Replies

This was a fantastic read, thank you GGG.

I hope the Creationists keep the Evo's bleeding. Young Dinosaur skin, young Dinosaur blood tissue, and now the DNA evidence they love to use is being disputed. It must be tough having faith in Evolution now, but I'm sure the faithful religious followers will stick with it even after science shuns it.

"The article showed that scientists incorporate a large amount of bias in their analyses in order to manipulate the data to support evolution"

Dr. Tomkins is right on the money here, I have observed the same from reading "peer reviewed" scientific articles. They always seems to slant everything towards Evolution even when their results show nothing even close to Evolution. Hopefully, more scientists like Dr. Tomkins will call them out on this hypocrisy and bring logic and scientific thought back into mainstream science research again.

Hopefully, more scientists like Dr. Tomkins will call them out on this hypocrisy and bring logic and scientific thought back into mainstream science research again.

Why do you say, "like Dr. Tomkins," when Dr. Tomkins himself has not done so? He's been at the ICR for 18 months, and has published no technical or research articles for them. Only short, fluffy popular pieces like the present article.

Nor do any of his previous research articles, while at Clemson, appear to come anywhere near to engaging a crucial test between creation/design and evolution/descent explanations of biochemical data. They all seem to deal with the sorts of adaptations to local environments which creationists allow within "kinds".

If he's competent to address it, why do you think Dr. Thomkins has been consistently avoiding the issue since he received his Ph.D. 13 years ago?