Yepp, they still do but you never see other creationists who know this to be one of the most ridiculous arguments against evolution (even AiG says it shouldn't be used) criticize them. This seems to confirm what VadeRetro remarked on that other 4500-post thread and what I have also observed here and on other crevo-boards:
Never criticize one of your fellow creationists in front of evolutionists even if you know that his claims are false.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern evo fascist expert age . . .
To: f.Christian
Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.
152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic
It may look that way, but I don't think they play such a well-coordinated game. Probably the truth of the matter is that most creationists have never figured out how to determine if a claim is false. They just cling to their talking points. With increasing desperation.