CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Esquilax]

Of course I prefer to discuss matters logically. If you suggest creationist fabrications, I would like you to point out the one(s) that I am guilty of (or the sources referred to on a specific topic)

Ignorance ? Please correct me then.

The quote I gave back on the previous page was, top to bottom, creationist lies and misrepresentations of scientific positions. It is so fallacious, so completely wrong and so utterly debunked, and has been so for years that I actually have a hard time thinking you genuinely believe it. It's far more likely that you're simply lying, than that you've never come across a source that corrects this egregious bullshit.

Disrespectful? Please elaborate. If it refers to my remark on family ties, don't blame me. I personally do not believe anybody is a descendant of any ape but if you insist....

No, what's disrespectful is that you come into our forum, full of very intelligent, sane people that are fully willing to engage on these topics as deeply as possible, and you proceed to utterly refuse to so much as take the discussion seriously. What's disrespectful is the complete lack of regard you show for us when you trot out these pitiful, anemic strawmen arguments as though they're true. What's disrespectful is lying to us about what we believe, and demonstrating how little effort you've put into understanding what your opponents think before you decided we're wrong.

You didn't intimate anything that's remotely true. What you did was come into our house, shit all over our conversation, and then expect us to take you seriously.

The only thing I can ask of you is to also evaluate information as objectively as possible and even agree where there is insufficient evidence to support your view or alternatively that a different solution to yours is possible?
As an example, would you agree that evidence thus far would also support intelligent design ?

There is no evidence for intelligent design, you fatuous moron. Every last piece of "evidence" for intelligent design boils down to an argument from ignorance, and a claim that since evolution can't answer x, therefore designer. You actually need evidence for your position, not just holes you can poke in the opposite.

That's the thing: one side has actual evidence, and the other has the breathtaking bullshit that you've seen fit to deploy here.

Then I cannot help you my friend. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. And by implication you also accept extremely small (Statistically very well beyond "nil") chance that it happened "by itself". Well there goes logic for you ! But what the heck!

Okay, now I know you're a lying piece of shit, because I specifically told you, several pages back, that what you represented Dawkins as saying was not what he had meant, that it was a quote mine taken out of context by creationist frauds. To confirm this, I linked you to an article literally written by Dawkins where he addressed that specific quote, and said he believes the opposite of what you're making him out to say.

There is no excuse for this, you're being dishonest.