yes bill...a disconnect
here is how I see it. I am allowed to debate but not to question the opinion of experts even when I explain why I disagree. they are experts and therefore are right.
that probably looks simplistic to you, but I will say it again [because I did not make any promises - smile] your very long post looks to me, another and eloquent angle on appeal to numbers and authority.
dino bone soft tissue argument refuted ? I have yet to see it.
there was the claim that iron might have been a binding preservative, so they soaked ostrich bone in it, and after 2 yr, it was still "recognizable"
then there was the.... we never knew it could last so long till we found it in dino bone......don't you call that circular reasoning!
and lastly of course the usual....science is about looking at new data and this is just an anomaly to be resolved in future.
I call that selective handling of the data.
now, was there something I missed in this "refuted" ?
it seems to me that the supposed overwhelming evidence consists of what can not be produced, except by expansive and complex information.
when I ask for the evidence [ie what can only be evolutionaly interpreted] nothing is forthcoming except assertions that there is overwhelming evidence!.
"experimental science confirms evolution...." such as ?
I can understand why you are frustrated.....the only creationist here wont accept that evolution is confirmed without evidence.
true, there may not be anything you could say, but you never know, if I am thoroughly stumped I may bow out quietly!
mind you , it did. nt stop dawkins.