Chinese wall of text is not funny.

Aww you haven't been posting any of your craziness for the past few months, I was thinking you might of finally evolved but I guess you haven't. And this isn't even entertaining nothing about orgies in-front of giant statues that take place with all the prominent leaders of US. Really you make your return with something unoriginal like this...I'm just disappointed that's all maybe I expected to much from you.

You don't have to read the whole thing. Just read one point of argument against evolution in the op and try to address it.

I agree.  There are a lot more effective ways of campaigning religion (if that is indeed your motive).  Could do like Jesus and his apostles did.  ; )

And, to be honest, there are a TON of unreasonable people in this community that aren't mature enough for a discussion like this.  Heck, there are a bunch that can't even handle talking about the financials of the console manufacturers without emotion overriding any reason, so how do you think they'd respond to a subject like this.

For many here, evolution vs. creation might as well be Sony vs Nintendo.  They've already made their emotional attachment and have no intention of being reasonable about discussing it.

OK I'll debate you seriously.

Do you propose an alternative scientific theory? Even if evolution has weaknesses according to your articles it is still the best supported out of all the theories we do have.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory yet, it's untestable.

Besides being a TL;DR post, the premises on which you argue against evolutionary theory, especially through the links you used, is just too disingenuous. Firstly, blogs do not count as peer reviewed and published material. Hell, we'd still be in the stone age if that format was used to advance the sciences. Also, the legitimate webites you posited as proof have very good articles, except for the fact that in true creationist scheming, you take out of context what the whole of the articles say. I have dealt with your kind for decades now and not one shred of proof has ever been submitted proving otherwise, except for those who twist valid scientific data around for their purposes of supporting an agenda, that not being of true scientific research. Creationists have no valid means or research methods to prove what cannot be proved, that pseudo-science somehow really works.

Here's simple question and I know for a fact you won't get the answer, as humble as it pertains across the scientific community:

What is the one thing that "real" science strives to be when gathering data and (in any sciencific research) as to get the theories and facts correct for their postulations?

I bet when you answer it wrong and I tell you, it will raise some eyebrows at how ridiculous this (your) argument is, when nothing but straw men are used to prop up your pseudo-science.

.

Ironically, in many ways, it mimics religion/faith-based beliefs ...

makes sense i suppose. but i do favor evolution somewhat. Reincarnation? not so much!

also i had to half ass read it cause it was way past to long. even with your warning of it being long, it surely not called for i'm sure. plz sum it up next time.

Re: the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. This can't really be used as strong evidence atm as it has only been found in two samples out of millions of bones that have been studied. It is therefore far more likely to be an anomaly/contamination than real soft tissure. And of course the authors are going to argue otherwise or it wouldn't make for a very interesting article/story!

Very interesting though.