So whattajoke...the reason you need to learn up on them is because you just said creationism requires all this repeatable and measurable stuff you know to be accepted and so on...
meanwhile I guess this is the ONLY theory that requires it?
Why the heck do I need to "learn up" on them? They have nothing in the world to do with biology and quite frankly, they are far from my area of expertise. I see why you're upset though; I admitted I don't know something which is quite foreign to you.
Ahhhhhhh....so some more endless goal post moving...now that the argument has been destroyed we move onto "that's not science" to "that's not biology"?
I hardly think you're being undermined.
Undermining encompasses much more than crevo debates, now and then a liberal let's their slip show when it comes to their PC disease. Just because liberals are outnumbered doesn't mean they're somehow incapable of undermining.
I do find it funny that on the one hand you admit you don't know something but you demand everyone conform to your versions of "that's not science...errrr...that's not biology" nonsense just the same.
Not because it's true, but because we wouldn't want to go around having you all offended and so forth?
Oh, would you just stop. You're just being ridiculous. The title of this thread is "150 Years Later, Fossils Still Don't Help Darwin." Fossils.. Darwin... Nothing about string theory or any of that stuff. If and when there are threads here about that, I assure you I won't be posting on them. (Just as I don't post in the religion forum.)
If you insist that my personal lack of knowledge of theoretical physics somehow "destroys" evolution, then so be it. It's completely absurd, but what else can I say? I'm sorry if that's not satisfactory to you.
As for your repeated and quite frankly stupid contention that biology/evolution is somehow a liberal institution (and therefore, myself as well), that's your problem. I hope your doctors and IT department and plumber all pass your creationism litmus test.
In my world, tpanther, real science (not the populist crap that often makes news) does not subscribe to a political camp. (I'm NOT saying that the reportage on such things isn't often biased in the press; sorta like the opposite of AiG and ICR) Your wild paranoia disallows you to agree which again, I don't care about.