Never mind that but Let me help.
Common knowledge is enough to remedy nonsense, so there’s really no “refuting” necessary
Very true, but as your notion of "common sense" appears to be "delusions believed by a tiny number of left-behind nonentities who cannot accept advances in science.", you are not really in a position to comment further.
It’s like how do you refute, “blah blah blah” (eg someone who says evolution is science)
See above, case proved. You wouldn't know common sense if it bit you.
Obviously you’ve been indoctrinated by popular science texts—a little truth and lot of nonsense
Obviously, hundreds of thousands or research projects, PhD theses, experiments, expeditions and journal entries over the past 150 years in biology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, physics chemistry and ethnology, are all just an elaborate scam to make you look silly. If so, it worked.
Pop science texts were written to sell. You can’t sell books to evolutionists and atheist without flattering their sensitivities.
Serious scientific research is done to answer questions about reality. Answers with predictive power are deemed successful, and attract more funding. The incentive in science is to get it right, not to snub noses at inconsequential intellectual misfits.
Besides, atheists and practical atheists have hyjacked the educational establishments and, of course, will buy books that promote their bias.
Any more sour grapes? Is the whole of reality just conspiring to make you look ridiculous? No, you manage that by yourself. Reality couldn't care less whether you accept the truth, and frankly, neither do I.
You don’t understand specific
Ok what would that look like specifically
Oh come now, a great brain like yours and you don't know this? That is the point, you don't know. You are making assertions DNA shows tyhisDNA shows that. Well if DNA shows a generic bottleneck for all species at the same time (as it must, if the Flood story is true,) then you will have no difficulty in showing it. Hint: it is something to do with the available alleles per locus
Of course it did
The earth abounds with evidence for a worldwide flood.
Your problem is not lack of evidence or science but bad interpretations of the evidence.
No. Firstly I have no problem. Secondly
your problem is that you claim the earth abounds with evidence, but you are incapable of producing any. Meanwhile geology, physics, and biology abounds with evidence that not only did the Flood not happen but also that it is impossible for it to have happened.
Your leaders cook up a batch of false information and feed it to you and you
gobble it all down. No curiosity or question, just swallow whatever your leaders put in front of you.
You are practising your insults in the mirror again. I have loads of curiosity about how the real world works, which is probably why I have such a better grasp of it than you have.
You’re just trying to turn attention away from all the contrary facts against evolution
As there are none, this would be pointless.
Of course it does. That’s why evolution is so unbelievable
What is unbelievable is that a partially educated man like yourself in the 21st century is unable to accept the reality of evolution.
Wow, you don’t say.
Sadly evolution theories die young. Too bad they have such short life spans.
Wonder why evolutionists don’t say much about that
They just invent a newer explanations to cover up the defunct ones
Wrong. Evolution theories expand, gaining explanatory power as more information comes in. The basic underlying theories that species evolve due to natural selection is not just undiminished but unassailable.
Wow, that’s profound
?
Not every thing you don't understand is profound.
But you keep saying that as if trying to convince yourself.
I'm not even trying to convince you. I just lay the truth out there.
If you’re going to teach that stuff with confidence you must fully believe it and you obviously don’t
Your mind reading is as rubbish as everything else you do.
Why hasn’t someone shown that then.
All I see are interpretations of the evidence and evolutionists refer to their false interpretations as science. But they’re not fooling everyone
More opinionated statements based not on science but on bigoted interpretations of the evidence
If Dunning-Kruger had met you before publishing, they would have named their theory after you.
Yes but evolutionists aren’t reasonable to begin with (that’s why they believe in evolution) and you can’t reason with ‘em
????
You certainly cannot reason with anyone, which is why you are reduced to silly emoji is like a spoilt teenager.
Yes, from one who believes in the myth of evolution
No one with a functioning cerebral cortex thinks that evolution is a myth.