No. I do however think this particular reference is. I could care less who it came from, I still think it's wrong.
Yes, a quote from a Darwinist is considered evidence. I made no qualitative judgment.
You did when you said that this is not connected to the conclusions of the author. It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.
What "statement" are you talking about? One I neither made not support?
I've take issue with the following statement made by the author of the article- "The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion".
I've never claimed you made it. You've avoided endorsing or challenging it outright but you have consistently challenged both the questions and arguments I have in opposition to it, and my qualifications and right to do so. Is your problem with my opinion, or with my assuming the right to express it?
Yes but you implied I said or defended this statement - which I do not - you are wrong.
If you're not defending it, why are you attacking me for questioning it?
Why not present quotes (supporting evidence) with your accusations?
My "accusations" are that the author does not appear to have sufficient evidence to support his assertions, and the logical consequences of the conclusions. The "supporting evidence" for my argument is the absence of evidence in the article. What kind of "quotes" do you think I need to provide?
Nonsense. I just pointed out he did provide some sort of supporting evidence for his statement - that is all I said. I am not supporting the statement of the author.
It cannot simultaneously be held as evidence in support of his assertions and totally unconnected to them.
You are not making sense now. We were talking evidence for the positions in the article - not line by line comparisons. The author presented evidence and then took a position nine paragraphs later (the paragraphs all contain what the author seems to think is support for his position) - the totality of the evidence is used for the position. You tried to claim the conclusion had a one-to-one relationship with that one piece of evidence - you were wrong.
You really do like to pick the nit
I think it was because some of your statements were factually incorrect.
Here is the topic of this sub-thread (paraphrased):
Evo: This aricle is full of lies
LVD: Please show us these lies
Evo: "Evolution is not anti-religion"
LVD: That is an invalid position based on information in the article.
Because your questioning was illogical. Question all you want just try not to use fallacious logic.