Well, all you can infer from this is I do not necessarily regard "Darwinists" as "scientists" — because so many of them seem to be actively proselytizing atheists: e.g, Dawkins; Lewontin; Singer; Monod; Pinker; Dennett; et al.
I do not know how it would be possible to do science absent the idea of universal Truth. I do not know how a scientist can function absent this idea. And yet if he's an atheist, he must; because universal Truth is grounded in the Being of God — I Am that Am —and nowhere else. Atheists reject God in principle....
You claim not to be an atheist, allmendream, rather a Christian presumably in good standing.
So, why do you sound like an atheist?
I ask this question in the spirit of the common-sensical principle: "If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably duck."
???
I can infer from this that you cannot argue against a scientific theory about a principle you say you accept (evolution) without calling those who accept the theory “Darwinists” and insinuating that they are atheists.
You deny you did so and said I must have hallucinated such - but there it is in black and white.
You now double down on your tendency to do so, while denying you would EVER do such a thing; and make an insinuation that I am an atheist.
That right there is really funny.
As is typical with creationists, when found out of their depths on a scientific subject, have to pull out their “big guns” - namely “you must be an ATHEIST!” to go along with threats of imminent hellfire and damnation.
How typical that creationists cannot argue against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism.
Thanks again for posting. I couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the intellectual dead end creationism leads to and the baseless and crude debate tactics creationists engage in.
Bless you dearest sister in Christ. I will pray for you.