Well by golly you’ve managed to show that just one of the numerous folks metnioned isn’t totally against the idea, yet still has doubts- phew- I guess that nullifies all the other’s doubts then- and I had read his ‘testimony’ before, and couldn’t for the life of me see how it undermined his uncertainty.
By the way 49% is still a minority but a significant minorty, so what’s your point? That there isn’t a ‘growing number’ of scientists? or thaT perhaps their voice isn’t valid because they aren’t in the over 51%? or that their facts and evidenbces don’t have any validity because they aren’t majority? And the one case that you zero in on and point out that he isn’t 100% undoes all the other cases listed how? If that one case refutes the ‘growing number of scientsits who are dissatisfied with trhe evolution model’, then please- do point out how- this aught to be an interesting excusrsion into the minutia of diversionary tactics.
I checked out just one of your quotes; it did not support your argument.
tacticalogic did the same with another quote, with the same results.
When it comes to research, you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy. When you post a quote, it appears that we can't trust it until we research it for ourselves to see what it really says.
If you were a scientist, your career would be over.
Obviously apologetics has a different standard.