The evolution of planets and solar systems...etc..

You can tell they're lying just from looking at the article itself: They can't even lie properly, either through negligence or because they suppose that their target audience is so dumb they needn't bother.As Jeff Hester, architect of the externally-driven hypothesis, explains: So, Mikey, would you like to try again? This time, instead of the time-honored creationist method of snarf-and-barf, perhaps you could see if you could find something which is actually true, and not written by morons and/or liars. Thank you.

The article as a whole contains nineteen ellipses and fifteen quotations that start in the middle of a sentence. While lesser creationists cherry-pick paragraphs and sentences, these guys are cherry-picking clauses --- and they still have to lie about the meaning of the quotations they produce by this butchery.

... then you live in a fantasy world inside Mikey's head. You forget that stuff you've made up doesn't falsify things.

I did read it. I also thought about it. It is false. Specifically, your pretense that no transitional fossils have been found is false.This is, by the way, "information". Things do not stop being information just because you don't like to hear them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Maybe not, but it is analogous to reality.

Then it was a singularly ill-chosen example. Well, you are a creationist, aren't you? You opened this post by quoting creationist lies; it was not clear that when you referred to another creationist lie it was as a hypothetical rather than as an example of something you thought was true. This has, of course, nothing to do with anything I wrote.

No.

And so when you recite creationist nonsense, it is not clear when you mean it hypothetically, and when you actually mean it. It is a bad example because it is an example of something that didn't actually happen. There are lots of intermediate forms. If you want to produce an example of scientists being confuted by contrary evidence, then a better example would be a case in which they were, in fact, confuted by contrary evidence, rather than an example of a case in which in reality they were triumphantly vindicated.Otherwise it just gets a bit weird. If you wanted to explain to someone what a carnivore was, would you say: "Well, for example, if cucumbers eat carrots, and carrots are made of meat, then cucumbers are carnivores"? That would be a bad example of a carnivore, 'cos of it being an example of something which is not in fact carnivorous eating something which it does not in fact eat and which is not in fact meat. Er ... but they clearly are liars. And I note that you have not even tried to defend the lies that I have exposed. I showed up the lie, plain and simple. You won't even attempt to defend it. And yet you claim that they "clearly aren't" liars. Well, on the face of it, they clearly are. This is why I can show that they are with evidence and you have nothing to say in their defense but the mere assertion of a negative.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.