[Chances Are]

The thing that impressed me the most about your post is words like "overzealous", "jumping the gun", "sloppy journalism" when applied to your "scientists", but Calex's views are "dishonestly misleading", to be dismissed out of hand.

Such an approach wins few new adherents, serves only to maginalize your antagonist (ordinarily I'd say opponent, but let's call a spade a spade here!), and leaves the reader with a feeling of ennui as they try to navigate through rubbish you attempt to pass off as objectivity in an effort to ascertain exactly what it is you're trying to say.

This, apparently, is the crux of the evo's position - it's evolution, it's the truth, it's fact, and that's all there is to it. End of discussion. If you have another viewpoint, kindly be reminded there are no other viewpoints - and if you insist on maintaining this ridiculous posture, seriously consider resigning from the human race, for we have no use for you.

Baaaa! Baaaa! 2 legs good, 4 legs better!! Baaaa!!!!!!

CA....

[Dimensio]

The thing that impressed me the most about your post is words like "overzealous", "jumping the gun", "sloppy journalism" when applied to your "scientists", but Calex's views are "dishonestly misleading", to be dismissed out of hand.

You know, you're absolutely right. I should not have said that calex was being "dishonestly misleading". It is entirely possible that he was repeating the claim of some "creationist scholar" without actually doing any research -- I mean, he did present a list of creationist canards, it's quite possible that he just yanked the references from someone like Hovind without doing any fact checking of his own. If that is the case, then calex is merely sloppy for copying the work of a liar, and it is the original creationist who wrote the tripe that calex is parroting who was being dishonestly misleading.