[Filo]

So now you admit that Darwood was faced with a “dearth of evidence” when he dishonestly decided to push forward with his materialist creation myth. If I didn’t know any better I might think you’re starting to make some progress. But then you had to go against your own better judgment and declare that Darwood was “right” anyway. Ok, I’ll bite, give me the top three reasons why you think Darwood was “right”, despite the “dearth” of supporting evidence, and despite the mountain of falsifying evidence to the contrary.

Darwin had much less evidence at the time of Origins than we have now. That is why I said he had a "dearth" of evidence.

Meanwhile it was clearly sufficient evidence for him to reach the correct conclusion about Evolution and the natural processes that exist.

I am not going against any judgment, especially not mine.

I merely oppose the religious nonsense that people like you cling to and spout when confronted with things they refuse to understand.

[GodGunsGuts]

So what evidence do you think Darwood was able to muster for his fanciful creation myth at the time? And what new evidence has been developed since Darwood’s time that makes the neo-Darwoodian TOE any stronger now than the disaster it was in Darwood’s time?