Replies

And yet again, I must ask -- if the case against evolution is so good, why do you usually have to look to lawyers and journalists and such for "support", instead of peer-reviewed works by scientists working within their fields?

Howdy.

Why would I need "support?" The evidence 'is what it is.' I see purposeful Design; you do not. There are a bunch of peer-reviewed papers out there that support ID.

I'm just here presenting information to those who are interested. If you aren't interested in Camp's rebuttal, that's fine. There are new people here that have no idea who he is.

By the way, the last time I checked, there's nothing that has come out of TO that's peer-reviewed. Isn't that where you get a majority of *your* information?

[And yet again, I must ask -- if the case against evolution is so good, why do you usually have to look to lawyers and journalists and such for "support", instead of peer-reviewed works by scientists working within their fields?]
Howdy. Why would I need "support?"

You tell me, you're the one attempting to support your assertions and position by posting this stuff.

The evidence 'is what it is.'

Yes it is, so why don't you post some, instead of spin and sophistry and fallacies and false claims by creationists?

I see purposeful Design; you do not.

I see that the evidence strongly supports my view, and very weakly, if at all, supports yours.

There are a bunch of peer-reviewed papers out there that support ID.

Feel free to cite them, so that we can determine their quality.

I'm just here presenting information to those who are interested.

My point is that you should present reliable, correct information, not the kind of stuff that needs large amounts of correction.

If you aren't interested in Camp's rebuttal, that's fine. There are new people here that have no idea who he is.

And that's exactly why it's important to show them exactly who he is -- a polemicist who does not actually understand what he's attempting to critique, and grossly misrepresents much of it.

By the way, the last time I checked, there's nothing that has come out of TO that's peer-reviewed.

Surely you could not have missed the lists of citations to peer-reviewed papers and primary sources at the bottom of almost every TalkOrigins.Org page? They don't just make up the stuff on their pages, they're reporting and summarizing the peer-reviewed literature on the topic, and providing citations by which readers can look deeper into it themselves. Duh.

Isn't that where you get a majority of *your* information?

No, it most certainly isn't. Might I ask you to read more carefully next time?