Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Budikka) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > > Note: creationist letters published as a courtesy in New Scientist
> > > magazine are not the same as peer-reviewed science papers published in
> > > professional, refereed science journals.
> > 
> > say the guy who throw around the T.O. faqs as they were pages of the bible.
> 
> As I have repeatedly made clear, the t.o. FAQs are a convenient
> reference, because they often summarize peer-reviewed papers. 

which are old and quite outdated...


> As I
> have repeatedly made clear, the t.o. FAQ on transitionals was
> supported by over 70 references, many of which were to peer-reviewed
> papers published in professional, refereed science journals. 


which are about more than a decade old in some instances..

I belive you had a problem with old material eh?

> You have
> pointedly ignored that, because it has stolen all of your wet-powder
> rusty, misfiring jammed-in-the-barrel ammunition.


no I just ignore it because the FAQ are not peered reviewed...


snip snip snip____________________________________------------------