To be honest, this is a perfect example of why I've often advised that Internet debate forums are usually a waste of time, as you might have seen in our Negative Feedback section on our site. A lot of the same tired old arguments keep coming up, and it gets boring having to refute the same arguments over and over to people who aren't interested in learning. This critic certainly seems like that.
I also notice that the evolutionists can’t grasp the point that evolution requires not just mutations, but informationally uphill mutations. Where are they? Why do we observe only informationally neutral or downhill mutations?
This seems to come from blustery and verbose article on the essentially atheistic talk.origins site from a person called Moore who admits that he lacks qualifications in astronomy. Much TalkOrigins bilge is written by people unqualified in the areas they're talking about -- and it shows! Keith Davies, who research I acknowledged using, and I are well aware of this Moore article, and I understand that he is preparing a detailed response.
Moore is also obsessed with the anti-creationist fetish that creationists quote out of context. He rails against the way Davies uses some of the unusual phrases found in journals that indicated surprise at the shortfall of galactic SNRs, and no doubt this is what your critic has picked up on.
Moore makes the point that several of these phrases were written in the context of explanations of the problem and that Mr Davies should have made that clear.
Moore omits completely one crucial fact. He fails to say that Davies introduce those phrases clearly and unambiguously by saying :
'A number of astronomers, in the context of trying to find solutions to the shortfall have commented on the situation as follows.'
The above completely unambiguous statements that Davies uses to introduce those phrases should at the very least have been included with the section Moore has excerpted from his paper. To have not only left out that important introductory statement but also not even to have referred to it is bordering on defamatory. My paper was necessarily condensed from Davies but gave all the references to him and his sources so people could check them.
