Who here is represented by only one account?
I have one account. It is near common knowledge that Nomenclature has multiple accounts which he utilizes to various degrees. I have caught several other member in the act of creating a new account using the "jump" link next to their names (although I wont mention names, and I do not know the names of their alt-accounts).
The way you are behaving is so typical of the Regressive Left.
In our initial argument, roughly a week ago about codes (genetic code), you made an absolutely fantastical, Conspiracy Theory type claim about the genetic code stating that it could not possibly come into existence through natural/physical processes but rather through artificial intervention. From here, you suggested this implies a quasi-Prometheus type scenario. Then, you asserted some fringe ID argument about the incompatibility of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the standard consensus scientific view (implicitly suggesting that Stephen Hawking, Ed Witten, Alan Guth, Einstein, Schrodinger, ect.) had been fooled into not seeing how a relatively basic Law of Physics is incompatible with the "natural" origin of life on Earth and evolution thereafter. As soon as I pushed back against your claims that are highly questionable at best if not scarcely sane, and you immediately resorted to extreme name calling (analogous to how you calling everyone who leans slightly to the right a Fascist). Furthermore, you were trying to claim scientific authority on the matter (even over Francis Crick; one of the greatest scientists in the modern era or ever for that matter).
Fast forward several days, we get into another argument about time travel where you claim scientific authority and resort to the same SJW Nazi-type name calling to both Amarel and I (you actually did call Amarel a Fascist). You then proceeded to created a debate titled "People are Stupid and this Site Proves It" where you pulled out the hurt feelings card, played the victim and cried out for emotional support from the CreateDebate community that you were simultaneously insulting/condescending by claiming that everyone here is "dumb". In the description to your debate, you separated yourself from the crowd as not "dumb" evidenced by your degree in Science Journalism, claiming that when in comes to Science/Physics on this site and compared to the general population at large "you (Nomenclature) are the next best thing to a Physicist". I then pointed out that I have formal training in Math/Physics and more generally how patently absurd your claim was because all you managed to do was demonstrate that you are operating on the same level of knowledge that many other people on this site posses (to various degrees). You have been acting like it is tremendously "rude" of me and others to point this out. Clearly, you do not have the "trump card" the you claim to have, not by a longshot (nobody on this site that I have came across (myself included) has anything remotely approaching the trump card on matters of Physics/Science that you claimed to have due to your degree in Journalism), although different people have various levels of understanding (which is important).
From there, it has been one big endless whine fest of you playing the victim because I (and others) are calling you out on your bullsh't entitlement claim to authority in topics in Physics/Science/intelligence/knowledge base more broadly (for which you have not put in the work for, but nonetheless demand respect and entitlement to, absolutely refusing to give up) along with the trite Nazi-type extreme insults you whirl at your challengers. Lastly, you revealed that in your view, Francis Crick is even a buffoon on these topics and doesn't match your depth of insight as it pertains to Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry, Physics, Philosophical sophistication, ect.
So, lets refer to the Regressive Left Checklist:
1. Triggered behavior (Check)
2. SJW type extreme name calling (Check)
3. Proclaiming a Love for Science while not giving a sh't about real science (Check)
4. Playing the Victim (Check)
5. Entitlement (Check)
6. Slander (Check)
7. Moral High Ground (Check)
8. Lacking Intellectual Depth while proclaiming higher-order intelligence (Check)
9. Refusal to listen to the opposing side (Check)
How could anyone take you seriously still unless and until you own up to quite a bit?