News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Or maybe you came here because you found the heat in the kitchen a little uncomfortable? They wasted no time in explaining how you were mistaken about a number of things, yet you come here and present the same arguments. Do you think the fact that you now have a larger creationist audience is somehow going to make those arguments any more valid than they ever were?


Ad hominem rubbish from your fantasy world.


Does the fact of people like you requiring me to say them over and over somehow invalidate them? If you took any notice I wouldn't have to repeat them.


All right, from now on I will say "evolution is the best way we know of to explain the evidence of the geological column." I'm still waiting for the evidence you say you have which is better.

You also haven't explained how you think that genetics has invalidated evolution. Goodness knows what you meant about "things" getting "bad" in Russia.


This is a slippery dodge. Radiometric dating and astronomical observations present solid evidence for the age of the earth. If you say you don't accept them then of course you need to explain why. Any theories competing with existing theories need to take those existing theories into account, and explain why they don't adequately explain the evidence.

If you can't do this then I don't expect to hear any more assertions on the subject from you.


No, it's a PRATT. What's more, if you'd asked about this on EvC, you would have heard from a number of people with knowledge of the subject, some of whom might be working as experts in the field. You wouldn't by any chance be avoiding them? I'm not going to cover areas they've already explained.

You will see in this thread that RAZD and "the creature" Dr. Adequate have explained this for you. RAZD has posted here so I'm sure he won't mind me referring you, and anyone else who wants to read, to his post there.

Galley Hill Man

The date for this fossil was arrived at by comparative dating of early palaeolithic gravels, a number from later palaeolithic (i.e. Upper Pleistocene) deposits in neighbouring pits, and some from recent deposits, including part of a Saxon skeleton. It has indeed been proved to be an intrusive burial. Where you do get the evidence for your assertion that "the soil conditions in the area are, if I may say it, "less than ideal" to obtain accurate results." This "Talk deceptions" link is to the small blurb on Talk Origins that you alread quoted. By the way, I suggest you make at least a small effort to stick to those "standards" you mentioned and call the site by its proper name. Or would you like me to have some fun in turn with making up silly pretend-names for creationist websites?


On the contrary. Unless you start backing up your numerous assertions with actual evidence then what you say here amounts to nothing more than name-calling and meaningless blather.