[GodGunsGuts]

Oh please, if it's so overwhelming, then why was Darwood forced to write Origins as nothing more than a long argument, devoid of data? How come they Evos are publishing articles with such titles as "What Darwin Didn't Know" or "Darwin was Wrong" or "Darwin Must Die So Evolution Can Live"??? Let's face it, the Evos are on the run, and about the last person to realize it is you. LOL

[Filo]

Oh please, if it's so overwhelming, then why was Darwood forced to write Origins as nothing more than a long argument, devoid of data?

There is plenty of data in Origins, but as the initial theory it is, by nature, going to be fairly sparse.

How come they Evos are publishing articles with such titles as "What Darwin Didn't Know" or "Darwin was Wrong" or "Darwin Must Die So Evolution Can Live"???

Making stuff up doesn't really do much to support your argument. But still, Darwin was wrong about some facts and there was lots he didn't know. Regardless he still came to the correct conclusions about how species came to be even if he got some of the finer details a bit wrong.

Science, unlike religion, is not dogmatic. If facts change then the theories adopt to them.

Plenty has been discovered that has refined various aspects of Evolution over time. Different branches, different origins for particular species, different sources for functional elements, etc. None if it, however, has undermined the basic premise of evolution. Not once. Nor will it ever.

Evolution deals with very large systems and minute bits of data. What's most astounding about it is how consistently it all lines up. Let's face it, the Evos are on the run, and about the last person to realize it is you.

Not even close. Evolution is solid science and nobody is on the run except the desperate bible-thumpers and their irrational ilk.

Reality bites. Refusing to understand reality? That's something to LOL over.

[Kozak]

Oh please, if it's so overwhelming, then why was Darwood forced to write Origins as nothing more than a long argument, devoid of data?

Thats science. You look for evidence, formulate a theory, and test it against the evidence. Latter scientists add confirmatory evidence, or refute it with contradictory evidence and a new theory. Starting with a religious text is called "religion" and not science. Something you cretins don't seem to get.

[Buck W.]

Actually, Filo is quite right. Only a small band of Christians hold to the YEC view of things, and that’s probably more for the purpose of retaining social status within their churches.