Posted: Sep 24, 2020 9:35 pm
by OlivierK
Wortfish wrote:
OlivierK wrote:
I couldn't be arsed going through your trainwreck of arbitrarily chosen points, but I'll do the one I quoted earlier, about the explanation of geographic diversity.

Evolution: I'm perfectly happy with your evaluation that evolution satisfactorily explains geographic diversity. Therefore 5 points.

Evolution accepts principles such as migration and population isolation that no creationist would dispute.

Well, apart from you, right, because you marked evolution down on this regard in your original scoring, giving this "compelling evidence" "that no creationist would dispute" only 3 out of 5.
Wortfish wrote: distribution of species and the physical isolation of species provides compelling evidence for evolution. The marsupials of Australia, for example, show how an isolated region seems to produce unique animals that are not found elsewhere. (Score: 3)

This idiotic marking down is important, because even your sorry apologism couldn't stop you giving creationism more negative points than evolution.

From that point, you were left with two choices:
(a) honestly conceding that creationism is a bit shit, given that it couldn't even gain fewer negative points from a friendly, biased judge, or
(b) putting your finger on the scales and marking down evolution's positives, even when the scientific evidence is compelling, and even when you admit that even creationists would not dispute it.

You chose (b).

That says nothing at all about creationism or evolution, but plenty about why people here have so little time for your bullshit.

Be better.