Don't embarrass yourself
My only embarrassing moment in recent memory was being forced to admit to a friend who is a moderate voter that some conservatives actually do want to teach a 4000-year-old Mesopotamian creation myth as fact in science class, and that the people who espoused this belief were not children.
* * *
"I did not commit the genetic fallacy, because I did not say that the argument of the source, Eddie Snipes of the Exchanged Life Outreach, was wrong because it was posted by Eddie Snipes. ..What I did do was to attack the credibility of the work, by pointing out the two more ridiculous things in it.."
You pointed out no such thing.
Yes, I did. If you didn't understand it, then that shows that you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, not that I didn't point out the silliness in Reverend Fast Eddie's article.
Did I state, "The two most ridiculous thing in this source are..."?? No. I just went ahead and criticized it by pointing out the two most ridiculous things in it: citing to Chuck Colson and Jay Gould's fantastic "quantum jump" theory. Why are they ridiculous? Anyone who doesn't already know that Chuck Colson and Jay Gould have absolutely no authority to discuss the merits of an argument on evolution should seriously consider reading a science book...
***
Once again you show your ignorance. You seem to be unaware that all creationists aren't religious kooks that are the mirror image of blind-faith Darwinists, such as yourself.
Some definitely are. Creationists who assert, as historical fact, that the Earth was created on a Wednesday morning in October of 4004, B.C. are religious kooks. But you're right, not all creationists are religious kooks.
But every creationist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that God or some supernatural creative power exists. That takes "creationism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that the science of evolution is factually incorrect because it offends your religious sensibilities, and don't force the state to spread your doctrine in schools.
And as for whether I am a "blind-faith Darwinist": I have neither discussed by faith, my views on Darwinism, nor such things as the work of people such as Mayr, Gould, Eldredge and Dawkins. So you can not know that I am "blind-faith Darwinist". You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That is also committing a logical fallacy. It's called talking out of your ass.
And rightly so.
"Evolutionists who assert things like this are kooks who should not be listened to: "... at no very distant date..an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world", and "the chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can a woman - whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. ... We may also infer ...[that] the average of mental power in man must be above that of a woman". ~ Charles Darwin
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man... It is simply incredible [to think] that ... he will be able to successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not bites." ~ Thomas Huxley Darwin's best student - and the man most responsible for advancing macroevolution (Darwinianism)"
"If the unfit survived indefinately, they would continure to infect the fit with their genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes and evolution could not take place. The concept of evolution demands death. Death is thus as natural to evolution as it is foreign to biblical creation. The Bible teaches that death is a foreigner, a condition superimposed upon humans and nature after creation." ~ Darwinist / macroevolutionist, Marvin Lubenow."
I agree. They should not be listened to, nor should their ideas be taught to impressionable school children.
"... every Darwinist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that something can come out of nothing. That takes "Darwinianism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of blind faith religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that evolution is factually correct ...and don't force the state to spread that doctrine in schools.
I agree.
"You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about. ... It's called talking out of your ass."
Whaaaat??? I was just agreeing with you. Hahahaha