Your interesting response deserves a decent response, I think. I’ll begin here:
“Maybe you’ve been less hasty ...”
This will be my 70th year on this planet, and I’ve studied these things for all time of those 70 years that I could read and think. I’ve not been too “hasty” I think.
I’m not truly interested in debates at all, since they are really nothing more than demonstrations of one’s power of speech and rhetoric and almost never of careful objective reason. So most of your comment addresses something I’m not interested in, since most journals and conferences are to me, variations of the same. (I regard the entire “peer review thing as academic thuggery).
I’ve recently republished a paper, “Problems of the Evolutionary Hypothesis” by a friend and micro-biologist, for another friend who asked for it. If you are interested it raises some of the technical questions evolutionist perenialy evade. It is here:
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=55
Not that it matters, because truth is truth (unless you are a post-modernsit), the author is not a theist.
I’ll not be accusing you of being, “delusional,” (the kind of thing I’ve become accustomed to from those who have no real argument), even though I do think you’ve been somewhat duped by the evolutionary academics, as so many were by the global warming academics.
Personally, I’d have no interest in the “evolutionary” fairy tale if it were nothing more than something some people believed. When it becomes a political issue, involving tax dollars that are going to be spent on education, and is being used to reinforce the vile psychological principles that let’s the most vile of people off the hook (in courts, for example), I think the evil of the evolutionary hypothesis, as it presently exists needs, to be pointed out for the fraud it is.
Hank
http://usabig.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=55
Oh, c'mon. You can't be serious!? That's one of the most laughably pathetic screeds I've ever read, and I've read a lot of laughably pathetic screeds.
It's mostly vague (often barely coherent, can't tell what the author is driving at, points left hanging, facts -- or factoids -- introduced with no apparent purpose) rambling (and it's a real challenge to ramble in an article that short) and when not vague it's just wrong.
I don't find a single example in that article of the "serious scientific questions" you assert evolutionists "evade". It lacks the clarity to formulate a remotely clear or specific question. Referring to a vaporous, incompetent, error filled article like that one is in itself an evasion.
You just can't mean that to have been an example of the kind of arguments that you find convincing, or even relevant?! Seriously. Are you having us on? Was that a joke? (I mean an intentional joke?)