It most certainly is. You were falsely attributing a view to a very heterogeneous group of people. We all have options. For example, I can be a Christian while admitting that the historical evidence for Jesus having existed is thin, with historical evidence for the Resurrection being much thinner. I can be a Christian while seeing that anyone claiming that there are eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection is obviously profoundly mistaken or lying.
It wasn’t simply not stated well, it was objectively false.
Sure it does. Why aren’t there any creationist pharma companies when there exist creationists with scientific training? They don’t have faith in what they are selling.
That’s not a very thoughtful analogy, starting with the facts that politics affects everyone and schoolteachers do become politicians.
I don’t have to listen to know that it is hearsay unless he reports his own research. Your challenge suggests that you don’t understand the meaning of the term.
Yet I’m a BIOchemist, and you blithely assume that I don’t know what I’m talking about. It seems that your credentialism is as selective as your Biblical literalism.
How is that not a statement that abiogenesis occurred?
Do tell. Which ones?
Do you realize that you have access to public databases of terabytes of sequence evidence, as well as software tools for the analysis of that evidence, that would allow you to look for any hypothesized discontinuity?
Do you see how I’m not telling you to take my word for it (hearsay) but am encouraging you to examine the evidence for yourself?
Back to the Bible, Isaiah 11:3:
He will take delight in obeying the Lord. He will not judge by mere appearances, or make decisions on the basis of hearsay.
Valerie, why does the Bible so clearly tell us that judging others on the basis of hearsay is not a good thing?