Richards post especially is bluff and bluster. There is , and has been considerable discontent and questioning of the validity of the Darwinian dogma.   And it has not just been from yec,s , of which many are very well qualified , and offer scientific defence of creation. Going down the scale, there are the id,ears, then there is the altburg synposium, which was a group of leading evolutionists apparently trying to find a new way, since the old dogma is done with. And then there is a list of scientists registered as Darwin doubters. Richard try's to imply that dating methods settle it , yet even he says....can be..., not definitely that age. Fact is, they are all interpretations of the data, and sometimes there has been massive age reading differences.   The so called ...fact....of evolution is far from it, and the succession of threads started by the evangelical atheists is only evidence for my charge, since they have not been able to substantiate that bluff and bluster. Go on Richard , give me one piece of indisputable evidence that validates microbes to mudcatters evolution. I