[alexander_busek]

So it’s a surrogate theological argument.

Your vague-yet-laconic style of discourse contributes little to nothing to the conversation at hand.

You are adding nothing substantive, advancing no falsifiable claims, attempting to explain nothing, but criticizing everything.

Regards,

[ifinnegan]

I believe my observation for your statement, which was:

“They cite it against people who argue that the alleged weaknesses or incompleteness of Darwinism (because it doesn’t purport to explain EVERYTHING) somehow make Creationism more plausible - and against people who argue that Darwinism can’t be true because... “BIBLE!”

Is quite apt. My observation was it is a surrogate theological argument.

Your statement described this dynamic well.

You disagree with my observation? If so why?

As far as laconic, am I supposed to be angry or frantic?