[_ Old Earth _] For the Christians... can you change?

[Snidey]

My arguments are far superior to anything yet "attempted" by darwinists on these threads.

lolololol. A. no one cares what you think of your own arguments B. you don't have arguments, you have Patterson quotes. "What? A new thread? Has anyone quoted Patterson without context over and over in obnoxious red, bold, and underlined fonts? NO?! JACKPOT!!" C. I made several statements (not directed at you because I don't debate brick walls, but Ken I believe, who at least makes some attempts not to be rude) regarding evolution, abiogenesis, etc that have yet to be addressed. Your arguments in this thread are irrelevant to me, whether or not you declare them superior.

1. I SHOW leading atheist darwinists lamenting the VERY problems in atheist darwinism -- that darwinists are so anxious to "deny" as even existing.

You quote ONE (meaning you shouldn't pluralize, not that you seem too keen on correct grammar) biologist who happened to speak to those very quotes in detail at later dates - which you never quote because it'd disprove your "point."

2. I SHOW it with examples that have proven to be irrefutable.

Since when is quoting someone, without providing their own disclaimers, proof of anything? Even if Patterson said "evolution does not occur" that would be proof of nothing other than his opinion, and would hardly be "irrefutable."

Darwinists claim that these silver-bullet examples keep coming up JUST when they had hoped that the readers would forget about them. -- AS IF posting that "hope" is some kind of "argument in FAVOR of darwinism"!!

The situation could not possibly be worse for the darwinist. No wonder they flee substantive discussion on the salient points raised.

The situation could possibly be worse for evolutionists. For example, we could be wrong.

The rest of your post is properly addressed by the creationists quotes that Barbarian gave.

BTW, I don't know why you think evolutionists ignore Patterson, when his quotes are from 25 years ago and have been addressed by numerous people including Patterson himself, who basically said that the conclusion that he meant to be reached was precisely not what you are claiming it is?