Quote:

With this kind of arguing you distract even more than we do.



You guys question the Ph.Ds, then I point out that its irrelevant, and I'm distracting....from what? Your distraction?

Quote:

And by the way. Please do not generalize in that way. Not every PhD is a weak PhD and not every evolutionist is like you describe them.



Apparently every amateur evolutionist is. And I know Ph.Ds aren't weak. You actually have to work hard to obtain a ligitimate Ph.D.

Quote:

There are good and bad scientists but the advantage in the "real" science over creationism is that they are free. They are not bound to assumptions like the world is only 6000 years old.



No evolutionists bound to the millions-of-years assumption, as well as the 'story of evolution'. So when they find a human footprint in 2 million year old ash, its not a human. When they find C14 in millions of years old artifacts, then they make the unfalsifiable claim that its contaminated. When they find soft tissue on dinosaure bones, they assume soft tissue can last for millions of years with no evidence to back that up.

Quote:

Real science implements just this theory that provides more evidences and follows the mainstream framework of well educated scientists.



Then modern science is built on false science because up until Darwin's 'revolution' pretty much everyone was a creationist.

Quote:

In real science it is interesting when a single PhD has another opinion but it does not instantly change the framework of thinking.



No, that's what evidence is for.

Quote:

And that is the way. Do not talk here in this forum. Show evidences and convince the majority of scientists and then you might have a chance. All the other attempts are rather embarrassing at my mind.




This is the bandwagon fallacy.

Quote:

I think you are making this up, or at least they lied about getting a degree from there...I have my doubts these poeple are intelligent enough to get doctorates in any field, let alone geophysics. I suppose some poeple can fall through the cracks though.



Any of them have more intelligence in their pinky than you have in your head.

All seriousness aside. I'm going to ask one last time. Why wouldn't Henke point out the illigitemacy of any of the creationist's Ph.Ds? You won't answer that because you can't without proving me right.

You and I both know he would jump on the opportunity if he could. End of story.

Quote:

Even if the degrees are legitimate, it of course doesnt prove anything..the ideas are still bad.



Which I'm sure you'll provide reasoning for.

Its your gullibility and your religious devotion to evolutionary dogma that make illigitimate essays like Henke's work. He doesn't actually have to say anything worthwhile because he knows people like just need ANY explanation at all so you can dismiss what creationists have to say.

Try coming up with some substance for once.