[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

My standards are obviously far above yours, otherwise I would be posting about how nature selects from random processes to create complex, specified, super-sophisticated digital DNA codes, while I ignored the fact that the only empirically verified source for complex, specified, digital codes are intelligent designers.

So your "standards" for science writing are that it reaches the correct (in your view) conclusion, not whether it's factually accurate along the way. That's what I thought.

[count-your-change]

“So your “standards” for science writing are that it reaches the correct (in your view) conclusion, not whether it's factually accurate along the way.”

Works for Darwinism. No matter how much of its “evidence” is found not to be, its conclusions are not to be questioned.

(please see the Lucy and Ardi show)