Has everything to do with it and i explained why.
I'm pretty sure you didn't, but if you'd like to like to the specific sentences where you did show that whether I'm an atheist could change whether the ideas I present are true or logical or not, I'm happy to stand corrected.
You don't like it and it clashes with your delusional atheism. Everything else is excuse-making.
Once again, whether I like it or not, whether anyone thinks it clashes with atheism, whether it is excuse-making, is completely irrelevant as to whether it is true or logical.
You were the one who brought up observation and exempt your assumptions about the past from the standard you set.
You brought it up.
I brought it up and added more to my original point. So what?
It is you who is assuming the human body is not designed intelligently.
You still have to demonstrate your claim that I'm assuming it, rather than working off of evidence, even if incorrectly, in order for any rational person to consider whether it's true or not.
Even though the human body screams of design.
"Screaming of desig"n ≠ science.
That is because of your atheism as a driver of your interpretations, not objectivity. Tail wags the dog.
Again, doesn't matter for the same reasons I've already stated.
Your atheism also rules out historical accounts of creation from the get-go as fiction.
That's just wrong. Evidence I see drives my atheism, and the same evidence tells me that the biblical account of creation is a myth, not history.
As if you who is thousands of miles removed know more than the ancients who were much closer to the events in question.
That's an illogical criterion, because it would force one to accept *any and all* ancient creation accounts, which are contradictory with each other.
You can have your opinion. You can believe boys are girls or humans are apes. They are not science, they are delusion, and science and delusion are incompatible.
I don't believe boys are girls. Humans are apes, though, as defined by science.
There are two hypos, humans and apes are biologically related thru a common ancestor mystery creature identity unknown theoretical.
The end of your sentence is more poetry than intelligible.
Kind of like Dracula is a theoretical creature or munchkins or goblins. That is your position.
The evidence is there for a common ancestor. Let me know if you'd like to learn about that evidence, I'll be happy to oblige.
Ours is humans and apes are biologically unrelated
*All* life is biologically related in some way, if only by virtue of being alive.
and there was no common ancestor mystery creature. The human body is designed and prima facie evidence of a Designer.
The human body is evidence of design.
More claims without evidence. Please cite or show the actual evidence for this.
Another claim without evidence.
We were talking about whether biologists accept that people are apes, and that is true, whether anyone thinks people are actually apes or not. You're going counter to actual professionals who reach their conclusions on the same scientific principles that have produced the technology you use every day.
Then show that biologists ignore the differences between gorillas, say, and people.
The burden for the common ancestor mystery creature is on you, not us.
That's true, but you made the claim that evolution is based on mere philosophical assumption. That's *your* claim to show evidence for.