I actually read "refuting evolution 2" by Jonathan Sarfati recently. I found it absolutely terrible, and trivial to answer his objections. I didn't even have to open a google search to do so. Email me if you would like to discuss it further, however – Nocterro42@gmail.com

Feel free to refute Thomas Kuhn anytime soon.

Moderator (Ryft): First portion of comment removed, for it simply provided commentary on ‘why’ the evolutionary arguments listed in the article are good or bad. That is not what Duane asked for. He asked evolutionists to provide their own examples of other bad evolutionary arguments they’ve seen used.

For someone who refuses to answer two simple questions on the other thread (one being merely to cite one recent YEC book you've recently read) and who prefers to write in generalities, I can only conclude that you haven't even bothered to research your opponents' case. This, I suggest, indicates your wholesale dishonesty.

I really wish you would read more carefully. I already acknowledged your assessment of the items on the list. But then I asked you, “if there are any arguments that are not on the list, that you think ought to be.” To which your response is, “… I don't tend to remember or keep a list of stupid things people say”. OK, so basically you don’t know and it’s taken several posts by you for all of us to learn what we could have learned simply by your silence in the first instance. Thanks for wasting everybody’s time with your distracting prattle. As Ryft once said of a comment on an earlier post, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it,” to quote from Billy Madison.

Did my comments regarding 11 and 12 in my original post on this article not imply that I thought they were bad arguments?

"So I wanted to know from evolutionists themselves, the kinds of arguments that they think really do belong on a list like that. Apparently, that it is just too difficult?"

11 and 12. As for others that may belong on the list, I don't tend to remember or keep a list of stupid things people say. So, if you would like, you can present me with an argument you've heard for evolution, and I'll tell you whether I think it's good or bad (btw, "peppered moths" are an observation about allele distribution, nothing more).

My motive for wanting to know what evolutionists think are bad arguments is two-fold.

1. I wanted to know if evolutionists were able to be critrical and honest about poor arguments for their point of view. (Not doing so well on that count so far are we?)

2. When I read the list on AiG's website, it occured to me that many evolutionists would reject it out of hand because of the source. So I wanted to know from evolutionists themselves, the kinds of arguments that they think really do belong on a list like that. Apparently, that it is just too difficult?

It's funny that you ask me if I'm going to produce the same kind of list for creationism. Did you even read the post?

Finally, in using the term "evolutionary dogma", I meant to imply that it was evolutionary dogma. I know many people want to equate evolution with religion and I think that has merits, but that is not what I said or implied. I do think however, that it is rare to ever see it questioned by those who believe it. And if I was wrong about that, you'd think it would at least be possible to get some genuine examples of bad arguments that evolutionists shouldn't use.

This is your last chance Nocterro. If your next comment(s) fails to engage the topic at hand, it will not be published. Promise.

Why is it that people from almost all backgrounds (atheist, agnostic, deist, christian, muslim, buddhist, etc.) accept evolution, while denial of evolution is almost entirely exclusive to theologically conservative minorites, such as christian and muslim fundamentalists?

You've got it backwards – theories (in the scientific sense, at least) are inherently evidence-laden.