Or maybe you came here because you found the heat in the kitchen a little uncomfortable?
I'll tell you exactly why I left there: fairness. I still have a couple of things I'm tempted to post there, but as I'd already made it a policy to leave biased forums when things got too blatant, it would have been inconsistent of me to remain. If I stay at EvC, that means I'd have to consider returning to other biased places as well, or make a special exception. They deserve no special consideration, and I ain't about to go back to the others. Policy's policy.
All right, from now on I will say "evolution is the best way we know of to explain the evidence of the geological column." I'm still waiting for the evidence you say you have which is better.
Better
evidence? I thought you wanted a better
explanation of the evidence.
That's cool. Things take time to prep & post, and since you can't make up your mind it looks like another free dodge.
You also haven't explained how you think that genetics has invalidated evolution. Goodness knows what you meant about "things" getting "bad" in Russia.
No I haven't.
This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.
So indecisive! But I've seen it before. S.O.P. Never allow the discussion to focus on any one area long enough for it to get anywhere. Distract, distract, distract. 'Fraid I'll bring the heat?
No, it's a PRATT. What's more, if you'd asked about this on EvC, you would have heard from a number of people with knowledge of the subject, some of whom might be working as experts in the field. You wouldn't by any chance be avoiding them? I'm not going to cover areas they've already explained.
You will see
in this thread that RAZD and "the creature" Dr. Adequate have explained this for you. RAZD has posted here so I'm sure he won't mind me referring you, and anyone else who wants to read, to his post there.
Ah, appeal to (such impressive) authority! Well, if you'd done as I suggested and looked up the history of the Oort cloud, you would have learned why it was imagined in the first place. If you had then applied a little rational thought, you might have asked yourself why they're still searching for it...
But you have your priests to turn to in times of trouble. Guess you don't need blind faith in an Oort cloud after all - just blind faith in RAZD.
The date for this fossil was arrived at by comparative dating of early palaeolithic gravels, a number from later palaeolithic (i.e. Upper Pleistocene) deposits in neighbouring pits, and some from recent deposits, including part of a Saxon skeleton. It has indeed been proved to be an intrusive burial. Where you do get the evidence for your assertion that "the soil conditions in the area are, if I may say it, "less than ideal" to obtain accurate results." This "Talk deceptions" link is to the small blurb on Talk Origins that you alread quoted. By the way, I suggest you make at least a small effort to stick to those "standards" you mentioned and call the site by its proper name. Or would you like me to have some fun in turn with making up silly pretend-names for creationist websites?
Determined how? By the fact that it was in the wrong place - not from any
evidence of intrusion. That's just what I originally said! Please try to keep up. "Determined" = "Designated" in evospeak.
Websites purchase their url's. They cannot purchase the English language. My policy is to use accurate terms.
I don't see any progress on the falsifiable hypothesis for abiogenesis. Can't seem to find one at EvC, either. So much time, so many evolutionists, so little science.
