The article in AiG just seems deeply confused. There's a difference between 'you shouldn't offer an argument because it's factual premises are wrong', compared to 'you shouldn't offer an argument because it's irrelevant or invalid.' Yet half the time it is offering counter-arguments instead of 'well, it's irrelevant either away'. Leave alone the bits which don't seem to be talking about an argument at all. Meh.

Moderator (Ryft): First portion of comment removed, for it simply provided commentary on 'why' the evolutionary arguments listed in the article are good or bad. That is not what Duane asked for. He asked evolutionists to provide their own examples of other bad evolutionary arguments they've seen used.