Talk:Answers Research Journal volume 2

Microbes, yeast, and fungus. What is up with these creationists? Sterile lisp 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they are hoping to pick an area obscure enough that they can get away with their god-of-the-gaps argument. So far it is not working. - π 02:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the study of fungi called any way? Plants is botany, animals is zoology, as a separate kingdom it should have a separate term. - π 02:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Todd C. Wood is a gem: "We cannot keep pretending that there is no evidence for evolution. We reject serial endosymbiosis not because it's scientifically inadequate (as you've seen here, it's quite compelling) but because it is inconsistent with the biblical record of creation. According to the Bible, we know creation is true by faith (Heb. 11:3)." here

The last four papers makes me think they have completely given up on creationism as a science. All they are a literature reviews liberally salted with references to bible. The last one on fungi is a joke, he didn't even use the mandatory god-of-the-gaps argument. They are not even trying any more, it is worse than pseudoscience. - π 22:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. At one point, I thought of having a rating system for the articles with categories like "experimental results", "clear hypothesis", etc. These wouldn't register at all. Not only are these just speculation, it's barely even related to the biblical account. More and more bizarre. Sterile lisp