Replies

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.

Can't you, a grown man, see the difference between Ich's links and the usual anti-evolution link?

I have read plenty and debunked plenty of the trueorigins garbage. The articles are almost never written by professionals in the field. They are written by people with absolutely no reputation to lose. They are mostly rhetoric and half truths. Now if you or anyone of your cadre of evolutionists wishes to discuss any article from any source you like, let's see it, lets discuss it and let's see if it in fact gives any sort of solid evidence for evolution.

(In fact, we have an article here on this thread which you folks refuse to discuss and give evidence, Dini's calling anyone but evolutionists not fit to be doctors. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence from your side backing that up).

You and your friends only give a bunch of links which you yourselves have not read. If you have read them, if they give strong proof for your position, how come none of you is willing to post the proof right here where all of us can discuss it?

The answer to the above question is that your links are garbage as I and Heartlander have been saying. So all you have left is the three 'proofs' of evolution:

INSULTS

DOUBLETALK

LIES