[mlc9852]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution and less time calling others names, you might have more people on your side. You all come off as very mean-spirited, which does nothing to promote your case. Time and again I see where those defending Darwin just make fun of others. Suppose you're wrong and we all have the last laugh. Making fun of others doesn't prove you are any more intelligent.

[orionblamblam]

>If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution ...

150 years worth.

> You all come off as very mean-spirited, which does nothing to promote your case.

Huh. Coming from the side that declares that all evolutionists are evil commies, that doesn't really carry much weight with me.

> Time and again I see where those defending Darwin just make fun of others.

And how do you feel about those who make fun of astrologers?

> Suppose you're wrong and we all have the last laugh.

Suppose you are wrong and God slams you into Hell for misleading people about how he made the world, as a consequence driving many people away from religion. Suppose you are wrong and the Muslism are right. Suppose you are wrong and the Hindus are right.

See, here's the thing: you get snippy for evolutionists callign your side names. But you don't seem to have trouble threatening evolutionists with eternal damnation.

[WildHorseCrash]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution and less time calling others names, you might have more people on your side...

Why? Because virtually all of the educated world and a good chunk of the rest isn't enough???

[Quick1]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution

Are you kidding? Icheumon [sp?] used to make giant posts full of facts about evolution, and they got few, if any responses.

[Coyoteman]

If you spent more time presenting your "facts" of evolution...

OK, good point. Here are some facts:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Anything else you would like? (Actually Ichny did it better in his post, but with 50 pages of data you might have missed this one small section.)