The Marxists-Freudian-Darwinists only respond to old arguments, and, as we have seen, are quick to call others "racists", where it is Darwinists of the past century who defined racism as a science, and Marxists who cleverly expanded the term to include ethnocentrism and just about anything, but to associate the "racist" (that's the cleverness of it) with Dr Mengele. (Look up the term in a dictionary from the 1940s, before you use it next time.)
(Sorry for this interruption. The question above stands.)
And how can we have an absolute if we don't have an external, transcendent TRUTH that's true whether you like it our not, whether you believe it or not, whether you even KNOW it or not?
And what is that truth or absolute?
I'll take a shot. Perhaps you both could answer my question?
I was once an atheist and an evolutionist.
You write that you used to be an evolutionist? Does this mean that you no longer believe that evolution is valid?
If so, do you believe that all (and I mean ALL) animals were created by God in their present form with absolutely no changes whatsoever between the time they were created and now?
IOW, do you believe that animals do not evolve?
As far as I can tell we are discussing the ToE and the observation of evolution in action.
How a typically idiotic Ad Hominen argument is supposed to provide evidence against 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism' as the Creatinoids so ineloquently put it, is beyond the believable. If you have this much trouble separating the putative use of the observed variation in species to commit atrocities from the scientific use of the theory and process perhaps you should refrain from participating in any argument.