William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

I tell you what I find breathtaking; in fact it really pisses me off, probably more than it should but never mind. It's when presups and similar literalists make accusations of being represented unfairly, that we haven't bothered to research their arguments or position, then do precisely that themselves by tossing out random references to "evolutionist hoaxes" that they picked up from Kent Hovind videos. It would be laughable if it wasn't so egregious.

Well, you can hardly expect theists to understand what they're talking about, that'd be an absurd imposition on their brains!

That's why I keep that AronRa video handy, since it explains the creationist favorite Piltdown Man within the first few minutes, and handily also deals with Haeckel within the first few seconds. The actual history behind these things is pretty interesting, so as usual the theist is missing out on a real story in favor of pointing at a simplified, exaggerated fake one.

I would be interested in finding out where YGNinja got his "information" about Piltdown and Haeckel; for all his pretensions to intellectual rigor it's impossible that he got it from an unbiased source, since they would have represented the history realistically. It's just a matter of picking which creationist, now. Ham, possibly? Hovind seems too derpy, even for this guy. Did WLC ever dabble in lying about biology?

Oh, I almost missed this one. Read 'em and weep, Charlie:

I did something similar to this, reminding the dude that Vilenkin accepts the multiverse theory, and you posted citations from Guth; between us, we have two thirds of the people who wrote the papers that YGNinja is relying on in his case that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the same scientists that he relies on at one point, he dismissed out of hand regarding the multiverse; I guess they're only reliable sources when they're saying what he wants them to say.