I've been reading your side's BS for about 3 1/2 years now as a hobby. I've seen your hard-core YEC sillies, your stealth "wedge strategy" Intelligent Design ruse, every manner of stonewalling obfuscation and distraction against the mountains of evidence for evolution. There's nothing you can show me I haven't seen. Nothing.
Creationists include numerous scientists with impeccable credentials, and contrary to your sweeping dismissal of their arguments, in fact evolutionists have had a great deal of difficulty rebutting them.
Creationists don't number enough to show in the demographics of professional biology or geology. Many of their credentials are highly suspect. More to the point, creationists make no useful contribution to science. They screech at us that we'll never find another fossil species or understand this or that process. Thank you, that was so useful!
Some of the evos themselves admit they don't have good rebuttals.
Let me guess that you refer here to creationist quote salads. If that's science, Joseph Goebbels should have been a Nobel Prize winner.
There are creationists like Duane Gish who regularly debate evos and demolish them.
Ah! Duane Gish! I've already mentioned how he's still on the ICR site quoting Colbert from about 1954 that there is no fossil history for whales. It's no longer true, but he's still trying to make people believe it.
A live debate with a creationist is a drive-by shooting. It's trying to clean up after a guy who's taking a dump with every step. Your problem is that it takes far more time to rebut a lie than to tell one. (And when are you supposed to make your own case?) Now throw in that the crowd is probably jammed with the local fundie faithful to the exclusion of anyone who can spell "Australopithecus."
The article that started this whole thread is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's claimed that this skull that was found was not simply an ape species but some sort of humanoid.
The characteristics of the skull are not really in question. They're more human than the average ape. The question is whether--let's see if I can put this in terms you'll understand--you can ascribe the situation to "normal variation within ape kind." (See, I told you I know the lingo. I just think you folks are utterly full of crap.)
As the author of the article makes clear, this appears to be complete BS. They claimed it walked upright and all they have is the skull.
For the last time, "muscle attachments, location of."
They claim the teeth somehow make it human, yet as the author shows that's BS too. There's probably all these evos running around touting this "discovery" as yet more proof of ape - man evolution and yet more proof that the creationists don't know what they're talking about. Maybe you are one of them.
All that's getting through your filters is what you wanted to hear, that someone somewhere said "BS" about something so you can wipe another embarrassing piece of evidence off the board. As if you hadn't already done so anyway.
Neither did Richard Dawkins, but the swooning sycophants at your talk.origins don't hesitate to quote him as one of their messiahs.
I've been reading YOUR side for well over four years as a hobby. I've seen the same bait-and-switch tactics, pushing of bad science, tantrums over critiques, condescention, style-over-substance BS at every site you and yours use as a reference (and I've seen just about all of them). It's ridiculous. There are NO "mountains" of evolution, much less "overwhelming evidence" for the overinflated just-so stories peddled to the masses. You'll cling to any and every minute bone fragment unearthed in Africa in a desperate attempt to show that everything we see came from nothing.
Your tenacity of purpose in trying to show there is no purpose is astounding.