I,m sorry bill, but if the likes of shimrod want to believe that nothing and no one did it all, they are entitled to their illogical nonsense, but some of us object to it being pushed on our kids!!
thanks for the character ref bill. likewise you are one of the few here that espouse evolutionism without resorting to badmouthing.
what you do have in common with shimrod , at least in your last post is the tactic of assuring us all that all the evidence confirms Darwinist doctrine as indisputable. I would have thought that was a logical fallacy...I think the popular term is elephant hurling?
this is why I say, I try to engage on specifics. but how am I supposed to engage on all those disiplines you listed. I doubt if you can either.
it is not enough to say , or infer that because you have studied logic that your evaluations of diverse data is correct. firstly logic is not the sole domain of skeptics,- infact there is a long article on it on CMI.
Secondly, I should have thought that any argument that may appear logical to you, falls down if it leans on a priori assesments of data, rather than examining other conclusions at least.[many creationists were once evolutionists]
thirdly the data should be accurate. for example, I think your idea that KJV scholars were responsible for the in/exclusion of scripture is mistaken. the contents of the bible were pretty much settled in church use a long time before king james.
speaking of specifics,- I read today that iron is now claimed to preserve soft tissue. they soaked an ostrich bone and its been 2 years now.....I suppose if you are committed to a paradigm you gotta come up with something...