Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.Yawn... you certainly haven't had any logic or rhetoric education that's for sure. "Argumentum ad hominem" would be a good place for you to start.
> “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.
You should know.
In my observation, that’s where Darwinists always start.
==Yawn... you certainly haven’t had any logic or rhetoric education that’s for sure. “Argumentum ad hominem” would be a good place for you to start.
Look who’s talking! Have you looked in the mirror lately? Or did you break it in a fit of rage when you found out that God’s creation has falsified Darwood’s so-called tree of life?