Some Evidence Against Evolution

Just to be pedantic the "Natural History Museum" is more properly known as "The British Museum of Natural History".And Milton gets the location right - Kensington. Willowtree is responsible for that error.Mind you considering the opinion of an anti-science crank like Milton worthwhile evidence of anything is a far greater error.

Being a member of MENSA doesn't mean that he isn't a crank.And I didn't say that he is a creationist - although he uncritically repeats creationist claims.And all you have offered is his opinions. I can't discredit his arguments when there aren't any !Now I would be quite willing to discuss LEGTIMATE arguments against evolution. But the opinion of a crank is not a legitimate argument - not does it become one just because you attack anyone who dares to point pout the truth.So now that your attack has been shown to be baseless here is the evidence that Milton is a crank.He runs the website http://www.alternativescience.com with pages supporting the excistence of
Spontaneous Human Combustion
An attack on James Randi's challenge
A link to an experiment to "prove" that you have paranormal powers
An attack on "the book _Voodoo science_ (mainly supporting homeopathy and cold fusion)
Or this page supportign psychic powers.
http://www.alternativescience.com/paranormal.htmEnough evidence for you ?

So you think that the range of subjects on which Milton disagrees with modern science is NOT evidence that he is a crank ?THe REAL fact about parapsychology is that it has not really got anywhere. The BEST evidence is always of a small effect - which often can't be reproduced, and usually gets abandoned after problems are found (sometimes fraud). Only a small body of "true beleivers" insist that the paranormal definitely exists.If you've got real arguments then produce them, not Milton's opinions. Milton's hatred of science taints his opinions too greatly for them to be worth anything.[Added in edit]
I notice that on another thread you claim to have plenty of evidence. Well bring it on instead of wasting everybodies time with Richard Milton's opinions.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 12-01-2003]

Here are some reasons not to trust Richard Milton:
1) He is heavily opposed to science
2) While he denies being a creationist he uncritically repeats creationist arguments (because he's on the same 'side').
3) He has no relevant qualificiations, he has done no serious scientific work in he area
4) Anything he says is necessarily out of date since new discoveries are still being found. Even if he *did* read the latest sources available at the time he wrote.Again don't waste our time with the opinions of people with an axe to grind and no special claim to knowledge. Let's have the evidence you claimed to have instead.

Now, now, drop the hostility. The fact is that you have given no evidence to show that Milton is in the least a reliable source.Still I take your continued reliance on Milton to indicate that your claim to have a "load" of evidence against evolution to be false.

I reject Milton as a reliable source not simply because he has no qualifications but also because of his extreme bias.The evidence that Milton is a crank has been provided - from his own website. The "rebuttal" consisted of a single assertion which dealt with only part of the evidence, is on the face of it completely false and has not been supported.If you think that Milton has some good arguments then use those. Don't just report Milton's opinions and expect us to believe them because you ignore the evidence of Milton's unreliability.