No no- it didn’t offend- just wanted to be clear about what is presented here- Macroevos are always claiming Crationists don’t bring ‘science to the table’, and that simply isn’t true- it’s just that they systematically ignore what is broguht to the table, while glomming onto moot irrelevent issues (like my spelling for instance) in the hopes that we’ll be distracted from the central issues that were presented, thinking perhaps that because we’re not accreditted in some scientific journal, that we must hterefore all be dimwitted laypeople who don’t recognize silly arguments, and unsupported claims based on assumptions and a priori beliefs when we see them- and that’s only when these discussions turn into spitting matches- myself being to blame as well- but the science is brouight before the discussions get out of hand
Feel free to bring some science to the table.
Name or describe in some detail the single best argument against evolution. We’ll debate your best argument for a while and try to avoid getting off on tangents.
Yes; I've noticed that some of our evo correspondents like to change the subject a lot.... It almost seems a favored tactic — that, and the ad hominum attack.
I'm reminded of the great physicist Niels Bohr's insistence that science is "public property," and its findings should be presented to the public in as understandable a form as possible. His great friend Einstein shared this view.
Nowadays, however, science is increasingly thought to be an "elite" enterprise, conducted by accredited professionals who are not in any way accountable to the public. "Civilians" not only are not to be consulted, they are to be ignored....
Thanks so much for writing, Cottshop! Keep up the good work!