Replies

TalkOrigins is not "objective" on the evolution-creationism question. Scientists who take the trouble to rebut creationist nonsense get web-published on TO. Creationists get published on AiG.

Note that if nobody answers creationists on a given point, it's supposedly because "There IS no answer" or "There's a CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE" to ignore creationism. But any person, any organization, any site that takes up the challenge and shoots down the nonsense is dismissed out of hand for "not being objective." Catch-22. To not answer you is bad. To answer you is worse.

You keep screaming that we have dismissed AiG out of hand. Well, I do, in a way. I've seen their crap enough times that I often don't need to reread the linked articles before responding. Nevertheless, if I answer you on an AiG article, what is posted to you addresses the text of their statements.

You just dismissed three of four articles in Patrick's post to you with an ad hominem on a whole site and all of the probably scores of authors published thereon. (Or did you in your religious horror not even check to see that the Tree of Life Project is not associated with TO?) You have not addressed in any way the content of Patrick's post, only his choice in web sites to support his position.

What I also have observed is that, unlike TalkOrigins, creationist websites don't provide links to the 'opposition' or even to the article they are rebuting (as the folks at TO do in this article for instance).

TalkOrigins list of links to creationist websites.

You keep screaming that we have dismissed AiG out of hand

I just want to know, what percentage of AiG do we need to rebut, before was can conclude to a high degree of statistical certaintly that's it's all junk. Ok, better than 90% junk.

TO infers that it is an open forum for all to discuss evolution/creation. AIG does not. I don't believe True Origins does either. It would be like Free Republic saying that it is a free forum for discussing political issues and actively promoting Ralph Nader type politics to the exclusion of everything else. While TO does allow creationist rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals, etc., they also are not a forum without a deep agenda, namely, the promotion of Darwinism. If it were just an evolution website with the same kind of articles addressing various topics like AIG does I would have more respect for it. The True Origins article that I posted, I believe, has some good points to consider concerning that source. Receiving "proofs" from Talk Origins is only mildly irritating. Receiving proofs in the form of 100 links that I will not have time to read is very irritating.