Metacognative specified that we are debating truth of science, not God.
Who cares? Neither of you are the site administrators, and no one here answers to him or to you. If he doesn't want the topic on the table, he really ought to find an article that doesn't make an issue of it in the first place.
Of course WildTurkey is free to digress....
How generous of you.
...but the evolutionists' poor examples have tremendously hurt their case for the audience.
Opinions will vary. Personally, I think it's rather clear that you're simply BS'ing your way through most of what you're posting, which seems unlikely to score too many points for you. Opinions will, again, vary, I suppose.
I will be happy to discuss science with you but I'd rather not talk parliamentary procedure when it's a digression on a digression.
Of course you wouldn't. You attempt to dictate the terms of debate around here, and when it is rightly pointed out that it is not your place to do so, newbie, suddenly you discover the virtues of not discussing it. How convenient. Allow me to suggest that if you don't want to discuss posting rules, don't bring them up in the first place.
Thanks for the Copi reminder. Grabbed it at the kiddie library...
Oh, good. I wasn't aware that they'd produced a coloring book version. How lucky for you.
...and it popped open to a favorite chestnut, "a false statement proves any statement"...
Page number?
...and I thought...
Assumes facts not in evidence.
My mistake, WildTurkey confused the article with the post, what you confused was virtual baby-eating with good taste.
No, actually, I had no intention of posting in good taste for you - I figured I'd try to find something less crass that coming into an existing forum and behaving as though I owned the joint. Sit down and be quiet, is my advice - the adults are talking now, and I don't think you have anything to contribute yet, not until you've matured a bit and have some idea of your place here.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
An excellent summary.