mike the wiz:
quote:
*another non-specific reference to a site full of unsupported assertions and misunderstandings about real scientific evidence*
You really should try to paraphrase some of it. Demonstrate understanding, you know? Otherwise the discussion will be more of "we've read all that and it's without merit" and you saying "no it's not" and round and round
ad nauseum thereafter. Please, if you want to debate in good faith, do this: cite a specific piece of evidence you find convincing, with sources provided (and not just a web site but a specific document) and when it is challenged, answer in specific factual terms, not just dismissal of the poor faithless atheists' ideas.
I read all of the "evidence for creation" on that site. No actual evidence is described in enough detail to indicate understanding on the part of the author(s). I have no formal training in geology and could probably summarize the polonium halo issue in a more factual and organized manner. In fact, for every single one of the issues mentioned, a solid rebuttal has existed, in some cases for decades. I'd like you to pick one issue and state 1)what facts it is based on, and 2)why you find it convincing. Then we can talk about evidence, and whether it supports that claim or not. The fact is that every single one of those claims has been refuted time and time again, and those making them may even know it. They are WRONG. They describe irregularities among mountains of evidence
for evolution: irregularities which have been explained. That is all.
™ Version 4.2
