Replies

Links are fine to support a point. But they are also used by those also who can't think, write, summarize or make cogent arguments, as well as by those who wish to mislead and/or waste others time.

How true. It is hard to tell whether evolutionists use this method because they are too lazy to read the articles or because they know that the articles do not prove their point but hope to bluff opponents and lurkers into believing that they have the proof to back up their claims. For example a quick Google search can provide many links such as the following saying that Evolution is Bunk . Is that proof that evolution is bunk? Hey I have a citation!

Unless someone can back up one's statements with facts and a coherent argument all the links in the world are meaningless. In fact, if someone cannot make a cogent argument for one's side in spite of numerous links suppossedly supporting their position one must either conclude that the poster is either too lazy to read up on the facts or totally incapable of understanding the matter being discussed.

For example a quick Google search can provide many links such as the following saying that Evolution is Bunk . Is that proof that evolution is bunk? Hey I have a citation!

By the tone of your post, can I assume you realize that your google search bore little fruit? Or at least in this case, very bad tasting fruit?
Can't you, a grown man, see the difference between Ich's links and the usual anti-evolution link? (of course not, because like Phaedrus, you simply don't click on them). See the scientific links we post have actual citations. Most citations have citations. They have reams of hardcopy research to back them up. Yours? Nothing. Ever.

In fact, the one you blithely posted is so silly it barely warrants a discussion. It consists of a creationist parsing statements from others. It's embarrassingly bereft of content, citations, study, and proof. It does, however, give both sides of this issue clear insight into what creationists constantly do OVER and OVER... which is to simply pull quotes out of context, deceive, and once again give us nothing more than some fancy-dan missives.

Poor Colin Patterson is mentioned AGAIN, despite the fact that it has been shown/proven countless times to be, in the words of Gore's site, "bunk." Good old "Sir Fred Hoyle" again I see. If the mods weren't jumpy, I could post a list of I'd say 5000 "prominent astronomers" who would dismiss Hoyle's Hooey. But you've got ONE, right? You win, right?

Wickramashinghe again? Same old same old. Refutations to him are plentiful here on FR.

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen... ah yes, The infamous chapters 7, 8, and 9 that one of your buddies posts over and over and over here. I believe it was thoroughly debunked on the last big Cre/Evo thread. Debunked, that is, with facts, numbers, proof, and citations.

Once in your life, try not to under whelm me.