Then how do you explain me being friggen 11 feet tall? 11 FEET TALL MANG! Also I can shoot lasers out my eyes now.
Don't, Owen.
If you respond to a really, really bad argument by just posting nonsense, then you've surrendered the debate to him on his terms.
Basically, by every conceivable measure; style, substance, evidence, coherence, and adhering to debate rules, logic, and avoiding fallacy, this whole thread and the one before it has been an absurdly one-sided bloody curb-stomp all over every single creationist argument without exception, and generally made one side of the debate look as though they've missed at least a third of their formal education.
This hasn't even been a won debate, it's been a massacre; but what do you expect? This whole thing has been a trap from the very start. The premise is a trap:
Evidence for creationism (meaning:
GOD) which there is no such thing and there never will be (and that is why God isn't scientific) and that's why there is no real Creationist response here except to pick at science's lack of total knowledge and 100% proof while deftly avoiding acknowledging the giant pile of quicksand that the creationist viewpoint is standing on, where logic goes to die, and the gigantic pile of absolutely nothing that can be presented as evidence, hypothesis, connective reasoning, or reasonable conclusions from their side of the debate.
This is why this stuff does not belong in a classroom. The entire premise of religious faith is based upon feeling, intuition, and irrational certainty in a thing which other people have feelings, intuitions, and irrational certainty that directly and totally contradicts basically everything that a person thinks he or she "knows" about the supernatural, which means that in the game of faith, several billion people are going to be horribly incorrect even if one of them happened to be correct. And even though there isn't a string of logic that can be pieced together to support the theory, people are willing to declare that they know they are right, everyone else must be wrong, and their beliefs must be taught as fact in a scientific setting even though none of it has anything to do with science.
Evolution, abiogenesis, and natural selection have more evidence and connecting reasoning and predictive conclusions than the THEORY OF GRAVITY, which so far we have not found a wave or particle that gravity comes from, we haven't correctly predicted the makeup of the universe because of this whole dark matter theory, we can't explain why matter has gravity, and we can't explain what happens inside black holes.
Yet, evolution has evidence spanning billions of years worth of rock, comprising millions and millions of species living and extinct, forming a logical path which can be traced through the fossil record, involves changes which can be observed on the microscopic and micro-evolutionary level, and can be observed indirectly through the fossil record on the macro-scopic and macro-evolutionary level, we know exactly how traits are passed from generation to another, we know how to decode DNA, we have mapped the genomes of many different species, and we can predict how closely related some species are and the genome matches that, and we have even used genetics to engineer countless plants and animals and even predict and detect disease.
This isn't some pie-in-the-sky Goddidit theory without any rational basis for existence short of its baffling popularity. This isn't something that someone with barely any knowledge of the subject and an intense desire NOT to read up on it or avoid making logical fallacies and spurious arguments every three seconds can just waltz in and single-handedly destroy without a second thought with as little investment and intellectual curiosity as possible while ignoring all rebuttals and forgetting that the thread is supposed to be about something separate and different entirely.
It's sort of like watching someone trying to run completely through a mile-thick slab of granite over and over again, and deciding that they've been successful in doing so even though they have not done so, and their reasoning that they've been successful is because if they say they've been successful enough times the spectators will be too busy laughing at them or too exhausted by the repetition that they won't bother to respond.
If necessary, I'll just post "you have not run through the mile of granite yet" and add "repeat ad infinitum" at the end for good measure, and have that apply to future posts made so I don't have to bother next time.
I realize discussing creationism in a scientific setting is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel to begin with, but if the creationist side isn't even willing to do a little light reading and respond to valid points, and just repeats the same tripe over and over, then it's more like spearing dead fish on your plate with a fork.
It's not a contest at that point, it's a prelude to a bowel movement.
