Like this:
They claim that the working scientists are wrong, but if they had any faith in that claim, they’d be doing science instead of generating rhetoric.
Are there any creationist pharma companies?
Another example of you avoiding evidence for hearsay.
Far less often than we deliberately use metaphors. But you’re avoiding evidence.
Then why pretend that your position has anything to do with evidence?
I believe that you are rejecting the greatest commandment to engage in tribalism.
No, I’m stating that as a fact. Does he do any OoL research? Do you even understand the difference between evidence and hearsay? Your question suggests that you don’t.
The fact that you cite hearsay instead of evidence.
Have you modified any of your positions on the basis of evidence presented to you here?
Tour’s, for example.
That would be hearsay, not evidence.
Still mostly hearsay. You limit yourself to hearsay so that you can engage in bothsidesism and ignore the evidence.
It’s not covered in a single article.
How far, according to the evidence?