Some front line views of the war against God.

[Delta9 UK]

All the more reason for you to understand the mistakes you have made throughout this "debate".

I have an accountancy and finance degree at LSE but that does not by any means make me a figurehead on financial theory, someone with no degree or qualification could wind up with a theory which could stagger the world of financial theorists.

We are talking Biology here though - I think? Last time I checked? My degree is relevant, yours isn't.

So again, your wrong, you cant apply your CV to a cannabis forum and demand respect lol.

No - you have a weird inability to understand when you are well out of your depth. My degree is directly related to the subject at hand - you are now just being offensive.

You want to talk about this properly and discuss your "evidence" then lets do it. I know you don't know what you are even debating so this should be hilarous, if not short lived.

Again - this time in bold

YOU ARE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION

Better?

You are talking about Abiogenesis - totally different, but that's about the 3rd time I've said it now so I'm giving up.

There is in fact no debate, I or nobody else is trying to prove or disprove evolution, I am just saying that due to the lack of evidence on both parties of evolution and creationism both are just as viable in terms of an option in education.

Still waiting for this lack of evidence? You mean transitional fossils? or maybe Vestigal organs? Or maybe - you don't know what the fuck you are talking about?

They are NOT both viable - you just don't understand enough about evolution to know why.

Prove evolution to be an absolute truth and then you can teach it with removing entire elements of creationism in your teachings.

LOL like everything else taught in school is absolute truth.

DR Zakir Naik is a creationist whom im sure is as qualified as the likes of you, you cannot call him less of a scientist because he is a creationist lol.

Well he quit science in 1991 to study and promote Islam - I didn't, who wins? Try picking someone who hasn't since then dedicated their life to something other than science and you might have a fair chance.

I could call him "less of a scientist" actually - if he ignores the Mountain of evidence then no, he's not a proper scientist - that's how science works.

You should never give people the opportunity to make a fool of yourself in a debate by saying sensless things which do not have any applicible reason for existence within the structure of the debate.

Take your own advice. This is the most hilarous oxymoronic statement I've read all week. I'm beginning to wonder if this is just trolling on your part.

If you want to debate WHY creationism doesn't have any evidence (let's throw in ID as well because that's bollocks too) then let's do it. If you just want to apply circular logic to everything without facing the actual meat of the debate then you bore me.

Creationist are relying on the average joe not understanding the facts - people just like YOU.