[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.

[GourmetDan]

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

Science, like religion, is absolutely dogmatic. Facts may change and theories may change but philosophical naturalism is always assumed 'a priori'.

"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."

That's correct. The basic premise of evolution is philosophical naturalism. Since that is assumed 'a priori', nothing can ever undermine that assumption.

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

Uh oh. You used the 'ilk' word. That automatically makes you 'the winner'. No evolutionist has ever been desperate or irrational enough to fake evidence.

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

It sure is. LOL!

[Cedric]

What's most astounding about it is how consistently it all lines up.

Evolution is solid science...

(Nothing) has undermined the basic premise of evolution. Not once. Nor will it ever.

Wow, that's powerful stuff! You've convinced me.!

I'm switching sides!

[GodGunsGuts]

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

Ok, this is the one and only graph in , pray tell, where is the data to back up those data points on Darwood's so-called "Tree of Life"???

==Making stuff up doesn't really do much to support your argument

See also:

Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - NYTimes.com

See also:

And now that the have discovered that the genome is at least 93% functional (as opposed 97% "junk" as the Evos predicted), that is going to throw all the Evo's phylogenetic trees that supposedly show common ancestry into complete disarray. Indeed, that is one of the reasons the Evos themselves are finally being forced to cut down darwood's tree (just as creationists have been predicting all along). LOL!!!