Fits well with your series of evolutionary check points you so laboriously put together, and then rejected, as if you had never proposed it. Oh, now that *definitely* deserves an award:
In case you missed it the *first* time you made your ridiculous mischaracterization of what I actually wrote, allow me to repeat my response:
Oh? Where? Quote me. Or retract your idiotic charge. Or just go away and leave the conversation to those with better reading comprehension.
The challenge still stands. Pick one of the three choices.
Your foolish "analogy not homology" argument is tiresome.
Only because it took three tries for you to finally describe it correctly. You're wearing *me* out too.
Why not simply admit you have no idea what you are talking about.
Because I don't like lying.
How many peer-reviewed scientific papers have you published?
How many lame non sequiturs have you posted?
Please write me off again.
Very glad to oblige.
That was *sniff* beautiful, although not nearly as fuel-injected as some of your other posts. I am shocked and amused that you would call my incisive commentary a "lame non sequitur," particularly when you initated the undignified excoriation of Gore3000's presumed lack of scientific education. I think your education on the matter is quite relavant, or perhaps you "graduated from the Pee-Wee Herman School of Debate" and simply don't know what non sequitur means.
You're really hanging in there. Be warned, g3 is not a scientist and most of the Creationist/ID'ers aren't either. So its very difficult ot talk to them in a scientific way.
They're more comfortable regurgitating texts that are typically decades old because they don't follow current scientific literature.