"Special pleading, you hold Sarfati to a higher standard than you do Dawkins. Dawkins even covers biochemical theories in his books and yet has no degree in Biochemistry."
Negative there, chief. I hold them both to the same standard. Dawkins works in all sciences in his capacity for Oxford, but is specifically an evolutionary biologist, so his discussions of biology hold more water than do a chemist's. This was already gently pointed out to you, but you brushed that one aside pretty glibly. If you read a bit of the link I gave you, you might find that Safarti comes under major fire from geologists, as well. So, between the biologists and geologists, I am inclined to think a better grasp of evolution and its implications can be amassed than by a single rogue chemist with a massive god leaning.
Of course, you'll take that as you wish (which means Safarti wins, YAY!!!), but I couldn't give a rat's ass. You believe in creation, so right off the bat I think you're a bit daft.
Negative there, chief. I hold them both to the same standard. Dawkins works in all sciences in his capacity for Oxford, but is specifically an evolutionary biologist, so his discussions of biology hold more water than do a chemist's. This was already gently pointed out to you, but you brushed that one aside pretty glibly. If you read a bit of the link I gave you, you might find that Safarti comes under major fire from geologists, as well. So, between the biologists and geologists, I am inclined to think a better grasp of evolution and its implications can be amassed than by a single rogue chemist with a massive god leaning.
Of course, you'll take that as you wish (which means Safarti wins, YAY!!!), but I couldn't give a rat's ass. You believe in creation, so right off the bat I think you're a bit daft.
Trying to update my sig ...
