But what about the lack of transitional fossils? There is not even one.

Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen because we are in a spiritual war and neither God nor the enemy is going to give up on the souls of our young people. I guess God's love is greater than yours or mine, He knows that the truth is better for us than a lie and He has his agents out there spreading the good word that He is alive and well on planet Earth and is actively doing spiritual battle for our souls.

Pardon? You think there is a 'spiritual WAR?... for souls of our young" ? Who is the enemy, EXACTLY?

It's a little bit of circular reasoning there my friend. If someone told me therefore it can't be true? What if a scientist told me? Is that not true either? If you want proof, will you accept it if it supports creationism, or will you rotate back to the circular logic

The scientist admits that the hypothesis or theory may be refutable. A creationist does not do this.

Hurting others can also be in a psychological way, such as parents or authority figures who brainwash people into believing

That is to say God does not send anyone to hell. Some people might choose to go there by their own free will.

What on earth does "Sin is geographical" mean? Is this talking about moral/cultural relativism?

No scientist at all ever saw any transitional fossils.

but if we've changed doesnt that mean that we ARE a different creature?

Jonathan Sarfati, he is one of the top scientists

Another prominent biologist who has been the victim of creationist misquotes and dishonesty is Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book, Patterson responded: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990). Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".

This is absurd on the face of it, since Patterson’s book contains several descriptions of different transitional fossils: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130)

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception.

Actually, in the scientific community (the real one), he is acknowledged as a clown and a charlatan (for those scientists who even follow such trivial matters).

No offense to you, personally, but he is.

Hypothesis are guesses. Theories are supported by observations and have yet to be disproved using empirical evidence. If this happens for long enough they get called Laws.(Read the thread please, this is a recreation of earlier discussion).