I've just noticed that the evos on EvC don't have a lot of time for your remarks. I'm wondering if you are thinking that it will be different here.
You define it. You define what Darwin meant.
If you're writing it then you need to put the quote in the proper context. Then we will both see what was meant. Do you think I have The Origin of Species memorised?
It the archaic form of your religion - not mine!
You evidently haven't been taking any notice of Dr. Adequate's comments. This is a silly fantasy in your head.
The "geological evidence" and "fossil record" you refer to are explained by the "theory". Therefore, they do not constitute evidence that it is true. Please review circular reasoning.
A theory is an explanation which fits the facts. We can see that there is a geological column which contains fossils which are sorted. The theory of evolution explains how this is possible. Tell me how creationism explains it. I also suggest you cease this silly circular reasoning claim. If you think that decades of scientists have been tripped up by such a simple (non)mistake then you're living in the fantasy in your head.
Genetics demolished evolutionism.
This will be news to geneticists as well as other scientists. Do explain how this happened.
Things were so bad that the Soviet Union banned genetics.
"Things" were "bad"?
As you've indicated you're unfamiliar with the history of your religion, I won't burden you with the deceitful ploys that allowed the religion to survive.
This is a silly fantasy in your head.
If you won't burden me with a proper explanation then I won't burden myself with listening.
First off, it was an evolutionist way back in the 40's or something that showed how flawed that horse story was. It's ancient history (which is why you don't know it - sorry I keep forgetting).
If you don't start backing up these silly claims with some evidence, like proper citations and explanations, then I honestly will stop giving any of my time to these discussions. I still admire Bex the most out of the creationists here. She honestly attempts to back up what she is saying.
Here's something your majority-is-right glasses might enable you to see:
There are 20+ scientific methods of determining the age of the earth which give dates under 50k years.
There are what? 4, 5, 6 that indicate it's billions of years old. Which is more likely: that 20 methods give right answers or that a handful will give right answers?
More unsubstantiated assertions. I thought they trained you better than this at EvC. A couple of ways we know that the earth is very old are radiometric dating and astronomical data. First you need to invalidate those. Secondly you need to tell me what exactly your creationist evidence is which is better.
And the #1 way? They're "out of order". There's plenty of documented cases where fossils were reassigned or dates were rejected with no other justification.
Cite one then.
There's plenty of evidence, but if you've already determined anyone presenting such evidence is telling lies, what's the point?
That's got to be one of the most obvious dodges I've ever seen.
You've also said all creationist websites are full of lies. (I've actually reviewed at least a dozen such accusations and found them without merit. So I have a dim view of these accusers.)
Which website would you like me to check? I've been to a few and they're riddled with inaccuracies. But if you can name one that isn't I'll be glad to look at it, it would certainly make a change.
