That, my dear, would be a fool's errand. For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far....
Why should the "opposition" (which includes me) argue your (non-existent) case for you?
Do it yourself!
Here's a link to just a small part of the case that's already been presented right here on FR.
You'll have to go through several years of posts, but you'll find a case composed of facts, evidence, and links to professional, scientific journals if you keep at it.
I apologize for the posts on other subjects; I know of no way of filtering them out using FR's search function.
Happy reading.
Well, perhaps I was wrong. If the case for evolution is non-existent, there should be even less material to have to study to support it.
But I thought this whole brouhaha started when dinosaur bones, or the fossils of them, started showing up in rock layers in Europe and around the world.
That indicates to me that the entire world is the evidence case to support the contention that life has been around a long time on this planet.
Then the discovery that all life has a similar pattern of knitted fabric called DNA proves in a simple instant that all life is related.
It really wasn't a great leap of logic that led Darwin to conclude that animals produced more animals until the whole Earth was covered with them, grazing in every available niche of ecology into which they could squeeze, and some of them necessarily being squeezed out.
What his stroke of genius was, was the realization of the force that drove them to differ, and to succeed or fail on the basis of that difference.
Are you suggesting that all the data I have posted over the years amounts to "no case" and consists of "piles and piles of rant" and "debating tricks?"
Is this really what you are claiming?
Do it yourself!