[Dataman]

No, it's an argument from plausibility. How plausible is it to think that thousands and thousands of smart, professional scientists are engaged in an enterprise devoted to pulling the wool over the eyes of the public?

Plausibility? An evolutionist appeals to plausibility? How plausible is it that the first DNA assembled itself by chance? Answer 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 power. That's more than the number of electrons in the entire universe.

What are the chances the simplest DNA would add two gene pairs per year (by random chance) to arrive at human DNA today? Answer: ZERO. Gould knew it-- which is why he invented his Punctuated Equilibrium to mask the problem.

What are the chances that our DNA would stop changing completely when we got the ability to decode it? ZERO.

The whole theory is nothing but a collection of impossible odds, naturalistic miracles, just-so stories and fabricated Peppered Moth pictures.

And you dare speak of plausibility?

[snarks_when_bored]

You're missing the point of my argument. I'm not arguing about the details of evolution theory, I'm arguing about science, scientists and human nature. Won't you address that argument before introducing another one?

Let me restate it in the form of a question:  Do you think it plausible to believe that thousands of smart, highly educated men and women from around the world (and over several generations) have engaged in an overt conspiracy to hide 'the truth' about the development of life on Earth from ordinary people?

If you'll answer that question, we can perhaps move forward.