Sure, but my comment was a purposeful overstatement.
Shifting gears, eh? I recall reading quite an understatement in an earlier post.
You have brought up the fact that some scientists don't agree with the conclusions of most. Of course if they did bring up conclusive evidence that evolution could not have happened, you believe that the scientific community would not be able to recognize that evidence.
When I need to find out what my beliefs are, I'll ask myself.
The inability of most scientists to understand evidence is the main reason the fields of Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, and Geology are in the poor state that we find them.
You're welcome to your opinion.
And lack of evidence hasn't stopped you from falsely claiming AIG said something they didn't. I think I see how this works... Do you think the X Club's propaganda machine operated on similar principles?
AIG links the teaching of evolution directly with the moral decay in society. See
herePlease take back your accusation that what I stated was false.
Perhaps you're thinking of something else. I didn't see anything about porn or amendments.
So now you claim that their actions do make the Theory of Evolution untrue? Evidence please or take that one back too.
Take back what? A claim you try to put in my mouth? You made it up - you get to take it back.
Well informed we are...no? Since almost all of them are ID or creation proponents except the ones that are quoted out of context, I don't see how what Russ provided (What? Can't go to the original sources?) is worth anything at all.
Do you even know what "out of context" means? I declare, your filthy mantras need to be overhauled.
I saw a thread where you claim this, but fail to support even one of your assertions.
Untrue. I provided three links supporting my claim that circular reasoning is invalid.
Yes, and I agree that circular reasoning is invalid. So what!
So your claim that I didn't provide support is FALSE, that's what. Duh!
You failed to even try to show that use of the items in box 1 as evidence in support of evolution WAS circular reasoning. Well, except to say it was so and that I was suppose to accept what you say as fact.
Also false. I tried many ways to show you what constitutes circular reasoning. I'm not responsible if you refuse to learn.
Why do you oppose this investigation?
You have my question in your post, but it remains unanswered.
So most scientists are not taught the scientific method? You have evidence of this?
You said it - you provide evidence.
The next time you try to put words in my mouth, you may wish you hadn't.
If they were taught the scientific method, then they apparently couldn't learn it or apply it properly. From my point of view and from your definition above ("consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them") that means that most scientists are stupid. This is especially so in the fields of biology and geology since they work with the stuff every day.
You can call them what you want.
Of course, it could be a mass conspiracy of almost all scientists. Yes...that must be it!! They are all in on it and are lying about the evidence in favor of evolution and hiding any evidence that refutes evolution. In fact, they hide the evidence so well that scientists that disagree with them (Dr. Abraham) can't even find it.
Somehow I doubt this is accurate...
Yet these "others" also fail to provide one scrap of evidence that "stupification' is occurring.
Oh? Have you asked them? And just how much more evidence is required?
But just for laughs,
here's some. 
