[mdmathis6]

What the debacle illustrates is that Darwinist true believers are so quick to jump on “discoveries” proving their talking points, that they often end up with egg on their faces when the data is given a second look. This is not to besmerch the serious scientists working in the field but rather a criticism aimed at the would be Dawkinses who tend to bash creationists before the the data has been fully vetted.

[SJSAMPLE]

It’s never about the data.
It’s about the insane interpretations of said data.

[BlueDragon]

You sum it up well. Thank you.

[SJSAMPLE]

It's hilarious that you use the words "true believers" in this context.

One group is out there, in the field and in the labs, looking for data, posing hypothesis and testing theories.

Ther other is looking in a book.
One book.

[tpanther]

What the debacle illustrates is that Darwinist true believers are so quick to jump on “discoveries” proving their talking points, that they often end up with egg on their faces when the data is given a second look. This is not to besmerch the serious scientists working in the field but rather a criticism aimed at the would be Dawkinses who tend to bash creationists before the the data has been fully vetted.

Well stated and worse still is the kind of back-peddaling one sees what with all the myriad liberal projections from the Dawkinses we see illustrated in post #6.