The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

I'm sorry, but what?
Evolutionists lost the John Scopes "The Monkey Trial"? The case of an attempt to stifle the teaching of evolution was dismissed, although it wasn't a trial that was brought before the supreme court to determine its constitutionality, as some hoped, it didnt' end favorably for anti-evolutionists in the sense that it didn't make teaching evolution against the constitution, illegal, or any action that would result in legal action and it allowed the theory to be taught in all of the schools where the legality of the action was questioned, except in Arkansas and Mississippi.

Don't talk about your sources as though we're avoiding the scientific subjects they bring up. Not only are those sources in the business of spreading misinformation and ignorance about the related topics in favor of their literalist interpretation of the bible or other religions, but the reason these sources are not credible is precisely because the information they spread is consistently not credible.

And don't pretend as though we've only been attacking AIG, ICR, and CMI's credibility - we're attacking their credibility based on their claims while refuting those as well.