Your topic is veering all over the place. Particular assertions get refuted (snake venom as bacterial, radiometric dating, 7 day disease cycles etc. etc. etc.) but instead of defending your position or counter-arguing in any way you simply move to the item that lies next on your list of erroneous thinking via some not-even-funny ad-hominem against those refuting you.
Can I suggest that you state which of the many assertions you are making is key to your pet project and then try and defend that?
Can you actually defend your position? Or are you only able to duck and dive in an effort to avoid ever actually having to acknowledge when you have been shown to be wrong?
™ Version 4.2