2ndreconmarine said it best when he so proudly listed off Horse poop: 929 citations. Given your level of English usage, you perhaps still do not understand the original point.
I will try to spell it out. The comparison to horse feces was that it was better than ID. The idea wasn't that horse feces was a particularly good study in science. Indeed, it was chosen for precisely the opposite effect. Only that the most silly and ridiculous items, horse feces, diaper rash, and Voodoo, still are better than ID.
If you want real science, then go back to the original thread, here,, and read the citations: natural selection” about 14,000 references, “Mutation” gets 40,000. “Speciation” gets 5,000. “Human origins” gets 22,000.
At least try to read something!!!!!
I read it just fine.
I disagree with your conclusions!! Which are ridiculous on their own, and I will get back to you later.
Wolf
Like I said I read it just fine. As far as I am concerned there was/is no legitimate point you made so I did not even respond to it.
Your rhetorical logic (of better/worse greater/less based on google hits) is very poor. Why should I even dignify that with a response? I reject your inferences that is why.
I could go and make all sorts of logical connections based on your /google-hit/ logic, and I doubt you would like any of them.
In fact I just came back with hits of 65,900,000, 133,000 and 25,700, and no you wont like them. They are not goofy like your horse poop searches.
Wolf