For the most part it is circumstantial and rife with a priori assumptions you and your pals fail to acknowledge. As such, you are defending a philosophy, not science. Your bluster bomb cut-and-paste data dump is a case in point. If you really cared to defend your position you would cordially engage the debate point for point. As it is, you are but a raging ideologue who cannot be convinced that, just because things look alike, they might not be historically derived from one another. I do not mind in the least if you prefer to remain oblivious to the weak nature of what you call "evidence." Comparative morphology is no substitute for direct observation. You do not enjoy the latter when attempting to pass off an amoeba-to-man progression of biological entities as "scientific." You may also pretend to remain oblivious to the fact that other points of view are taking root in educational institutions both sacred and secular. As it stands, your acerbic bluster is but a mirage, a paper tiger. It will disappear in the light of truth, both religious and scientific. The astute reader will note that Fester's scattershot blast of blustering invective is a perfect example of how NOT to actually "cordially engage the debate point for point".
He does nothing but make broadside after broadside, and never once attempts to "engage the debate point for point".
*I'm* the one who posts specific examples of evidence, and tries to get people to discuss the *specifics* of that evidence.
*Fester* is the one who avoids any "point for point" discussion, and just goes off in a rant that could be used as a form-letter to *any* science article he prefers not to actually think about.
Tally up another creationist who can't actually manage to discuss the evidence itself, and can only make excuses for why "it don't matter anyway".
*I'm* the one who posts specific examples of evidence, and tries to get people to discuss the *specifics* of that evidence.No. What you do is cut and paste the same, enormous assemblage of circumstantial evidence seasoned with dull invective as if it substantiates or defends science. It's a rather funny, freakish thing to see from this side of the fence, not unlike a mean clown. You'd probably use a machine gun to kill a fly and still miss. But that's okay. Jesus loves you, too.