[Tribune7]

That you two have found a nit to pick and appear to be liking it may be evidence of a shared common descent with chimps.

Post 27 was to an evo skeptic. How about this: He hits the nail on the head, however, about a general, and undeniable, assault on religion, of which religious people see evolution as part.

Would you disagree with that?

[Dimensio]

That you two have found a nit to pick and appear to be liking it may be evidence of a shared common descent with chimps.

When did I say that your inaccurate commentary on the article was evidence for evolution?

It looks more to me that, rather than admit that you misspoke and demonstrated a poor understanding of the article, you're trying to shift attention to attack a point that I never made. Once again a creationist refuses to admit an error, even an extremely simple one.

How about this: He hits the nail on the head, however, about a general, and undeniable, assault on religion, of which religious people see evolution as part.

That's a better phrasing. Unlike your original posting, you don't imply with it that the article cited evolution as something seen as an attack in religion.

[narby]

Post 27 was to an evo skeptic. How about this: He hits the nail on the head, however, about a general, and undeniable, assault on religion, of which religious people see evolution as part. Would you disagree with that?

You might add that Krauthammer also emphasized that that sort of thing was disappearing, what with government support of religious non-profits helping poor people etc. I don't know if I'd have agreed with him on that, but he emphasized it. Which is why your assertion that Krauthammer "hit the nail on the head" about some assault on religion surprised me.