Just for sake of clarity.

I also found it interesting among your posts the countless times you have resulted in degrading peoples credibility through name calling, or stuff like calling them children, and that you are on your way home, and goodbye or something. I'm not doubting some of the "credible" sources you would call them, but I'm definitely doubting your lack of knowledge at all. Maybe you should let the big boys handle it and keep with your "religious" following towards their discoveries than argue on their behalf.

Yes, please go ahead and quote my exact phrase again. I want you to take time and digest what I was saying and the whole point of the exercise. I have repeated it a few times now and even gave examples but it still seems to be going over your head. Maybe you should write it out on the chalkboard a few hundred times to let it sink in.

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

Bacteria that's still bacteria. What a nail in the coffin for ID

For someone so obsessed with Charles Darwin, I'm surprised you haven't read some of the quotes.

"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."

Which you are far from.

"A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others."

Which completely negates the earlier convo that there is no 1 country like another if you base morals off that.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

Basically, you argue that a guy who knows it all, admits he doesn't have a clue.

"My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts."

Almost contradicts his last statement which in turn destroys some of his credibility.

"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation."

Oh I see, so this in line with one of the earlier quotes = evolution? We don't need facts, we can just make claims.

How about

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

You get the point I'm getting at. Actually, you probable don't, I don't know why I even posted these quotes.

In the end of this post I leave you with this.

"...I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—"

So sayith the pualyG. So it shall be done.

Lawls, you are a good read. I would quote you definitions some more, but apparently can't comprehend definitions through your thick skull. It's ok though, real issue at hand with you is you don't want people to preach to you in your house anything that would be detrimental to your opinion, or your children's, but you let said people into your house, just for the sake of ridiculing them, then get mad that they preached to you. You lost and respect a long time ago.

Do you know how the theory of evolution was formed and its origins? It wasn't from honest scientific observation. There you have the first part of the answer.

Nice one hehe

Lol, the fact you think you are even remotely intelligent is the funniest part. You cant even read a full paragraph without getting lost and taking things out of context. Keep trying though. One day you may actually come up with an argument that debunks 170+ years of evolutionary studies and thousands of scientists with PHDs.