IMPOSSIBLE logic for evolutionists (from a smart creation scientist)

Well, booboo, that tells me two things. 1) You've never posted on this board. 2) You've only ever argued with 8th graders. No, I take that back. My sixth grade daughter could show the flaws in your so-called logic, and I'm half tempted to let her do that.On the other hand: Or even if it isn't true. Single celled organisms don't reproduce by sex. They reproduce by fission, although they can swap genetic material (a process called conjugation). Therefore, your illogical strawman has collapsed. Strike one. Ding. Wrong again. Choanoflagellate colonies, Mixotricha paradoxa-type symbionts, flagellate protozoan ring colonies (blastaea), are all "almost metazoan" and are believed to be representative of the first metazoan types. Strike two. Well, it's true he was a theist who believed in divine creation. However, he did not base his laws of motion, optics and gravitation etc, on creation. He was also an alchemist. This has what to do with evolution? Foul ball. How about: they evolved simultaneously? Strike three. Bye. And in the bonus round, oxygen didn't appear in significant quantities in the atmosphere until around 2.1 gya. And life is extremely possible - and common - in the utter absence of oxygen.

That, I'm afraid, is becoming painfully obvious. Are we therefore free to speculate that he was an atheist troll who merely showed up in order to make creationists look worse than they are?

Booboo, in another thread you made fairly serious, albeit vague, references to scientists and scientific organizations that have committed fraud, hidden or obfuscated evidence contrary to evolution, and refused to admit error. You were asked to provide specific examples of the claim. I find it difficult to take you seriously on this thread concerning the validity and honesty of "creation" scientists - especially Hovind and his ilk - when you seek to avoid substantiating your assertions concerning other scientists.Please respond to this post (click on the link).I would also be quite happy to discuss any claim or "creation science" research, article or statement here, but only if you bring to the table the specific argument. I won't argue websites. I am willing to accept provisionally your claim that "creation" scientists are in fact true scientists (tm), on the condition that you provide specific examples of their science in the context of creationism AND remain willing to discuss them here. In writing. Otherwise, I will take your claim to there being in existence a legitimate species called "creation scientist" as being disconfirmed.Pick an example you feel compelling and be prepared to discuss it. Stop hemming and hawing.

Hi Topic, long time no see. How've you been?It might be helpful if you could prevail upon your writer to flesh you out a bit. You have to admit you're a bit shallow and flippant as originally written, n'est-ce pas? Just between friends, and all...