Prove that it is pseudoscience instead of being an echo chamber for someone who, like yourself who is afraid to confront the actual arguments. If its pseudoscience you should have no trouble responding to the merits of the article! That is how science and logic work. The fact that all you can't---that all you can do is call names and regurgitate someone elses's concession of impotence is tantamount to an admission of surrender. You're embarrassing yourself.
I not the one quoting from biased creationist material, written by authors who are not qualified, who are dismissed as cranks by the vast majority of scientists who actually do the research.
The evidence for evolution is readily available, I have posted links and quotes that outline the case for evolution. But that is all ignored.
Once again, it is not my evidence or my argument, but the situation as it actually stands. Only a small minority of academics question the evidence and most of those are not qualified, they are first and foremost, creationists.
If it is "biased creationist" material then it should be easily refuted, yet you've steadfastly refused to even attempt the refutation you claim is so easy. Why? You cite majority scientific opinion, but scientific truth is not decided by consensus, but by evidence. As Einstein famously remarked (when Hitler employed your tactic by trotting out a bevy of his scientists to declare Einstein wrong) "it only takes one person to prove me wrong". Thomas Kuhn, in his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" documents how scientific truth changes as old paradigms are discarded when new ones emerge which better explain the evidence. All morphological changes are the product of complex, coded information working in almost incomprehensible synchronicity. The complexity of the coded information necessary to instantiate even the simplest working cell is almost unfathomable and is infinitely more complex than the most sophisticated computer program. Natural selection cannot account for either the appearance of that information in the simplest living organism in the first instance, or the changes to that coded information that are necessary in the manifestation of changes in morphology. The information problem is insurmountable and natural selection has never been shown capable of doing the work. As I previously noted, If you took every particle in the Universe and turned it into a computers, each one weighing a millionth of a gram and each one able to spin out 488 trials a million times a second producing random letters and you did that from the inception of the universe, chance would still not be able to produce even something so simple as a Shakespearian Sonnet. Yet the DNA coding necessary to produce even a simple protein is massively more complex than a Shakespearian Sonnet. The a priori commitment of folks like you to philosophical materialism has utterly blinded you to the fatal weaknesses in Darwin's theory. But candidly, we don't even have to go to the evidence to see that the theory cannot possibly be true. All we have to do is look at the way almost all Darwinists, including you, argue their case---by the use of caricatures, strawmen and appeals to authority. Heavy reliance on logical fallacies are massive indicators of intellectual bankruptcy and are on full display in the responses of most Darwinists to the very cogent problems that complex coded information and Shannon complexity present to the Darwinian edifice. Indeed, your responses are shot-through with those self-same indicators of intellectual bankruptcy. If you had a case to make, you'd make it instead of continuing to embarrass yourself with your incessant invocation of logical fallacies.
