T.O. is not a scientific site, it publishes absolutely no peer reviewed articles.
My impression is that a knock on Creationsists is that they don't cite peer reviewed articles in their evangelistic arguments against evolution. Why do you feel it appropriate to also use equivalent web sites for your main sourcing?
You dishonestly attempt to slur the material on talk.origins in almost every chance you get, by childishly applying cheap-shot labels like "tract" to them, since you are unable to refute their material on its actual merits. Typical.
T.O. is not a scientific site, it publishes absolutely no peer reviewed articles.
Only a fool thinks that the only way to be scientific is to "publish peer reviewed articles". It is indeed a scientific site. And you are "forgetting" the fact that it supports its material with vast numbers of citations to, guess what, peer-reviewed articles from the primary literature.
My impression is that a knock on Creationsists is that they don't cite peer reviewed articles in their evangelistic arguments against evolution.
Your impression is false, like a great many of your impressions. The knock on creationists is that they *misuse* peer-reviewed articles, they *misrepresent* peer-reviewed articles, they dishonestly "quote-mine" peer-reviewed articles, and they publish an extremely scant number of them, generally in back-water publications which don't specialize in those kinds of papers, or in "journals" created specifically for the purpose of publishing creationist twaddle.
Why do you feel it appropriate to also use equivalent web sites for your main sourcing?
I don't. If talk.origins was as unreliable and dishonest as the creationist sites, I wouldn't use them either. But that's the not the case -- talk.origins is an extremely reliable resource. When I have dug up primary literature and compared it to the talk.origins material based on it, I always find them in good accord. Meanwhile, whenever I have done the same for citations listed on creationist sites, I am always shocked at how dishonestly and/or incompetently they have misrepresented or distorted the material. They are in no way "equivalent web sites". Period.
And unlike weasels such as yourself, I have never dismissed any web page or website out of hand simply because of its alleged position or advocacy. I have, however, demonstrated time and time again 1) why various pages from various creationist sites are full of crap, by examining the actual contents of the pages, 2) that creationist websites have an extremely poor track record for honesty and/or competence, 3) that if someone is trying to claim scientific backing for a claim, they should look to scientific sources to see if there's really any non-creationist support for such a claim, and 4) trying to "learn" science from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore, and for exactly the same reasons.
Meanwhile, you have yet to explain yourself or apologize for when I caught you making a blatantly false slander against me, knowing full well that what you falsely accused me of carried implications of gross incompetence and/or dishonesty on matters of science -- now might be a great time for you to do so, if you don't want to have the issue of your own honesty forever tarnished by your inexcusable habit of just making things up in order to try to slur someone you can't or won't refute on the facts of what they actually write.
What, exactly, is wrong with you?