[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Why don't they ever put a disclaimer in these articles, stating that these are truths based upon your belief in Darwins theory? They write these as if they were fact rather than fiction.

[narby]

Why don't they ever put a disclaimer in these articles, stating that these are truths based upon your belief in Darwins theory? They write these as if they were fact rather than fiction.

Maybe because this is directed at the scientific community, which except for an extreemly few folks who make their money selling Creationist literature, is 100% in agreement with Evolutionary theory.

[Dimensio]

Why don't they ever put a disclaimer in these articles, stating that these are truths based upon your belief in Darwins theory?

You know, when I hear about new discoveries about celestial bodies, I never hear a disclaimer stating that those "truths" are based upon a belief in gravitational theory, yet no one seems to complain about that.

[shhrubbery!]

Why don't they ever put a disclaimer in these articles, stating that these are truths based upon your belief in Darwins theory? They write these as if they were fact rather than fiction.

Well said.

There has never been any "missing link" discovered that proved that one species "evolved," a la Darwinian theory, into another.

If macroevolution were a fact, then there should be many transitional "links" between species, found in nature or in fossil evidence. Despite the Darwinists' periodic hyperventilation over "exciting new finds" every few years, none has ever been found.

[RightWhale]

You can do that in your tagline, then it is always ready for any occasion.