A Review of Creationist Web Sites

Welcome back. I'm glad you decided to post again. Please address the counterevidence in your previous threads. Although I'd be willing to bet on what you're referring to here, in the interests of discussion, please cite a specific example where the Smithsonian has hidden evidence against evolution. In spite of the fact that Nat Geo isn't a "peer reviewed" journal, they have a pretty good reputation most times. Again, I'd be willing to bet I know what you're referring to, but I would appreciate it if you could cite a specific example for discussion. Please provide a specific case of an "illegitimate" anti-creationist article so we can discuss it.

Well, booboo, before working yourself into a lather, you might want to recheck how your questions are phrased. In this case, a flippant question got an accurate, albeit short, flippant answer. Male and female are not distinct species, ergo, they evolved together. That's all the answer that your poorly phrased question deserved. Now, if you really wanted a scientific answer to how sexual reproduction evolved, for instance, then you should have asked that. Starting out multiple threads, ignoring responses, claiming you're being insulted when you start out with one of your very first posts arrogantly claiming "I've never been defeated in an argument with evolutionists", etc, doesn't lend itself to anything more that what you received. "As ye sow so shall ye reap.", right?Maybe you got off on the wrong foot here. Care to try again?You made several vague accusations concerning the Smithsonian and National Geographic (among others). No one asked for a reference, however I specifically asked you for further explanation of what you were talking about. In other words, vague accusations are meaningless. Specific statements such as "Nat Geo published erroneous information on XYZ" are checkable - and can be discussed. How about it? Are you going to discuss, or are you just here to rant?

I have asked you before, and repeat it now: bring to this board any ONE single, specific argument/research/statement or even quotation for that matter from any creationist you think represents the epitome of creation science and I'll be happy to deconstruct it for you. I HAVE read a number of so-called creation scientists - from Wells to Dembski to Johnson - and am thoroughly unimpressed. You, on the other hand, are thoroughly impressed. Thus, we have a basis for discussion right off the bat.Tell you what - I'll read Gentry's "Creation's Tiny Mystery" if you read Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology". Fair deal? Want to make a bet which one contains the better science?