All evidence to the contrary.
Your psychotic delusions are as severe as river's
You need to learn to make your own arguments for yourself. Not rely on the fallacy of authority. You know, quit saying "Harvard" as if it's some magic incantation that absolves you of supporting your own arguments.
As Alex has suggested, you really need to understand what you are talking about, instead of putting any trust in some ancient book, written in an ancient time, in an obscure manner, like yourself, by equally obscure men.
Plus claiming "the appeal to authority"is a fallacy is actually an ignorant fallacy in itself. It is correct and prudent for anyone to support their claims with authoritive links/references from professionals in that subject claim....where it would fail is asking a chef how to perform a brain operation, or referencing some ancient book based on myth, to attempt to invalidate science.
And if that's an excuse for you to lower yourself to the level of paddo, you'll be joining him on ignore. You can tell when I'm especially bored, as that's when I deign to respond to those on iggy.
shock, horror* you have me on ignore!!!
It's not that you are bored, its more you simply cannot handle the truth [see what I did there?
] You have defined what and who you are and it ain't pretty. Which obviously is why you refuse to answer so many questions, including with regards to your handle, and simply write off legitimate arguments against your creationist agenda with accusations of non sequiturs, strawmen, scientism, atheism etc etc, while your own sickening handle as defined, also defines you in every respect.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I somehow don't acknowledge all the scientific understanding about the building blocks of biological life. Whatever you gotta tell yourself, I guess. A scientist presenting speculation doesn't make it any less speculative. And if it wasn't speculative, someone would have already claimed that prize you talk about. Right?
"Harvard". There's that incantation against thinking again.
I am under no mistaken impression about, you, and I suggest neither is anyone else.
The facts of the theory of evolution and the many miles of tracks that lead to Abiogenesis is obvious. What's even more obvious, despite your faux pas to the contrary, is that it is the only scientific answer...add that to the fact that science has pushed back the need for any creator or IDer to near oblivion, and most school children would be able to reason that squeezing that old magical spaghetti monster in at that last .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, is as highly unlikely and inane as it is with references to your book of myths.
