Calling Von Cullen - Anti Evolution Molecular Biologist!!

Actually, what you said was that 99% of the arguments for evolution on this forum are refuted by the scientific literature.Even if "99%" is an exaggeration, you are still saying that a large majority of the arguments for evolution on this forum are factually incorrect.It would be nice of you to provide a good sample of these arguments you think are contradicted by the scientific literature.If not, then, seeing how such a large portion are wrong, then a random sample of arguments that we bring up should be incorrect, and perhaps we will start providing samples of the arguments that are most compelling to us to see if you can show how they are refuted by the scientific literature.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

Except that it isn't an example of what you claimed to be able to provide. You said that 99% of the arguments used by the evolutionists on this board are refuted in the scientific literature.The example that you provide is that of a poster countering an "Argument from Ignorance" by pointing out that existing living organisms provide analogs which might give insight to the stages of the evolving vertebrate eye.He's not providing an argument for evolution as much as he's countering an argument against it. And you haven't met the challenge that you have set for yourself by providing citations from the scientific literature that explains how examples from living species do not give useful analogs in understand the evolution of the vertebrate eye.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy