Ed Vidence said:
Wrong.
The OP evidence/quotes refute you.
The Milton quote refutes you.
Wrong. The OP contains no evidence, only quotes. And quotes don't refute anything. Only evidence does.
Not an ad hom attack. I drew attention to his profession because you were quoting him as someone who had professional expertise. He doesn't.
Blaming straw men for Darwinian fraud artists who were caught red-handed.
To assert National Geographic as anything but mainstream Darwinism shows the lengths a Darwinist will go to evade the ugly truth of fraud common among its ranks.
Nebraska Man was never a scientific fraud. It was a genuine fossil discovery of a mammalian tooth which someone opined "might" be human. It was sent to a university to be identified.
Meanwhile
a journalist not a scientist wrote a headline story about it in which he played up the "might be human" comment, gave this alleged human the name Nebraska man and published an artist friend's imaginative drawing of "Nebraska man".
About six months later the university reported that it was a peccary tooth.
The Moab Man story takes us deeper into the depths of disreputable journalism. In this case the
journalist reporting on the story actually failed to report the conclusion of the investigating scientist that the skeleton was recent and had been buried in loose debris. Instead he published a story which implied the skeleton had been found in solid rock and had to be as old as the rock. That story and the related Malachite Man story have been circulating for years as examples of evidence established science chooses to ignore.
Yes, National Geographic is a mainstream magazine, but they still were embarrassed by being caught with a fake fossil featured in their magazine. That was a genuine hoax, created by Chinese peasants trying to make some money from the keen interest in fossil feathered dinosaurs being found in their region. But note that it was the
journalists who were caught by it, not scientists.
I have also just read an atrocious book by another
journalist who seems to have lost all her research skills when it comes to writing about evolution.
So I am just a tad sceptical when a
journalist is presented as an expert on evolution.
Darwin refutes you (OP) and your predictible assertion as does Milton report what is established fact (OP): macro is not available to be observed or be made the object of experiment. To evade these facts via shouting about Darwinian peer reviewed journals and link "evidence" is directing one to arguments based upon rhetoric and blatant fraud only held respectable by the perceived weight of educational credentials.
Nope. Facts cannot be refuted by quotes.
[Macroevolution] is asserted as fact in direct ratio to the degree Genesis is hated.
Speaking of evidence, you haven't answered my question about how you determined this.
