predicts there should have once existed species that were morphologically intermediate between extant groups inferred to share common descent.
We have fossils of such organisms. Transitional fossils. Gould and his colleagues all agree we have such fossil organisms, and fossil species like Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Dorudon, etc. are all examples of transitional fossils. The ones you are claiming do not even exist.
You have no theory that says such organisms should exist. They are thus evidence for common descent and for gradual evolutionary change, and all you can do is quotemine and take statements out of their context to portray a false picture of the state of the field of paleontology.
Here’s one sort of such evidence:
If different species of primates are to share common descent, their genetic differences should be consistent with the biochemical expectations of genetic mutations. That is, rather than being designed and hand-picked differences created for some functional purpose, the genetic differences should reflect a process of accumulating mutations. They do.
Then there’s the prediction of the chromosome 2 fusion. Since humans stand out as having 2 fewer chromosomes than our most similar primate cousins, if we truly are genetically and genealogically related through common descent, there must have occurred some sort of mutational change that made us end up with fewer chromosomes. Mutations that result in fewer chromosomes are known, one of which is a telomere-to-telomere fusion. Telomere-to-telomere chromosomal fusions produce internal telomeres (telomeres are normally found at the ends of the chromosomes), and they result in chromosomes with multiple centromeres.
Given the similar chromosomal banding patterns among humans, chimps, gorillas, and so on, the expectation was (if we were to share common ancestry) that human chromosome 2 suffered a telomere-to-telomere fusion. Sequencing human chromosome 2 confirmed this prediction of common descent, as it has both the expected internal telomeres and 2 centromeres.
And then there’s the all the other genetic similarities such as shared pseudogenes (vitellogenin, for example), ERVs, fossils, and the nested hierarchy. All evidence for common descent of all primates including humans.
It seems you have no idea as to what spam is, or what being foolish is. But, you have a real good idea as to how to be rude.
Again, if you think my sources are sound, provide the evidence that supports this. If you don’t realize this, too bad.
Not once has any one demonstrated that NEW information is formed due to any mutations.
But, over and over again, we have seen how organisms break down. Not become more complex.
I see we’ve hit the moving the goalposts stage here. Uncomfortable with the reality that there are transitional fossils, you move on to the the “no new information” canard.
Your link says the diametrically opposite. It directly says that “Mutations can produce new information, depending on the meaning of new and information.”
Whether a designer creates an adaptive allele and puts it into a population deliberately and with intent, or the adaptive allele is produced by mutation of a previous allele and natural selection favors the new one in the population, it’s the same information being created in the population, and so evolution can create information just like a designer can.
The function is the same, it’s physical effects are the same, the sequence is the same. If the designer creating it and putting it into a population of organisms makes it information, then so does it emerging through mutation and being favored by natural selection make it information.
We have also seen them become more complex. An intuitively obvious sense of more complex is to evolve more genes that aid in survival and reproduction. More parts = more complex. All else held equal, having more genes that aid survival and reproduction = more complex. In an experiment with E coli evolving in a particular novel environment, one strain increased the total genome size increased by up to 15% by numerous duplications.
Literally all your points are wrong and silly.
Interesting:
And you follow that “not once” claim with a quote from creation.com:
Mutations can produce new information, depending on the meaning of new and information, . . .
That’s certainly worth a chuckle.
So even creation.com has to admit the obvious, “mutations CAN produce new information” but the best they can do is try to obfuscate by playing games with the words “new” and “information.” (That double-talk reminds me of that famous Bill Clinton Grand Jury testimony: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.")
False. Every mutation is an example of new information.
Indeed, if there is ANYTHING that a mutation is capable of doing, it is produce new information!
Please add information theory to the subjects you really ought to study sometime. (Of course, copy-and-pastes from a disinformation website like creation.com are a poor substitute for a basic tutorial on these topics.)
Dunning-Kruger. Again.
That does seem to be true with respect to apologists such as Creation Ministries International. It all gets rather tedious.
But so far as biology is concerned, new information is not just possible, but inevitable. Change is constant, both in the environment, and in organisms as they adapt and compete for resources.
spam v. To flood (a network, esp. the Internet, a newsgroup, or individuals) with a large number of unsolicited postings, or multiple copies of the same posting.
Therefore multiple links to the same video would count as spam.
Foolishness, in this context, is thinking that you are achieving anything by parroting a load of creationist talking points, and posting links to a bunch of credibility-free creationist claptrap.
Thank you for that vacuous piece of tone policing. 
Why would I waste my time on this drivel? The complete lack of credibility of most (all?) of your sources (DI and its offshoots, ICR, etc) has been well known in scientific circles for decades.
There’s always something more wrong on the internet – so nobody is under any obligation to “provide evidence” to dispute your Gish Gallop of bad sources.
Science is about evidence, not some in group versus some out group. If you wish to discuss biology, be prepared to honestly and rigorously engage with specific evidence - that means actual scientific papers.
Yes, it predicts but it is not supported with empirical evidence. And any claims of common relations are not based upon observed occurrences, but merely upon what some decided long after the organism has died and been fossilized.
Looking at similarities only tells you there were similar physiologies. It does not tell you how their physiologies came to be. Plus it ignores the differences, which clearly show them to be different kinds of lifeforms.
Seriously, dude, you’re giving creationism a bad name here by spouting ignorant tropes and ignoring arguments against you. Sure, it had a bad name already, but you are still contributing. You are among the least informed of the creationists we’ve had here, which is saying a lot.
This thing with “observed occurrences” is simply not a good reason to reject a historical inference. I observed none of the craters on the moon form. I still know they’re impact craters.
If I have a kid that loves cookies and the cookie jar is empty, the hypothesis that my kid ate the cookies can make testable predictions. I can find chocolate and crumbs on his shirt, for example. I’ve still not seen him eat the cookies, but I’ve found evidence that he did. And I can conclude, entirely reasonably, that he probably ate the cookies. More reasonably than the idea the cookies magically disappeared all by themselves.
The fact is that we can know certain events in history occurred without having directly witnessed them. We can do that by postulating explanations for a body of facts, and by that same explanation making testable predictions we can compare to future observations. One of those explanations is the theory of common descent, postulated to explain a large body of facts. It also made lots of empirical predictions long before the technology to test them was invented. I have already given examples.
So you’re just wrong at a really basic epistemological level. You have this obviously wrong idea that we need to see something happen in real time otherwise it’s just a story and all stories are seemingly baseless conjectures, with no way to rationally or evidentially discriminate among them. But there is. They can make predictions, we can compare them to observations, and in that way we can support theories that explain historical events we can no longer re-create.
The theory of evolution is a theory that explains that something changes with time.
It also explains how something that used to be one and the same species split into two separate populations, each of which then gradually evolved increasingly different from each other with time. It thus entails both that there should be similarities but also differences.
This idea predicts transitional forms between different groups of organisms that share common ancestry. Transitional forms that there is no reason to think should exist if there was never any gradual transformation of species from their common ancestors.
Also, the particular types of differences can be predictions of common descent. For example, transition bias. Since biochemically we observe most mutations to be transitions (A<->G, or C<->T), if common descent is true then species that share common ancestry should have most of their DNA differences correspond to mutations between A and G, or C and T. We find that.
As expected from the biochemical causes of mutations, the majority of differences both between individual humans, and between the human species and other primates, consist of transitions. Fantastic corroboration of the theory of common descent of primates.
A predicted pattern in differences and similarities can in that way be evidence for a historical occurrence.
But, as @rtmcdge explained, all of this evidence can be ignored—because he prefers to pretend that all evidence for evolutionary processes does not exist. Indeed, he has the power to speak it out of existence. (This speak-it-out-of-existence is sort of the reverse of his interpretation of Genesis 1.)