[[OK. But if it’s all based on the messenger’s opinions and personal beliefs, what’s the difference between the message and the messenger?]]
That isn’t the issue- the issue is about what the messenger is bringing to the table- is it reasonable? Is it more reasonable than the opposing hypothesis? Whiel it is indeed my opinion, hte evidences are more supportive of the reasonability of common design, and that isn’t simply opinion, it is supported by the evidneces If we’re to intellectually honestly objectively examine the differences between the two.
Your interpretation of the evidence disallows any possibility of any evolution having taken place. That leaves all of the fossil evidence that evolution tries to explain left with no apparent explanation. I'm not finding that particularly reasonable.