to counter your counter again, shimrod... 1, you are yourself appealing to consensus. let me remind you again. your own science has nothing to say about origins, by your own admission [ this at least negates the claim that all of science is interdependent with the Darwin storyline]. this means that you are just following the Darwinist cult and their hallowed writings. of course if you can demonstrate that these changeable ideas are science ?......which brings us to 2, we only have their writings claiming evolutionism is true, but even some of them know it is full of holes, and admit it. and judging from your empty arguments, your evolution does not exist !. 3, and demonstrated your ignorance of the theory you blindly accept. but I don't claim to be a scientist, but the simple arguments have not been answered by anything except consensus. 4, only the evidence counts, you say.....ok, lets have yours. what does count though is a reasoned argument. " who made God " is not such. like how round is a square, or to whom is the bachelor married. 5, someone sais somewhere " the man who can read but doesn't, has no advantage over the man who cannot read". you are the one claiming to be the scientist, but only offer appeals to consensus and authority, with some uninformed theology. yet it is me , the non scientist, making arguments that accord with [ observable ] science. take some of your own medicine please .
|