It's not unfair to roll one's eyes at those who insist that the rules of a discipline don't apply to them because they're somehow "special".
Where did I state, EVER, my criticisms were pertaining to beliefs/scientists espousing "creationist" thought? Those are YOUR divine assumptions, as well as another's. I have repeatedly and clearly stated: there is a certain "agenda/belief system/idea/opinion" as pertains to pro-evolution posters in FR and those which are published by the Science Journal. I have never stated, nor intimated, that I am a creationist, nor that I disbelieve in evolution. Because the diviners on this thread make that claim, neither makes it true or factual.
I'd say it's quite "fair" to roll one's eyes when, in the course of this thread:
1. And even with your post, words, beliefs, and intent are attributed to me that I have never made (i.e., "creationist")
2. What I state is twisted into something I didn't state (i.e., "one way evolution ideas" becomes "anti-evolution", by several on this thread)
3. Words I state are left out so as to distort my intent (the use of the slash mark and the word "or" on my very first post, and what followed in thought with the word "And").
4. My statements are accepted neither on their face, nor later in clarification...rather, other's divined belief and negation of my intent takes place over my own statements.
The name-calling, baiting, and sundry other attacks against me have resulted from the diviners on this thread who refuse to accept, as fact, that the obnoxious behaviors which are exhibited on these kinds of threads are not conducive to "debate," rather, there is a mob mentality which exists to extinguish discourse or intelligent inquiry/dissent, even when reasons are given as to why someone may (and has) refused to state, with specificity, what they believe concerning evolution (though a diviner even claims my specific beliefs concerning evolution were actually stated on this thread---Lakeshark knows that is yet another lie about me, as my SPECIFIC opinion WAS told to him, a couple days ago. You may direct that question to Lakeshark as to whether I, in fact, did so, and whether or not what I said to him, or anything resembling what I said to him, can be found anywhere on this thread of 400 + posts).
And for what has gone on, there's plenty of reasons to roll one's eyes.
Kindly re-read the quote from me in your post.
No creationist has ever been able to supply even the slightest shread. Kindly look at all the posts you mention, this volume of creationist thought, and find just one with actual empirical evidence to support the author's assertion.
Where did I call you a creationist?
I never did. You referenced the creationist pseudo-science found on this thread and implied that surely some of it was credible. I answered that none of it actually contained evidence. I did say that the pseudo-science was posted by creationists, which is true.
And you still haven't responded to that same basic fact - none of the claims you referenced have ever been supported by a single shread of empirical evidence.
But go ahead - change the subject. It's easier than actually backing up your statement that there's evidence out there.