Yet you argue in favor of factless accusations -- merely because those accusations are "against' inconvenient details in the many-storied book of evolution"-- statements that do not appear to be flattering to blind faith evolutionism??
To me, they aren't factless, but an explanation of observations better than any other. There is plenty that isn't flattering to evolution that I do recognize; just none of what you are bringing up. Evolution supporters converting to creationism is irrelevant if it isn't because objective observations support it. If you just say they do it, and give a vague piece about "how they interpret it", I will not care, because that will mean their change of opinion is more likely than not to be highly subjective. That is, if they aren't outright quote mines. As an example that doesn't flatter evolution: it is impossible to know which, if any, of the fossilized species we have discovered are actually direct ancestors to humans, or any other modern species, because excluding rare cases such as with the Neanderthals, no DNA is preserved. Isn't acknowledging that acknowledging an inconvenient truth? Not that this disproves evolution by any means, but it certainly doesn't sound very flattering. I hope you use it in some debates; it'll at least show that you are informed to a degree about evolution. Also, it should concern you that more creationists don't bring it up.
Then you have a gold mine of a religion - it provides an endless supply of that sort of thing.
Nah, if I want a gold mine of inconvenience, I can check out physics. Biology is very consistent, especially by comparison.
Correction -- You could not "care less about any non-positive statements , unflattering to belief in evolutionism - that might be made by any evolutionary scientist".
I don't care about their positive opinions either, honestly. I don't care about their opinions. What I care about is data.
You have free will - if the lake of fire is so wonderful - so enticing that not even the "revelations" from your own atheist evolutionists are sufficient wake-up calls. Far be it from me to dissuade you from your free will choice. I respect your right to make that choice. But I would hate to have you do so - totally uniformed about the fact that even your own atheist scientists are known to admit to a few 'non-flattering details' -
Sir, I have been a seeker of faith for over 7 years. I assure you, belief is not a fully conscious choice. If it was, I would be marked Christian, or perhaps general theist. Try making yourself believe the sky is gold with silver stripes, and tell me how well you do with that. No matter who you are, you need some degree of evidence to put stock in anything. I just have an extremely skeptical mind to fight against compared to you. Well, and I wasn't indoctrinated as a child.
Also, I just gave you a non flattering detail myself. Admission that evolution is not perfect doesn't make creationism right, or even better by default.
Furthermore, I find the cessation of existence I believe death to be far more terrifying than any lake of fire.
And I think you will agree with me - the the guy posting in the OP -- may not be all that excited about also leaping into the Rev 20 lake of fire.
I would be. Complete nonexistence terrifies me more than any negative afterlife could. Not that all atheists don't believe in an afterlife, but that is the case with me. You have no idea, the dread I feel, as I crawl closer to nonexistence with every fraction of a second that passes. That I will live to see many of the people I love and care about cease to be, before I follow them into oblivion.
But a great many on this board - prefer eternal life that comes with acceptance of the Bible.
Here's the problem: I don't believe that will happen for anyone, regardless of belief. I would very much like to believe that, but as of yet, seeking belief has not lead to me obtaining it.