Aaah, linkomania.
Ah, a cheap dodge. Fine, if you don't want to educate yourself on the subject, it's your loss, not mine.
You cannot make an argument for your theory
Gosh, that must be why I do so on a regular basis. Not too swift, are you?
But no, I'm not going to compose a personal reply from scratch every time someone repeats a fallacy for the 200th time, when there are perfectly good FAQ files which already deal with it. That's what FAQ files are *for*, in case you haven't figured that out yet.
because you know the links are themselves so banal that they cannot stand scrutiny.
I know that's your cheap excuse for not reading them, you mean. I link to them because I'm satisfied that they do a good job of education on the topic -- for those who care to lift their blinders, that is.
The Evidence Disproving Evolution is overwhelming
Yawn. So I keep hearing, but so far all the "evidenced disproving evolution" has been remarkably shoddy. Here, let's look at something from your own provided link, shall we?
Here's one listed under "Biology Disproving Evolution": Genetics Glossary AB
Um, son? That's just a list of definitions of terms used in genetics discussions, for words starting with "A" and "B". If you consider that "Biology Disproving Evolution", it's time for you to take a nice, *looong* nap.
Let's grab another at random, from the "Intelligent Design" category: Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes
Um, okay -- that's just an overview of the little whips that some bacteria use to move around. If this "Disproves Evolution" or proves "Intelligent Design", you're going to have to do a lot better than just describe the structures.
How about something from your "Mutations" category? Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . AHAHAHAHAHA!! Um, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but you just included a very pro-evolution article on your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" page. Do you even *read* this stuff, or do you just cut-and-paste at random? Given that you included the "A-B glossary", that seems increasingly likely.
Okay, maybe you'll get luckier in the "Darwin and his Theory" heading: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty. Um, no, that happens to be an article that discusses the *verifications* of the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution. For pete's sake, I thought this was supposed to be "Evidences" *against* evolution?
If this is the best you can do, you're not worth my time.
which is why evolutionists will never give us either what the theory of evolution is
Lie, it's been done dozens of times on these threads, and you know it. Why do are you so dishonest? Oh, right, you're a troll -- I forgot.
or what the facts supporting it are but must send everyone on a trip to the library to self-indoctrinate themselves in their phony theory.
Another lie, these threads consistently contain reams of facts, both inserted into the posts, and as URLs to webpages which are only a click away. Surely even you understand the difference between clicking to another page and "being sent on a trip to the library.
Because he's a liar for God.
Goodbye loser. More excuses from a lame evolutionist. You do not even understand your stupid theory, you cannot even argue for it and give facts in favor of it. All you can do is make up nice sounding names for links that prove nothing at all. If you and your lame friends have any facts to disprove my statements - post them here. You do know how to cut and paste do you not? Or are you too lame for that also?
Yes, I think that people who want to understand the problems of evolution should understand the terms. What's your problem with that? Stupidity is your friend? Ignorance and evolution go hand in hand?
Let's grab another at random, from the "Intelligent Design" category: Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes
Another example of your ignorance. You expect everything to be spoon fed to you, you do not wish to learn the hard way. What that article shows is the names of the genes involved in the bacterial flagellum. The point of it being in Evidence Disproving Evolution is that as anyone can see the vast majority of the genes involved are unique to the flagellum, something which evolutionists deny.
How about something from your "Mutations" category? Introduction to Evolutionary Biology . AHAHAHAHAHA!! Um, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but you just included a very pro-evolution article on your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" page.
Unlike you and your fellow evolutionists, I do read what I link to. I also put Darwin's definition of evolution at the top of the article because it is necessary to understand what the opposition is saying before discussing it (something which evolutionists cannot be bothered with). The article - from TalkOrigins - is there to show exactly what the quote from f.christian says - 'evolution is whatever lie you want it to be'. It shows that evolutionists are very afraid of their theory and cannot even agree on what it is.
Okay, maybe you'll get luckier in the "Darwin and his Theory" heading: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty.
Again you show you do not read for understanding, but only for ideology. You show that you look at every question through the 'is it on my side or theirs' binoculars. The article shows tremendous problems with both gradual evolution and punk eek. Moreover, it shows that the evolutionists are saying that biology must be disregarded when talking about evolution! Now if that does not show my point (from an evolutionist!) that evolution is not science, then waht does??????
More is at stake here than the reality of species, however. If species sorting is real, then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations (microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled up. After decades of experiments on fruit flies, the most interesting evolutionary phenomena might only be studied in the fossil record, or in the embryology lab. With publications, prestige, and grant money on the line, the traditional research community of evolutionary biologists do not want to find themselves suddenly irrelevant to the most interesting issues in macroevolution. On the other hand, paleontologists have begun to shed their subservience to evolutionary biology (Gould, 1983), and assert the importance of the fossil record for detecting phenomena that are too large in scale for biologists to observe [emphasis mine] (Gould, 1982a, 1982b, 1985; Eldredge, 1985b). Clearly, all of evolutionary biology is undergoing ferment and change. To the paraphrase the old Chinese proverb, we indeed live in interesting times.
From the conclusion of: Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty
these threads consistently contain reams of facts,
Not from evolutionists, which taking you as an example, do not even try to understand the questions involved or the position of the other side. You could not even be bothered to read the articles you attacked me for including in the discussion, you attacked me for trying to give those interested in the subject an understanding of the terms and the position of the other side. Clearly you and your friends are only incapable of doing anything more than posting links because you are incapable of understanding the theory which you support so vehemently.