[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You don't know what you don't know...lots of threads for many years before 2004."

I know what I DO know, and that is that you're completely wrong.

And, let's say that you are right, that we all ignore out of hand all arguments from creationist websites and don't even attempt to answer them (this is nonsense, and I've been here long enough to know (and I lurked for a few years before I signed up), but I'll play along for the sake of argument).

I said this,

"It doesn't matter if the site is biased; what matters is the substance of the arguments put forth. Creationist sites are equally biased against evolution."

Of this exact statement you said,

"I happen to agree with you, at least the point you made that I quoted here."

For you to say that, and when you came here and said,

"Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."

makes you a hypocrite. It shouldn't matter if you think that WE dismiss creationist sites(and their arguments) out of hand; why are you condemning us for something you yourself have done?

"Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."

We won't forget you said that.


"Ask your leadership. They know."

Second time; I have no *leadership*.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker and access to: (1) The List-O-Links, (2) How to argue against a scientific theory, and (3) the Evolution Troll's Toolkit.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[NewLand]

So which one is it:

a) Both creation and evolution websites are credible and can equally be used as qualified reference sites

*or*

b) Only the pro-evolution sites are credible and can be used as qualified reference sites

Your leadership wants to know how you vote...