Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

It's pure indoctrination.

Incidentally, most of that who you call "the greedy people trashing the world" call themselves Christians.

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior

LOL

 

[Deeje]

You're not American, but you might know anyway that a similar affliction has beset American conservatives. They tell me over and over how the country is going to hell even though their days are easy. They get up, perhaps have a cup of coffee over the computer, drive off to work in an air conditioned car, come home and enjoy a dinner with loved ones perhaps followed by TV and bed, but not before getting on the Internet to tell the world that America is going to hell. Ask them what's so bad about their lives, and they can't tell you,or they'll tell you about a national debt that they aren't being billed for, or Hillary's emails, or abortions that can't possibly be affecting their lives.

It's pure indoctrination.

Is it? I watched a documentary the other night on the homeless middle class in America, living in tent cities all over the country.
These are people who previously had good jobs and a decent standard of living....losing their employment and their homes, they are forced to eke out an existence on very low wages, sometimes working 3 or 4 jobs just to feed their children.

America's Broken Dreams - Four Corners

How do you think they feel about the state of affairs in affluent America? Do you live on a different planet?

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless People Are Booming In Cities All Over America As Poverty Spikes | Zero Hedge

America's homeless: The rise of Tent City, USA

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif

How would you feel if this was you? A wonderful world? Seriously? You have got to be joking.

Incidentally, most of that who you call "the greedy people trashing the world" call themselves Christians.

God doesn't care what you call yourself......its what he calls you that counts.

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, former Secretary of the Interior

We were put here to protect the environment and all living things.....cops-outs don't account for much. People kid themselves way more than they realize. We have to account for what we have done as terrible tenants of this wonderful planet.

 

[Deeje]

Oh, well if the vapor canopy thing only works with miracles, then we've stepped outside the realm of science and there's no need for you to try and argue that the science supports it.

Who said anything about miracles? Can not the Creator of all things use some means that science has yet to discover, to hold a water canopy above our atmosphere? Unless of course you think science knows everything about everything?

This seems to be the position of most evolutionists.

LOL...you assume that we care whether present scientific knowledge supports it or not? It matters more to us whether God supports it, which at the end of the day puts us in a better place than you guys.
I like where we are hanging, compared to where you are.

 

[gnostic]

Who said anything about miracles? Can not the Creator of all things use some means that science has yet to discover to hold a water canopy above out atmosphere? Unless of source you think science knows everything about everything?

This seems to be the position of most evolutionists.

What do you think "science" is, Deeje?

Science is not a separate entity, independent of human actions, Deeje.

Science is method of us human acquiring knowledge, try to explain what they are observing, and testing the explanation to see if it is true or false, through trials and errors.

If it is false, then it has been refuted or debunked, so scientist should discard the hypothesis or old theory.

If it is true, then scientists would tests the explanation as many times as needed, to show that the first test or evidence wasn't an anomaly or error or fluke. And scientists of the peer review would test it some more.

Science is not absolute, Deeje. Any statement, past or present, can be questioned and challenged, but only EVIDENCES will dismiss the statement as false, or verify it to be true.

Science work on probability, Deeje, not on absolute.

You would know this, if you bother to learn the history of science.

People just don't find all the answer in the first go. Aristotle or Archimedes didn't do it. Newton and Einstein didn't do it. And even Darwin didn't do it.

Science is progressive and incremental. Scientists discover things, attempt to understand what they have, other scientists will discover more things, and our understanding in science will improve.

Without the knowledge, tools and technology, biologists would be stuck with Darwin's 19th century theory on Natural Selection. But biology did progress forward, biologists improve the theory of Natural Selection, remove any mistake he may have made, DNA and modern paleontology have further increase our knowledge about evolution, even discovering new mechanisms to evolution (eg Mutation, Gene Flow and Genetic Drift).

It is the same with Newton's theory on gravity or Einstein's General Relativity. We are not stuck in 18th century or even the 20th century, because other physicists have worked on Newton's and Einstein's works, and have updated it. Without the updates, we would not have been able to send astronauts or satellites into space orbits.

That's call PROGRESS, and any knowledge can be "improved on" and we have the capacity to learn and understand more.

Science is a tool for humans for acquiring knowledge and testing them.

God don't do "science", Deeje. If what you believe in, about your God being omniscience and omnipotent, then your God don't need science and don't need to understand science, because he could make anything and do anything.

But in the real world, Nature works quite the opposite of God's magic and miracles. Believing in the bible don't require understanding about nature, or you have to do is you just have to believe in "God did it" superstition. That's faith, and you don't require logic or intelligent to be have faith.

 

[Olinda]

That is not what those scientists said metis.....as previously posted.....
. . . . .
This is unbelieving scientists themselves claiming that evolution has no evidence....and is a completely flawed explanation of how life came to be the way it is. They see design in nature but they don't believe in the same designer that we do.

Not a single one of these "unbelieving scientists" claimed that "evolution has no evidence", let alone "completely flawed".
None of the quotes indicate that they see design in nature, or place any credence in so-called intelligent design.
Also, FYI, Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel are philosophers, not biological scientists. A quick Google could have shown you, but of course, copy/paste is easier. . .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think the hostility towards those who reject the unprovable ToE is an indication that the hostile ones have no real evidence for what they believe.

The rejection of creationism is not hostility. It's common sense. Creationism is a religious claim. Religion has never made a useful contribution to science.

Creationist scientists are welcome at the Discovery Institute, where other creationists pour research dollars down the drain funding them to look for a god that they will never find. Please forgive the mainstream for not wanting to do the same.

Besides, science is about looking at what is evident and accounting for it, not looking for hiding gods. If they show up, the scientists will be the first to tell us. In the meantime, they focus on what is actually out there to be explained.

All scientific theories are unproveable. Therefore, we don't expect or require proof of them. Go ahead and disprove the theory of evolution if you can. There's probably a reason that it hasn't been done in over 150 years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is not what those scientists said metis.....as previously posted.....

From Lynn Margulis....."In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

From Thomas Nagel....His 2012 book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, he elaborates his critiques of Darwinism: “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected [by mainstream biologists] to abandon this naïve response [critiquing standard materialist explanations of life’s origins], not in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by example. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.”

Jerry Fodor.....Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”

Random mutation and natural selection alone are unable to find the extremely rare DNA sequences that yield solutions to complex biological problems.....the challenge for gradualist adaptationism is to explain how mutations capable of producing full wings can have accumulated silently over a long evolutionary time in the absence of any adaptive advantage.”

And how a certain wasp injects a series of carefully orchestrated stings into a cockroach to make the bug “zombified.” This allows the wasp to “manipulate the cockroach’s antennae, or literally ride on top of it,” leading the brain-dead cockroach to become food for the wasp’s young. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini call this a “complex, sequential, rigidly pre-programmed” system, which won’t work unless all components are present, thereby challenging Darwinism."

This is unbelieving scientists themselves claiming that evolution has no evidence....and is a completely flawed explanation of how life came to be the way it is. They see design in nature but they don't believe in the same designer that we do.

What was the point? That consensus is less than 100%? So what? Christianity is rejected by most of the world. If that doesn't matter to you, why would you expect a handful of outliers in this area to matter to others? Do you want to hear the statements of three people that reject Christianity?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it? I watched a documentary the other night on the homeless middle class in America, living in tent cities all over the country.
These are people who previously had good jobs and a decent standard of living....losing their employment and their homes, they are forced to eke out an existence on very low wages, sometimes working 3 or 4 jobs just to feed their children.

America's Broken Dreams - Four Corners

How do you think they feel about the state of affairs in affluent America? Do you live on a different planet?

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless People Are Booming In Cities All Over America As Poverty Spikes | Zero Hedge

America's homeless: The rise of Tent City, USA

http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif

How would you feel if this was you? A wonderful world? Seriously? You have got to be joking.


God doesn't care what you call yourself......its what he calls you that counts.



We were put here to protect the environment and all living things.....cops-outs don't account for much. People kid themselves way more than they realize. We have to account for what we have done as terrible tenants of this wonderful planet.

Was that an argument for feeling as gloomy about life as you do? Jesus allegedly said that the poor will always be among you. Showing their pictures does not make your case for a horrible world. Those people exist, but there is another aspect of life that you cannot see. Most people are not in that predicament, and those that are are not representative of life in America in general.

I expect to see more poverty in America over the next decade as the überwealthy continue to fleece the middle class.

But that won't be happening because this is a horrible world. It's because they have given their enemies the keys to government. They mindlessly wheeled in the Trojan horse to defend themselves from unsecured email servers. There will be a price to paid for thinking of that quality.

 

[gnostic]

Also, FYI, Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel are philosophers, not biological scientists. A quick Google could have shown you, but of course, copy/paste is easier. . .

I also don't see why anyone who is not a biologist and who have no background in biology, should hold more weights than a biologist.

A non-biologist can only express his opinion. A person who actually worked in the field, and even those do research, will know more about what they do than any philosopher.

It sort of like asking a shepherd how he would do brain surgery on a patient.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What a silly question! You need a human inspired scientific reason for God to place a protective canopy of H2o around the globe?
The apostle Peter said it was there "by the word of God".....I suggest you ask God how he kept it there since it was his creation.

Deeje, I don't know, but I'd like to think that, in this case, it's not supernatural (of course, we know what's considered supernatural today can be called science tomorrow), but that there is some natural way not yet understood that we will someday discern scientifically. I mean, after all, it was a design feature in the planet's formation; maybe it was needed somehow to protect the first of all phyla life forms from what could have been fatal solar radiation. Jehovah could have miraculously used His power for this, but that situation (a water canopy) lasted for thousands of years.

I know that that wouldn't present a problem for Him, but the Universe is governed by scientific laws put in place by Him (Job 38:33) -- it's not a stretch to consider there's some as-yet-unknown science making a millennia-long vapor canopy feasible. There's so little mankind understands!!

Maybe the bursting of that canopy somehow had an effect, pressure wise, on the opening up of the other waters contained in those "springs of the vast watery deep"? Someday, maybe, we'll found out how it all happened!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Not the basic fact that life has evolved as no serious scientist questions that most basic fact. Yes, we can argue over some of the details, but don't confuse that questioning with the fact that there has been an evolution of species that has been going on now for roughly 3 billion years.

What we cannot assume, and therefore we don't, is that "supernatural creation" is true.

Actually, if you want to go that route, you can't say 3 billion years....you'll have to start with the Cambrian Explosion, c. 540 million. That cuts into your timeline quite a bit! (So, 5 billion species, with such diverse body plans, in 540 million years?)

"Cannot" assume, huh? Sort of telling; 'will not' might be the better modal verb.

Anyway, Newton, Boyle, and Kepler believed in a Creator....didn't seem to hinder their science discoveries. Do you consider them, lesser scientists?

 

[metis]

This is unbelieving scientists themselves claiming that evolution has no evidence....and is a completely flawed explanation of how life came to be the way it is. They see design in nature but they don't believe in the same designer that we do.

If you had read your own post carefully, you should have noted that the latter two didn't dismiss evolution itself but only a certain component of it. Only the Margulis quote was negative in its entirety, and I don't know when she said this or why, nor do I have the time to look it up.

And, let me ask you this, namely that if I find three scientists that say that there's not one shred of evidence of there being a creator-god, will you accept their conclusion like you did with the three who questioned some aspect of the ToE? You know darn well you wouldn't, so what you are doing is really quite hypocritical. You cannot have it both ways, Deeje.

Real science works through both peer-review and attempts to arrive at non-binding consensus. Works that are submitted are open to inspection and analysis based on the evidence that is right there in front of them.

So, Deeje, what such program exists for your belief in a creator-deity? What evidence can be brought "right there in front of them"? What consensus can be reached if there's nothing there that they can analyze?

There is really nothing that you can offer, Deeje. However, I will say with sincerity, that there could hypothetically be a creator-god(s), so I am not dismissing this as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss "macro-evolution" even though there's overwhelming evidence that it has happened-- even if you don't think there is.

Therefore, if this was a formal debate on the subject, you would lose hands-down because you offer up nothing and dismiss the evidence for the ToE out of hand. But it ain't.

 

[metis]

Actually, if you want to go that route, you can't say 3 billion years....you'll have to start with the Cambrian Explosion, c. 540 million. That cuts into your timeline quite a bit! (So, 5 billion species, with such diverse body plans, in 540 million years?)

Life began roughly around 3 billion years ago here on Earth according to the evidence, so why should we go with a later date? Secondly, I would suggest that a lot can happen biologically in 540 million years.

"Cannot" assume, huh? Sort of telling; 'will not' might be the better modal verb.

I don't know exactly how that is supposedly "telling".

Anyway, Newton, Boyle, and Kepler believed in a Creator....didn't seem to hinder their science discoveries. Do you consider them, lesser scientists?

You have me pegged wrong as I did not and will not argue that there wasn't a theistic causation-- just that we have no evidence for it. If you have some, maybe put it forth for us all to see.

 

[Thumper]

...What do you think about invisible intelligent life? ...

You mean like the "Dragon in My Garage" story by Carl Sagan -- The Dragon In My Garage

....Do you think there might be something to some of the paranormal activity that occurs? ...

If by "paranormal" you mean beyond the scope of scientific understanding, then I would refer you to a quote from Isaac Asimov --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

...Do you think there might be something to some of the paranormal activity that occurs? ...

Of course, if by "paranormal" you mean miracles or UFO, then I would note that the incident of miracles is inversely proportional to the availability of camera phones within a population.

... Or is it all (100%) fake in your eyes?

"Fake" implies intent and I'm not sure that's fair. Misinterpreted experience might be a better initial assessment.

 

[Jose Fly]

When she fails to make impressions the first time, she will bring up the same thing at later date.

That was the point of the "Do creationists have anything new" thread. The funny thing was, Deeje was quite open about the fact that, no, she doesn't have anything new. She seemed rather proud of it too.

Creationists and ID adherents' videos are often one-sided, and they are never science. And people posting them up at RF threads, don't bother to check the sources, like if it had already been debunked or not, or if they are outdated, or misleading.

As you likely already understand, creationists aren't at all concerned about accuracy, consistency, or credibility when it comes to their sources. Their first and primary concern is "Does it reinforce my beliefs?" That's why they'll keep going back to a source even after it's been shown to not be credible. As long as its fundamental message is "The Bible is right and evolution is wrong", that's all that matters.

Anyway, I personally think Ray Comfort is an idiot. I remembered there was a guy who love Comfort, posting thread after thread about Comfort's works, quoting him incessantly. Not at this forum, but one of the other forums that I was a member of, before coming here. Comfort don't have any science background whatsoever, let alone higher education, so he has no authority to say what is or isn't science.

I don't like Comfort back then, and I still don't like him. And I don't think this video Deeje have posted up would change my mind about Comfort being an idiot. Trust Deeje to post video of Comfort, a person whom I have have disregards for.

Comfort's definitely an idiot, but for me the bigger issue is his well-documented dishonesty. That creationists will keep relying on him despite that speaks volumes about the nature of their position.

I don't even watch videos that are pro-evolution or pro-science. I'd suppose that despite being a computer science major, I still preferred to learn science through classrooms or lectures, doing labs and reading textbooks...so I guess that I am still "old-school".

I agree. Whenever possible, I always try and go to the primary source.

 

[Jose Fly]

Who said anything about miracles?

I figured that's what you meant when you said, "The apostle Peter said it was there "by the word of God"". Is that not a miracle?

Can not the Creator of all things use some means that science has yet to discover, to hold a water canopy above our atmosphere?

If this whole canopy idea only works by appealing to "the word of God" and a hope for future discovery of some unknown, vague "means", then it's nothing more than a religious belief that has zero scientific basis.

 

[Deeje]

What do you think "science" is, Deeje?

Science is not a separate entity, independent of human actions, Deeje.

Science is method of us human acquiring knowledge, try to explain what they are observing, and testing the explanation to see if it is true or false, through trials and errors.

If it is false, then it has been refuted or debunked, so scientist should discard the hypothesis or old theory.

Science is the gaining of knowledge as to how the natural world works and to explore its mechanisms and to reveal the how and why of things. Who better to tell us than the one who gave us that kind of intelligence? Do any other creatures on this planet care about any of that? Where is any other creature "evolving" to anything close to us?

Science has a pet theory that they invented and will defend to the death apparently, even though they can't prove it ever happened.

Who among the scientists will "debunk" anything that is accepted by the majority of the scientific community as absolute fact? If they value their careers, they will just shut up about it.

If it is false, then it has been refuted or debunked, so scientist should discard the hypothesis or old theory.

If it is true, then scientists would tests the explanation as many times as needed, to show that the first test or evidence wasn't an anomaly or error or fluke. And scientists of the peer review would test it some more.

Who proves it is true though? What evidence do they have that is not a biased "interpretation" of the evidence. Nothing in the scientific community is debunked or refuted except by those who can see through the supposition and suggestion about the whole thing and aren't afraid to say so.

Science is not absolute, Deeje. Any statement, past or present, can be questioned and challenged, but only EVIDENCES will dismiss the statement as false, or verify it to be true.

Science work on probability, Deeje, not on absolute.

Science works on what it thinks "might have" happened in the dim dark ages past, gnostic.....not what they can "prove" happened. I have seen no proof to date. And the scientists quoted in my previous posts, do not think that it was possible to have taken place the way science suggests that it did. They dared to say so and got shot down because of it. They see intelligent design even though they are not Bible believers. How does that happen?

Science is a tool for humans for acquiring knowledge and testing them.

God don't do "science", Deeje. If what you believe in, about your God being omniscience and omnipotent, then your God don't need science and don't need to understand science, because he could make anything and do anything.

I love the way you dismiss the Creator as someone who is apparently less intelligent than your learned self. The fact that God can make or do anything, is not a reason for him to do so. If I had a key that could unlock every lock in the world....would I have to unlock every lock just to prove I could? God has his own reasons for doing what he does and its up to us to make very sure that what we believe is true. There is a powerful deceiver in the world who is actually smarter and more experienced in the power of suggestion and the art of deception than any of us know how to be. Do people who have swallowed a deception, know that they have been hoodwinked until it is too late? I don't like your odds, frankly. What if you are dead wrong?

But in the real world, Nature works quite the opposite of God's magic and miracles.

None so blind if you ask me.

Life is a miracle gnostic, or else clever scientists would have figured out how to recreate it by now. Define life for me scientifically.....

Believing in the bible don't require understanding about nature, or you have to do is you just have to believe in "God did it" superstition. That's faith, and you don't require logic or intelligent to be have faith.

"God did it" is as valid and as provable as "natural selection did it".

 

[Deeje]

Not a single one of these "unbelieving scientists" claimed that "evolution has no evidence", let alone "completely flawed".
None of the quotes indicate that they see design in nature, or place any credence in so-called intelligent design.
Also, FYI, Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel are philosophers, not biological scientists. A quick Google could have shown you, but of course, copy/paste is easier. . .

Yeah right...if you can't attack the message, assassinate the character of the messenger. Pull his credentials apart and imply that he is a moron.

What did they say?

Lynn Margulis....."In an interview shortly before her death, Margulis explained, “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” Echoing the arguments of many ID proponents, Margulis maintains that “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

From Thomas Nagel....His 2012 book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, he elaborates his critiques of Darwinism: “It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected [by mainstream biologists] to abandon this naïve response [critiquing standard materialist explanations of life’s origins], not in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by example. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.”

Jerry Fodor.....Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed…there’s a crack in the foundations.”

Random mutation and natural selection alone are unable to find the extremely rare DNA sequences that yield solutions to complex biological problems.....the challenge for gradualist adaptationism is to explain how mutations capable of producing full wings can have accumulated silently over a long evolutionary time in the absence of any adaptive advantage.”

Oh yes.....I can see how they fully support evolution.

When you see the foundations of something crumbling, its hard to keep admiring what is built on it.

 

[Deeje]

Real science works through both peer-review and attempts to arrive at non-binding consensus. Works that are submitted are open to inspection and analysis based on the evidence that is right there in front of them.

This whole "peer review" thing to me, is a load of old cods if the peers accept everything that science is suggesting as gospel, with no actual evidence? When do the suggestions turn into facts, metis? When science says so? What are the peers going to say in the face of what comes with dispute? If the peers have swallowed the party line, where is the objectivity? Pre-conceived notions determine the results.

So, Deeje, what such program exists for your belief in a creator-deity? What evidence can be brought "right there in front of them"? What consensus can be reached if there's nothing there that they can analyze?

Creation itself is testimony enough for the existence of the Creator. All we have to do is open our eyes and our hearts...both appear to be closed by godless, hopeless, blind evolution.

Do you think the Creator should, or could be fully understood by mere humans? You think man has reached the stage where denying that creation is created means that God should open himself up to the scrutiny of those who want to eliminate him from existence and separate him from his own works?
Does he need us? Or do we need him?

There is really nothing that you can offer, Deeje.

And there is nothing that science can offer that would make me abandon my belief in God or to deny the awesomeness of what he has made. When I see something exquisitely designed, I give thanks to the designer. That is a natural response in me. It seems to be a common trait in believers.

However, I will say with sincerity, that there could hypothetically be a creator-god(s), so I am not dismissing this as a possibility. OTOH, you dismiss "macro-evolution" even though there's overwhelming evidence that it has happened-- even if you don't think there is.

That is just the point metis...the evidence is not overwhelming at all....it is rather pathetic for how much store is put in it, as Lynn Margulis indicated. Macro-evolution is a 'suggestion' that has no facts to back it up except what science "interprets" to fit its theory.

Therefore, if this was a formal debate on the subject, you would lose hands-down because you offer up nothing and dismiss the evidence for the ToE out of hand. But it ain't.

Is it really about winning a debate when lives are in the balance. We have one chance to get this right. Are you willing to gamble your eternal future on it? I like what God is offering.....I can't see that evolution offers anything but more of the same hopelessness. I have a hope that will never be extinguished by the pride of humans thinking they don't need God or his rules.

We each must make decisions that will determine our future....I thank God that mine is not in human hands.

 

[Deeje]

That was the point of the "Do creationists have anything new" thread. The funny thing was, Deeje was quite open about the fact that, no, she doesn't have anything new. She seemed rather proud of it too.

You crack me up.

Could it be, as I told you there, that the truth doesn't change. Facts don't change....so if science has to continually change its tune when the next discovery exposes their error, then what it taught originally wasn't a fact at all....was it? As I have said many times, teach it as a theory, because that is all it is.
Stop pretending that it is an established fact when it clearly isn't.

As you likely already understand, creationists aren't at all concerned about accuracy, consistency, or credibility when it comes to their sources. Their first and primary concern is "Does it reinforce my beliefs?" That's why they'll keep going back to a source even after it's been shown to not be credible.

I wonder who deems the source to be "not credible"?

No one with a biased viewpoint surely???

As long as its fundamental message is "The Bible is right and evolution is wrong", that's all that matters.

As far as I can see to date, no convincing evidence has been produced to prove that macro-evolution ever happened. That is what matters when one is talking about "evidence"...not "suggestion" masquerading as "facts"....not "interpretation" of fossils to fit the theory....but real conclusive evidence that the ToE is provable.
I believe that I have more evidence for my case than you do for yours if that is true.

Comfort's definitely an idiot, but for me the bigger issue is his well-documented dishonesty. That creationists will keep relying on him despite that speaks volumes about the nature of their position.

Talking of well documented dishonesty......this is how I see the whole ToE. It is totally dishonest to suggest that there is evidence...when there is NO real evidence.
Is Comfort dishonest because he tells an inconvenient truth?

I thought he did a great job of exposing the professors and their students for accepting something for which none of them had any real proof. The students especially displayed a childlike trust in science....the kind that you guys often criticize in believers.The professors seemed equally unable to answer the questions put to them. Offering proof of adaptation is not proving macro-evolution. They seemed very embarrassed and rightly so.

I agree. Whenever possible, I always try and go to the primary source.

And the "primary source" would be one that supports your view....right? How are you any different to the people you criticize? Your assumption that you can't be wrong....might be wrong.