Yeah, that's called actually addressing the discussion substantively rather than just bloviating which is what people like you who are in over your head do. That your "response" was nothing but crying about me and repeating your talking points that have been several times by several of us while offering nothing of substance comes as no surprise.
Creationists like you have been fed a load of malarkey by professional charlatans and you actually believed them when they told you there are no transitional fossils or that there is no evidence for evolution. Thus, when confronted with the enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution you'd been told doesn't exist you don't know how to deal with it and resort to snide condescending comments, repeating mantras over and over and retorts that are little more than "I know you are, but what am I".
In addition to your inability to handle, emotionally, the evidence supporting evolution you are confused about the issue of scientific proof. That's because people have been feed snow jobs by snake oil salesmen who use phrases like "this scientifically proven formula" and they are so scientifically unaware that they simply cannot grasp that science doesn't deal in proof, hence your confusing in thinking this is an "admission" on my part.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
I'd suggest reading the whole thing.
