Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?

[Temujin]

The ad hominem abuse you’ve leveled against me seems to reveal your customary defunct MO that ultimately lead you to belief in evolution.

You accuse the way you believe. No facts, no evidence no nothing except conjecture and blind faith credulity

Ad hominem is a faulty argument that goes along the lines of "What X says cannot be true, because X has these character defects". If we put you in the place of X, we find that no accusation of ad hominem can work, as you haven't said anything to refute. Ad hominem is not the same as abuse.

 

[DaGeo]

Ad hominem is a faulty argument that goes along the lines of "What X says cannot be true, because X has these character defects". If we put you in the place of X, we find that no accusation of ad hominem can work, as you haven't said anything to refute. Ad hominem is not the same as abuse.

Temijin You’re not shunning me anymore Is it a troublesome conscience or sheer gravitas that brings ya back

Well, you’re here that’s what counts.

But while you’re here, my friend, let me gratuitously offer a short tutorial regarding the ad hominem fallacy.
Basically, an adult hominem attack is fallacious because it attacks the person rather than the person’s argument and it is abusive in some cases.

Now. I want you to do your part by participating in your own education.

Here’s what you can do for yourself.
Look up “abusive ad hominem attacks”, online—if you must. Then tell me there’s no such thing.
There’s no clock ticking, so you have plenty of time to complete your assignment.

Good luck ?
?

 

[The Pixie]

Can you support any of those claims? Creationists have been claiming evolution will soon disappear for 150 years, and yet it is stronger than ever. What is this crisis you talk about?

I asked you a question as well. I doubt you’ll answer but wonders never cease, so we’ll see. If l missed your answer, my apologies. But maybe ...

So you cannot support any of your claims. Creationists are big on bluster, and certainly like to present their uninformed opinions as facts, but so rarely are they able to support their nonsense,

I asked you a question as well. I doubt you’ll answer but wonders never cease, so we’ll see. If l missed your answer, my apologies. But maybe you’re still looking for answers or perhaps it was a mere oversight in your rush to voice your opinions or perhaps you’re like the rest of these frog-to-man-evolution fellows on the forums, you just ignore certain questions.

I cannot find a post on this thread by you that is addressed to me, let a lone a question to me. If you can tell me what the question is I will answer it - even if only to say I do not know. But you do have to actually ask it,

What specifically are you asking? Do you want theories, counter theories and conjectures—you seem entertained by that but you berate those in the ID camp for requesting more detail.

I am asking for something of substance for what ID is claiming besides merely saying evolution is wrong and God did it.

How did the intelligent designer create the various kinds? Which kinds were created and what later evolved? What are the timescales?

Ok, as for the fossils record.
Ever since the well funded pro-evolution establishment hijacked institutes of higher learning, the search for the allusive “missing link” continues. Evolution can’t seem to explain its absence.
Don’t tell me evolution explained the fossil record!
I’m sure you’ll respond by parading out the same o’defunct “scientific” sounding jargon.
But ostensibly there’s no excuse for not coming up with at least one unequivocal proven missing link.
Look at all that financial support, millions have been spent!! Yet no “missing link” and no transitional form that proves macro evolution
But you still embrace this modern myth

So no ID explanation for the fossil record. Thanks for confirming that.

Evolution, on the other hand, can explain the fossil record. Fossils appear in the geological record corresponding to when the organism died. A creature during in the Jurassic era will appear in the Jurassic stratum of the column. Furthermore, the species that appear in that stratum will be those that had evolved at that time - the obvious being dinosaurs of course.

And despite what you say here, they are a lot of transitional fossils, and they all support evolution.

https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

Transitional Fossils | Darwin

darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk

It is not a myth, it is science - but I get that creationists have difficulty telling the difference.

Come now Pixie, I’m sure there’s a hypothetical “god” creature that even you would find attractive.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course you can just invoke your allusive insinuations against those who rationally refuse to mindlessly parrot the creeds of your credulous blind faith in evolution. You may as well trash them for no reason, at least you’re being consistent

But you cannot refute what I said, can you?

Here is the Discovery Institute tax return for 2017.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/911/911521697/911521697_201712_990.pdf

Page 8 tells us Stephen Meyer was being paid £250,000 a year. He will be getting money for his books and likely other things as well on top of that. He is making a shed load of cash for hawking ID to the ignorant.

According to here, Ken Ham and his family were making nearly half a million a year ten years ago. I feel pretty confident saying he has now passed the half a million mark.

Nonreligious Questions

Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.

www.patheos.com

Creationism is big business, and a few people are making huge amounts of money from it. No wonder they are so keen to selling to trusting Christians. And no wonder they turn a blind eye to the evidence against it.

With regards to the connection between ID and religion, the fact that ID was invented to smuggle creationism into the classroom was proven in a court of law.

The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

That they are now embracing the religious can be seen here:

Faith & Science

www.discovery.org

I can support my claims. But I am in the fortunate position of having the truth on my side and knowing what I am talking about.

 

[Temujin]

Temijin You’re not shunning me anymore Is it a troublesome conscience or sheer gravitas that brings ya back

Well, you’re here that’s what counts.

But while you’re here, my friend, let me gratuitously offer a short tutorial regarding the ad hominem fallacy.
Basically, an adult hominem attack is fallacious because it attacks the person rather than the person’s argument and it is abusive in some cases.

Now. I want you to do your part by participating in your own education.

Here’s what you can do for yourself.
Look up “abusive ad hominem attacks”, online—if you must. Then tell me there’s no such thing.
There’s no clock ticking, so you have plenty of time to complete your assignment.

Good luck ?
?

Don't be obtuse. You should read more clearly. I said that there is no such thing when applied to you The reason being that it is a faulty attempt to refute an argument. And as you have yet to make an argument, or even a definitive statement of opinion, then nothing can be described as an attempt to refute you, faulty or not. It is the difference between throwing gasoline onto a fire in a faulty attempt to extinguish it, and throwing gasoline on an inert patch of concrete. Not very productive or edifying perhaps, but certainly not ad hominem.

 

[Temujin]

The ad hominem abuse you’ve leveled against me seems to reveal your customary defunct MO that ultimately lead you to belief in evolution.

You accuse the way you believe. No facts, no evidence no nothing except conjecture and blind faith credulity

I should have said earlier that this post is the first, and possibly only post from you that seems in any way genuine. It shows that you can put away the childish crayons and the even more childish mockery, and entered discourse as an adult. I would like to be able to discuss matters of substance with you, but I have a tendency to respond to people like for like. There are matters on this site that are interesting and controversial. I am here because I have a genuine interest in why some people think so differently about such matters than I do. I have no idea why you are here. If you don't want an intelligent conversation, you won't get one. If you do, start by showing that you are capable of it.

P. S. Thanks for the like. I will reciprocate if and when I find a post of yours that I can at least respect, if not agree with.

 

[DaGeo]

So you cannot support any of your claims. Creationists are big on bluster, and certainly like to present their uninformed opinions as facts, but so rarely are they able to support their nonsense,


I cannot find a post on this thread by you that is addressed to me, let a lone a question to me. If you can tell me what the question is I will answer it - even if only to say I do not know. But you do have to actually ask it,


I am asking for something of substance for what ID is claiming besides merely saying evolution is wrong and God did it.

How did the intelligent designer create the various kinds? Which kinds were created and what later evolved? What are the timescales?


So no ID explanation for the fossil record. Thanks for confirming that.

Evolution, on the other hand, can explain the fossil record. Fossils appear in the geological record corresponding to when the organism died. A creature during in the Jurassic era will appear in the Jurassic stratum of the column. Furthermore, the species that appear in that stratum will be those that had evolved at that time - the obvious being dinosaurs of course.

And despite what you say here, they are a lot of transitional fossils, and they all support evolution.

https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare

Transitional Fossils | Darwin

darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk

It is not a myth, it is science - but I get that creationists have difficulty telling the difference.


I have no idea what you are talking about.

But you cannot refute what I said, can you?

Here is the Discovery Institute tax return for 2017.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/911/911521697/911521697_201712_990.pdf

Page 8 tells us Stephen Meyer was being paid £250,000 a year. He will be getting money for his books and likely other things as well on top of that. He is making a shed load of cash for hawking ID to the ignorant.

According to here, Ken Ham and his family were making nearly half a million a year ten years ago. I feel pretty confident saying he has now passed the half a million mark.

Nonreligious Questions

Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.

www.patheos.com

Creationism is big business, and a few people are making huge amounts of money from it. No wonder they are so keen to selling to trusting Christians. And no wonder they turn a blind eye to the evidence against it.

With regards to the connection between ID and religion, the fact that ID was invented to smuggle creationism into the classroom was proven in a court of law.

The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

That they are now embracing the religious can be seen here:

Faith & Science

www.discovery.org

I can support my claims. But I am in the fortunate position of having the truth on my side and knowing what I am talking about.

A rather lengthy reply dancing through your self imposed mazes of clearly communicated incoherence in an attempt to defend previous irrationalities.

You come on here as if trying to convince others you’re being objective and scientific.

It’s as if you’re trying to project yourself as some sort of independent thinker but all you do is quote from others who believe just like you.

Your circle of “scientific” proofs start first with your own presumptions and your defense of them resembles a circuitous route through selective citations of “experts”.

Speaking of circuitous reasoning, have you considered a critical analysis of what you say before you post

One other thing, perhaps you’re unaware of the fact that it is your religious views that come across more clearly even though you dress them in “scientific” garb.

Further, you still don’t seem to understand that interpretations of evidence are not the same as the evidence itself

One thing I can say for sure. You’re a great communicator and you’re obviously very intelligent. Trouble is, lots of smart people hide from God in the bushes of their own intellectual wrangling. It’s an old trick but neither they nor you can fool everyone.

I dare say your insecure obfuscations of what you know to be true haven’t been successful even in fooling yourself. In my opinion, based on your posts, you’re attempting to suppress what you know to be true about God.

 

[Temujin]

A rather lengthy reply dancing through your self imposed mazes of clearly communicated incoherence in an attempt to defend previous irrationalities.

You come on here as if trying to convince others you’re being objective and scientific.

It’s as if you’re trying to project yourself as some sort of independent thinker but all you do is quote from others who believe just like you.

Your circle of “scientific” proofs start first with your own presumptions and your defense of them resembles a circuitous route through selective citations of “experts”.

Speaking of circuitous reasoning, have you considered a critical analysis of what you say before you post

One other thing, perhaps you’re unaware of the fact that it is your religious views that come across more clearly even though you dress them in “scientific” garb.

Further, you still don’t seem to understand that interpretations of evidence are not the same as the evidence itself

One thing I can say for sure. You’re a great communicator and you’re obviously very intelligent. Trouble is, lots of smart people hide from God in the bushes of their own intellectual wrangling. It’s an old trick but neither they nor you can fool everyone.

I dare say your insecure obfuscations of what you know to be true haven’t been successful even in fooling yourself. In my opinion, based on your posts, you’re attempting to suppress what you know to be true about God.

Still nothing of substance to say, I see. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.

 

[The Pixie]

A rather lengthy reply ...

It was a length reply that pretty much destroyed all your claims, so you will just ignore everything I said. Previously you accused me of not answering a question, and when challenged you cannot even substantiate that claim! It is kind of pathetic, to be frank.

That is okay, it is the creationist way. If you see anything that might disagree with what you have been told to think, just pretend it does not exist. But be aware that we do get lurks coming by occasionally, and they will see that the evolutionists can consistently address issues raised by creationists, while the creationists consistently run and hide.

A rather lengthy reply dancing through your self imposed mazes of clearly communicated incoherence in an attempt to defend previous irrationalities.

You come on here as if trying to convince others you’re being objective and scientific.

It’s as if you’re trying to project yourself as some sort of independent thinker but all you do is quote from others who believe just like you.

You use a lot of words, but I see nothing of substance. Exactly what was irrational in my post, in your view?

Why do you object to me citing others to support my position? I suppose you are more used to the creationist position where people spout any old nonsense as though it is true, and just refuse to support it. Sorry, but that is not my way.

Your circle of “scientific” proofs start first with your own presumptions and your defense of them resembles a circuitous route through selective citations of “experts”.

I am not claiming any “scientific” proofs. There is no proof in science for one thing.

We all come to this with presumptions. If you feel the presumptions in my post are wrong, you are free to call me out on that, and I will support it as best I can. But if you are going to make a blanket statement about my presumptions, well it looks like bluster and hot air.

Speaking of circuitous reasoning, have you considered a critical analysis of what you say before you post

What a delightfully arrogant comment! It evocates a wonderful feeling of parochial gossip and curtain twitching somehow. I think it is the sense of self-righteous disapproval, without the wit to actually say anything substantive. It is posts like these that make me realise what Christians are really like when you scratch below the surface.

One other thing, perhaps you’re unaware of the fact that it is your religious views that come across more clearly even though you dress them in “scientific” garb.

This is a forum about creationism; religion is a significant factor here - there is another forum for science - so yes, expect religious views.

Further, you still don’t seem to understand that interpretations of evidence are not the same as the evidence itself

And obviously you cannot explain the difference, because, well, then your post would have some substance.

An example of evidence is the fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is a fact; anyone with the facilities can confirm it.

Evolution interprets the evidence by saying chimps and humans diverged recently, while gorillas diverged from them somewhat earlier.

Creationism interprets the evidence by... ignoring it because it does not fit what they are told to believe.

One thing I can say for sure. You’re a great communicator and you’re obviously very intelligent.

Thanks!

Trouble is, lots of smart people hide from God in the bushes of their own intellectual wrangling. It’s an old trick but neither they nor you can fool everyone.

That is an interesting opinion, but like all your nonsense, it is lacking in any substance. Why should I think evolution is wrong? You cannot say. Why should I think God exists? You cannot say.

The "trouble" is, I can see though you.

 

[DaGeo]

Still nothing of substance to say, I see. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.

I’m never disappointed by irrelevancy of posts—I depend on it ????

 

[DaGeo]

It was a length reply that pretty much destroyed all your claims, so you will just ignore everything I said. Previously you accused me of not answering a question, and when challenged you cannot even substantiate that claim! It is kind of pathetic, to be frank.

That is okay, it is the creationist way. If you see anything that might disagree with what you have been told to think, just pretend it does not exist. But be aware that we do get lurks coming by occasionally, and they will see that the evolutionists can consistently address issues raised by creationists, while the creationists consistently run and hide.


You use a lot of words, but I see nothing of substance. Exactly what was irrational in my post, in your view?

Why do you object to me citing others to support my position? I suppose you are more used to the creationist position where people spout any old nonsense as though it is true, and just refuse to support it. Sorry, but that is not my way.


I am not claiming any “scientific” proofs. There is no proof in science for one thing.

We all come to this with presumptions. If you feel the presumptions in my post are wrong, you are free to call me out on that, and I will support it as best I can. But if you are going to make a blanket statement about my presumptions, well it looks like bluster and hot air.


What a delightfully arrogant comment! It evocates a wonderful feeling of parochial gossip and curtain twitching somehow. I think it is the sense of self-righteous disapproval, without the wit to actually say anything substantive. It is posts like these that make me realise what Christians are really like when you scratch below the surface.


This is a forum about creationism; religion is a significant factor here - there is another forum for science - so yes, expect religious views.


And obviously you cannot explain the difference, because, well, then your post would have some substance.

An example of evidence is the fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. This is a fact; anyone with the facilities can confirm it.

Evolution interprets the evidence by saying chimps and humans diverged recently, while gorillas diverged from them somewhat earlier.

Creationism interprets the evidence by... ignoring it because it does not fit what they are told to believe.


Thanks!


That is an interesting opinion, but like all your nonsense, it is lacking in any substance. Why should I think evolution is wrong? You cannot say. Why should I think God exists? You cannot say.

The "trouble" is, I can see though you.

Another lengthy circuitous post leading to nowhere.

At least you’re confessing your presumptions for what they are. Now you just need to start referring to the basis of those presuppositions in the same way, as little less than low grade presuppositions also

The enormous amount of psychology evident in your posts clearly suggests you believe in God. Obviously you don’t want to believe in him. But your posts, perhaps without intention, provide some clues as to why you don’t want to belief in God—for one, you don’t want to obey him

 

[Temujin]

I’m never disappointed by irrelevancy of posts—I depend on it ????

A Poe then.

 

[The Pixie]

Another lengthy circuitous post leading to nowhere.

Nowhere you are willing to go anyway.

We all come to this with presumptions. If you feel the presumptions in my post are wrong, you are free to call me out on that, and I will support it as best I can. But if you are going to make a blanket statement about my presumptions, well it looks like bluster and hot air.

At least you’re confessing your presumptions for what they are. Now you just need to start referring to the basis of those presuppositions in the same way, as little less than low grade presuppositions also

I take it you did not actually read my post then.

The enormous amount of psychology evident in your posts clearly suggests you believe in God.

That says a lot about your analytical skills. And you over-confidence in them.

Yo have posted numerous times on this forum in the last couple of days, and exactly none of your posts have anything of substance. Why is that? Seems only fair that I get to analyse you, so here goes. I think you believe you are here on a mission from God to smite the infidels. Unfortunately, you jack about the subject, but that is not a problem in your head, you have God on your side! And so here you are, vainly trying to argue about something you know nothing, making posts that can only serve to show how self-righteously ignorant Christians can be,

 

[DaGeo]

Nowhere you are willing to go anyway.



I take it you did not actually read my post then.


That says a lot about your analytical skills. And you over-confidence in them.

Yo have posted numerous times on this forum in the last couple of days, and exactly none of your posts have anything of substance. Why is that? Seems only fair that I get to analyse you, so here goes. I think you believe you are here on a mission from God to smite the infidels. Unfortunately, you jack about the subject, but that is not a problem in your head, you have God on your side! And so here you are, vainly trying to argue about something you know nothing, making posts that can only serve to show how self-righteously ignorant Christians

Pixie, you should probably relax and treat yourself to a cool drink before posting—just sayin’

Anger just clouds your objectivity—even more so, more so than usual

You’re obviously upset at me but there’s no need to loose your composure and start lashing out.

But if hurling false accusations and innuendo helps keep you focused, then by all means, lash out.

Your pictures, multiple quotes, lengthy posts and fallacious arguments have done little to nothing in moving your case forward. But if that’s all you can bring to the table, then feel free to express your wounded self-importance as you see fit.

But please remember, I have a much right to post here as you do.

Very curious why people so full of vitriol toward Christians and toward God always find themselves hanging around Christian sites complaining about the mention of God. And if anyone dare disagree, these “invaders” complain about being held accountable. They’re simply not going to be accountable for their faulty logic and for the silly things they talk about

Pixie. If you don’t wanna hear about God then why do you keep showing up here

Why have you strayed so far from the peace and tranquillity of those atheist or skeptic sites?? Why don’t you go there for your peace of mind and intellectual safety. They’ll pat your aching ego and agree with everything you have to say.

You have falsely accused me of “smiting infidels”, (an intriguing self-reference) but isn’t it you who have commandeered a spot on a <Christian forum> for the sole purpose of evangelizing with great gusto, your lost cause false faith in evolution??

Clearly your goal isn’t about reviewing all the facts in a fair manner or examining the evidence objectively. Without doubt, your posts make that plain—perhaps inadvertently—perhaps not

Seems you’re simply out to destroy the beliefs of those who think differently. And you do it on a Christian site

So exactly who is the real “infidel smiter”

 

[mikeT]

Needy attention troll needs attention.

News at 11.

 

[DaGeo]

Needy attention troll needs attention.

News at 11.

And l can depend on you to be there for me??????????

 

[The Pixie]

Pixie, you should probably relax and treat yourself to a cool drink before posting—just sayin’

Anger just clouds your objectivity—even more so, more so than usual

This is not a great to your post.

You’re obviously upset at me but there’s no need to loose your composure and start lashing out.

It is true that I find self-righteous blowhards obnoxious.

But if hurling false accusations and innuendo helps keep you focused, then by all means, lash out.

You mean like "Anger just clouds your objectivity—even more so, more so than usual". Maybe you need to look in the mirror, DaGeo—just sayin’

Your pictures, multiple quotes, lengthy posts and fallacious arguments have done little to nothing in moving your case forward. But if that’s all you can bring to the table, then feel free to express your wounded self-importance as you see fit.

They do nothing to move my case forward in your view because you are a creationist, and you have been told to ignore all evidence that disagrees with the Bible.

However, they do forward my case to those who are undecided. Casual visitors to CARM can see that my posts, and indeed most posts by evolutionists, are based on reason and evidence, whilst yours and your fellow creationists are based on bluster and, well, ignoring what the evolutionists say.

But please remember, I have a much right to post here as you do.

When have I suggested otherwise?

Do you even bother to read my posts? I strongly suspect not. I will return the favour and ignore the rest of your diatribe.

 

[DaGeo]

This is not a great to your post.

Profound!

It is true that I find self-righteous blowhards obnoxious.

Fallacy play book: when you have nothing else to offer attack the person

You mean like "Anger just clouds your objectivity—even more so, more so than usual". Maybe you need to look in the mirror, DaGeo—just sayin’

Another worn cliche. Old habits are just plain hard to break

They do nothing to move my case forward in your view because you are a creationist, and you have been told to ignore all evidence that disagrees with the Bible.

Why yes! if your opinions make sense to you that’s all that matters, after all it’s your world. Go for it
What evidence? Your opinions and your oft quoted opinions taken from your fellow wanna be mythologists, are only opinions.

Opinions are not necessarily the same thing as evidence or proof

However, your opinions do prove something. They are the evidence of, at least, one thing—they prove you are an opinionated person and that your opinions are based on your own set of biases.

Hope that helps

However, they do forward my case to those who are undecided. Casual visitors to CARM can see that my posts, and indeed most posts by evolutionists, are based on reason and evidence, whilst yours and your fellow creationists are based on bluster and, well, ignoring what the evolutionists say.

Here again, you mistakenly confuse your opinions and the opinions of those you quote with evidence and proof for evolution. They are not

Rather, the reality is, your posts serve as evidence clearly proving your posts contain mere opinions based only on a series of multiple biased interpretations of scientific evidence.
Sadly, all of that seems to escape you

When have I suggested otherwise?

Do you even bother to read my posts? I strongly suspect not. I will return the favour and ignore the rest of your diatribe.

I wouldn’t miss your posts for anything. I’ve run out of comics and your hilarious posts are a timely gem that fills the gap.

 

[TeabagSalad]

I know what it’s like to have people ignore my questions too, happens all the time on these forums so get off your high horse and man up.

I don't care if you answer the question, I already know the answer. I asked the question to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you understand the basics of evolution.

If you think my posts are expert commentary, thanks!!!!

Quite the opposite, your posts show that you don't know the first thing about the theory of evolution. You can't even answer a simple question that most 14 year old know the answer to.

But no, once again, you're confused. I just ask questions that usually get ignored.

Probably because your questions are either nonsensical or just plain silly.

I also call out silly posts

Lol, really!? Strange how you seem to be the one making the silly posts.

Sorry if that offends your fragile sensitivities but perhaps one day you’ll evolve beyond your self-induced credulity

I'm not offended at all. I don't care if you continue making posts which show your education is so bad you can't even answer a question most 14 year old kids are expecting to know.

 

[The Pixie]

Profound!

Fallacy play book: when you have nothing else to offer attack the person

And it certainly appears as though you have nothing else. You have made dozens of posts asserting creationism is true. You have made exactly zero with any substance.

Why yes! if your opinions make sense to you that’s all that matters, after all it’s your world. Go for it
What evidence? Your opinions and your oft quoted opinions taken from your fellow wanna be mythologists, are only opinions.

My opinions are backed by good science and overwhelming evidence.

Opinions are not necessarily the same thing as evidence or proof

So how about you stop asserting yours and you start providing the flood of evidence and proofs you claimed you had?

Good news! I have started a new thread just for that purpose. I am sure we all await your flood of evidence and proofs with baited breath!

DaGeo's flood of "proofs and evidence for creation"

On another thread, a certain post claims to have a flood of "proofs and evidence for creation". I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread where he can present all this material. Just on the off-chance that he does have something of substance...

forums.carm.org

However, your opinions do prove something. They are the evidence of, at least, one thing—they prove you are an opinionated person and that your opinions are based on your own set of biases.

Sure. But they are also based on good science and overwhelming evidence.

Are you going to claim you are not opinionated?

Here again, you mistakenly confuse your opinions and the opinions of those you quote with evidence and proof for evolution. They are not

And yet you cannot say why the science I linked to is wrong, can you?

My opinion is backed by science. Over 99% of biologists have the opinion that evolution is true, and they have that opinion because of the evidence.

Your opinion is backed by zero evidence. Hence, every post you make has zero substance.

 

[DaGeo]

And it certainly appears as though you have nothing else. You have made dozens of posts asserting creationism is true. You have made exactly zero with any substance.

Since you’re into faded cliches, try this one: “appearance isn’t everything”

My opinions are backed by good science and overwhelming evidence.

Oh yes, I’m so sure they are. What you consider “good science and evidence” might be bad logic to a rational person

So how about you stop asserting yours and you start providing the flood of evidence and proofs you claimed you had?

No no, those aren’t my opinions, that’s what you really believe. Fact check your posts.
Just be patient, I don’t think you’re ready for the truth. you come prepared.

Good news! I have started a new thread just for that purpose. I am sure we all await your flood of evidence and proofs with baited breath!

DaGeo's flood of "proofs and evidence for creation"

On another thread, a certain post claims to have a flood of "proofs and evidence for creation". I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread where he can present all this material. Just on the off-chance that he does have something of substance...

forums.carm.org

Great, prepare to bury your mythologies

Sure. But they are also based on good science and overwhelming evidence.

Yeah, ok

Are you going to claim you are not opinionated?

Concerning your belief in myth? No

And yet you cannot say why the science I linked to is wrong, can you?

Given your record, I doubt it but surprise me for once!

My opinion is backed by science. Over 99% of biologists have the opinion that evolution is true, and they have that opinion because of the evidence.

The good 0 bandwagon appeal.

Your opinion is backed by zero evidence. Hence, every post you make has zero substance.

Your bias is showing, you haven’t seen the evidence and you already know. What’s that called? Oh yes, a preconception