Thanks for the links Bex. It's helpful to see what people are actually saying in these news stories. I can then cross-check the facts. I do this when I'm researching anything, including alt med.
Just because it does not come from the sources you approve of (Evolution or Evolution sympathetic) does not mean that it becomes invalid, even if Linda Lou says so. Who died and made you God of information, science and sources?
Ignoring the final remark in that statement, I'll remind you that I said I thought Wikipedia is pretty neutral, which is why I cited it as evidence in the case of Gonzalez. I do not limit my news on any topic to any one source because there is always bias around, and I want to get a balanced point of view. Do you ever cross-check your creationist news with other sources in order to do the same? I suspect it must be tempting to read things that are filtered in such a way that they become palatable to one's views, but this is not the same as looking for the truth.
The "origin of species' is basically your evolutionary bible,
LOL, and I bow down and worship under a picture of Darwin every day. Not.
Like many others, I can see that there is a fossil record and that there is geological evidence that the earth is old. There's no reason why I feel I have to deny this or make it sound like the evidence is false and scientists are liars. This is not the same as following a religion. You could just as easily accuse me of worshipping all the factual books I own. I like learning about things. I just don't have a need to believe the literal truth of a holy book which contradicts the available evidence, so there's no issue here for me.
Coming from somebody who only wants the "facts" stemming from her own belief system, I take your statements with a grain of salt. You have told me that websites do not qualify is evidence. Now you are asking for a link. Is that so you can then rubbish the website as well as those I quote/cite? It wouldn't matter what the information or website was, you'd rubbish it immediately because it's of "creation" origin. Understandable, we all have our bias, including yourself.
I'm not in the business of rubbishing entire websites, as I said. It's too time-consuming. Like I said earlier, a link will enable me to read a story and get some information that I can cross-check. If creationist websites gave unbiased, truthful, genuinely scientific news then there would be no need for me to call anything they said into question. However if there are radically different accounts of those stories in many other places, and if the science is wrong, then why would you expect me to quietly accept those things? I don't criticise for the sake of it; I criticise when there are inaccuracies to be criticised.
That just leaves this horse stuff. I'll have to look into it, though at the moment this would appear to be the old, old PRATT of there being no transitional forms.
