Nice. I point out that I told you about the date. You respond with this crap about who was and wasn't a creationist:
I thought you were referring to this thread, but now that I recall that, you acted just as unreasonable then, and failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was an evolutionist, as you claimed.
Seems you need another history lesson, since I never made that claim, and
it was you who failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was a creationist:
The 1868 denouncement was Rutimeyer. Here you claimed that the 1868 denouncement was by a creationist, and thus that Rutimeyer was a creationist.
Something you backed up with absolutely zero evidence.
You obviously went back and read a bit of the old thread to remind you of the Rutimeyer argument,
but yet again you got your facts assbackwards.
I'm not trying to be petty in bringing this old stuff up, but twice you've told me I'm wrong and twice I've showed you that I was actually right, both about arguments you yourself made.
I really don't see how you are at all following the discussion, which is only strengthened by the fact that you repeatedly make the same comments and reuse refuted arguments and quotes; not to mention the fact that you continue to argue points even when people agree with you.
I see little point in continuing discussion if your behavior is going to continue, and I see little reason to expect your behavior to change.