Replies

It is up to you to do the work of finding the proof to refute an opponent's theories. Just to say they are to be found in an encyclopedic work and go look for it refutes nothing. That is why I called your statement the ultimate in arrogance. It is also the ultimate in lameness. In addition, this is not a private discussion, it is a public one, with new people all the time reading these posts. It is your duty in such a discussion to put the facts before the readers, not to ask them to spend their life poring through links. The proper way to use references is to quote the parts relevant to the point being made and to then link to the whole work (when it is to an article on the net) to verify that the quote is not out of context.

Therefore, since you claim to know where the proof of macro-evolution is, post it here instead of asking all the readers to go sifting through numerous threads. I would think that you would be proud to show new readers the proof of your theory - or is the claim to having given such proof not true?

It is up to you to do the work of finding the proof to refute an opponent's theories.

Why? The theory of evolution pretty much fits all the evidence. It is up to anyone else coming along the pike with a brand new (or old, as in the case of creationism) theory to show that their theory fits the evidence better, has better predictive powers (prediction is the reason DARWINISTS - not CREATIONISTS - thought Piltdown Man was a hoax from the beginning; they just had to wait for better dating techniques to prove it), and can be backed up by observation (evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field and in the fossil record - regardless of your protestations to the contrary). Once your pet theory can do all that, then it will have a straight shot at being accepted.

Nice dodge, though. First you say that no one ever gives references when backing up the theory of evolution - and we show that isn't right. Then you say the references are garbage, and we show you that the source of the references contains some of your own work. Now you are saying we've got to go out and prove each of these bits of evidence ourselves. The bar keeps getting higher.

BTW, speaking of proving your assertions, we are still waiting for you to produce:

• Case law REQUIRING the teaching of evolution in U.S. schools (there is a lot barring the teaching of creationism, but that is no the same thing, as one could simply say the school will not teach anything along these lines and not be in violation of that ruling).
• The research paper that says DNA evidence proves whales and hippos are not related. You made this bald-faced assertion not long ago, VadeRetro called you on it by posting several references that show whales and hippos are very much related, and you clammed up.

When we make mistakes we (well most of us) admit them. Heck, I've had to apologize a half-dozen times on these threads alone (not to mention the dozens of apologies I've made on the more political threads when I misunderstood something). It has made me more diligent in my research before posting something - hence the creation of The Ultimate Resource.

BTW, The Ultimate Resource has every crevo thread and link we've done on this forum since 1999. There are plenty of creationist sites and threads on there, too. It just so happens that for every creationist argument though, there are typically several sites and threads devoted to pointing out the fallacies therein. But, have fun. You could spend hours out there researching this, that and the other and come back armed to the teeth with new, more improved, contentions and not the same worn-out, hackneyed, thrice-reputed stuff most creationist arguments are.