It is perfectly clear that you regard one of the items of "evidence" you posted as a complete falsehood. You could have omitted it (you probably should not have used so long a quote anyway). You could have admitted that you did not consider it valid. You did neither.
Clearly you do not care if your "evidence" is true or false - in fact from other posts it seems clear that you do not care if you have evidence at all.
quote: I can see that this is a waste of time since you evo proponents are more interested in going after me and insulting me rather than objectively considering the truth of my arguments.
Of course, this isn't true. You have admitted to using an argument that you consider false - and pointing that out shows a concern with the truth of your arguments, and should not be taken as an insult.
You have also admitted that you feel "certain" that your accusations are true even in the absence of evidence. These facts show that you are not interested in the objective truth of your arguments.
quote: Once again you generalize my rejection of evolution science as a rejection of all science so I must again preempt my response by correcting your misrepresentation of my views. With that said, here's a reality check which goes against everything you believe, but is true anyway. IF EVOLUTION WAS A TRUE SCIENCE THAT WAS TRULY SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC FACT, THEN IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT. AND IF IT DIDN'T CONFLICT WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT, WE WOULDN'T BE ON OPPOSING SIDES AT ALL.
Of course it is only your assumption that the evidence MUST fit with your interpretation of Genesis. Indeed that is your whole modus operandi - you assume that you are right and just throw baseless accusations at others who dare to disagree with you, regardless of the truth,
quote: What is relevant about it being promoted in Nat Geo is its highly respected standing and wide exposure to the general public as a must read science magazine. What you are ignoring is that people trust that if it is published in Nat Geo, it is Peer Reviewed and documented information, WHICH THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF THE "Archaeoraptor" WAS.
You've just shot yourself in the foot. National Geographic is NOT subject to peer review. That is the very distinction that Peepul was pointing out.
quote: "Archaeoraptor" is actually being defended by evolutionists on other threads in this very forum as we speak.