Well, if by definition, creationists are intrinsically dishonest, then that means nothing I'd post would be trustworthy. Nothing any creationist would post be trustworthy.
Funny how sure we are regarding our definitions. For evolutionists, are for certain, a bunch that loves to live by dishonesty too; at least on the surface it looks that way.
That is why Emma Darwin's death at a young age is never, ever discussed, nor its impact on Charles. Lies of omission are far worse than lies comission.
Annie's death it widely discussed. It's covered in most biographies, and frequently in dicussions of Darwin's religious views. You seem to want it mentioned in relation to Darwin's scientific views, but you would have to explain why and how it's relevant thereto.
You posted on this thread, so why are you lying about this? You simply have no moral integrity at all, and don't even mind getting caught. For the record, Darwin's daughter is mentioned in all major biographies, and was the subject of quite a bit of back and forth on the Escape From God thread.
GOBUCKS: "That is why Emma Darwin's death at a young age is never, ever discussed, nor its impact on Charles. Lies of omission are far worse than lies comission."
Sorry, but the daughter was discussed on this thread, and one of the posts was YOU.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1333962/posts?page=9#9
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1333962/posts?page=12#12
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1333962/posts?page=40#40
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1333962/posts?page=41#41
I started that series of posts. Where do you think I got the information? Not from a creationist website, certainly. It was from the standard, most widely read biography. This biography, by the way, is the source of some really great fabrications posted on many creationist websites, including one famous "quote" cronstructed from sentence fragments from two separate letters by Darwin.