Originally Posted by LindaLou
You can watch catastrophic floods on TV, CTD. No geologist claims that everything happened gradually. You're welcome to prove me wrong by citing an example. You're also welcome to comment on any of the evidence presented in my post, with evidence of your own.

This is no new game. Some evolutionists are honest enough to admit "junk DNA" is a bogus concept. When a creationist argues against "junk DNA", the evolutionist has an "opportunity" to use the honest ones as a smoke screen. They'll say the creationist is "out-of-date", and no evolutionist still believes in the stuff.

Same deal with misdefining 'mutation'. Some evolutionists do it; some don't. RAZD participated in a discussion at EvC in which it was argued that no evolutionists misdefine 'mutation'; and then turned around and argued on this forum that all accept/employ the bogus definition.

The circumstantial fact that some evolutionists get some things right does not mean wrong is right.

Originally Posted by LindaLou
This post is addressed as a reply to me but it doesn't seem to have much to do with what I wrote here. Actually this is something I would have thought you'd have less of an objection to, as you have expressed a belief elsewhere that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. As for what you do say here, I am waiting along with Linear to see actual evidence for any of these claims. I could just as easily keep claiming that the great green arkleseizure lived in the sky, was controlling our thoughts, and that you all were fools for not realising it though you had to take my word that this was so. Without evidence, are you likely to believe that?

It's no impressive trick to refuse to see evidence. Who cannot close their eyes?

On more than one occasion I've seen creationists accused of "denying evidence". I think I know what inspires this false accusation. Evolutionology isn't the most difficult of sciences. Much of the time one merely observes. I observe that the promoters of evolutionism are guilty of everything they falsely accuse creationists of doing. For now, in the interest of accuracy, I maintain this is a principle. If it should prove true in absolutely all cases, it will qualify as a law of science.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson