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.
This coming from the moron who argued (til he was blue) that a circle was not an ellipse and that planets had "wildly eccentric orbits." Every lurker on these threads knows just what a complete idiot you are.
Oh good, you're leaving? Bye.
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?
How old are you, twelve?
Do you realize just how childish you sound going off on a temper tantrum about me posting a few links to address someone's common misconception instead of "cutting-and-pasting", when you just gave *me* a link to a post of yours which consists of nothing *but* ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE links to web pages (most of which don't even match your subject headings for them)?
You get the "hypocrite of the day" award, hands down.
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?
Don't play dumb (or at least I *hope* you're only playing at being this dumb -- the alternative is even scarier).
The "problem with that" is that you categorized your links under various subject headings, and then listed tons of links which had nothing to do with those subject headings.
Your dishonest intent was clear -- you were trying to pad out each section with lots of links, in a cheap attempt to make it look like your "disproofs" sections contained a greater volume of material than they actually did. You knew very well that most readers wouldn't bother to go read all your 175(!) links. Most would read your subject headings (e.g. "Biology Disproving Evolution"), see the enormous number of links it contained, and think, "wow, there's really a *lot* of evidence disproving evolution!".
The fraud, of course, is that the majority of your links do no such thing. A great many of them are articles *supporting* evolution, many others are simply neutral articles describing various biological subjects. My favorite was the word glossary you linked in the "Biology Disproving Evolution" section -- how *that* "disproves evolution", I'd *love* to hear...
And I'm not the only one to notice -- your post of that link-o-mania quickly generated responses like, "From what I can see of the presentation, it is wordy, poorly organized and senseless obfuscation.". Right on target.
Your motive of "overwhelm them with sheer volume" (no matter that much of it actually *contradicts* your position) was clear from the wording of your intro, "This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows. You were stressing volume over substance.
One of the really funny things on that thread was where you wrote:
In TalkOrigins? You are not serious are you? That place is the craddle of evolutionist half-truths and plain lies. It is just a long series of personal pages by people with an axe to grind. Most of the links I give you are to published articles by people who have qualifications and who unlike most of the writeres on your site - stake their reputations on what they say.Apparently, in your rush to cut-and-paste as many links as you could in order to expand the sheer size of your "Disproofs", you failed to realize that you had included three links to www.talkorigins.org *itself* (and falsely listed them in the "disproofs" of evolution sections). Try reading stuff before you randomly throw it into your bucket next time.
You also wrote:
Hey Dimensio, why don't you argue with what I posted? Why don't you refute the statements I have made?The hilarious part is that a large number of YOUR OWN LINKS (posted under your "Evidence Disproving Evolution" header) actually refutes your OWN position. Dimensio doesn't have to refute them because THEY SUPPORT HIS SIDE, NOT YOURS.
You're either a fool, a charlatan, or a troll. I don't much care which.
Look, if you want to reformat your "barge-o-links" and put the articles under *accurate* subject headings, then I'd have no beef with it. But then, your "support of evolution" and "neutral biological articles" sections would be a hell of a lot larger than your tiny "arguments against evolution" section, and the problem with your collection would become apparent.
[I wrote:] 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.
Okay, I'll bite, where do "evolutionists deny" this? Nowhere in your linked article, certainly. Nor does your article in any way support (or even refute) your claim that "the vast majority of the genes involved are unique to the flagellum". You have absolutely no support for your desperate assertion that this was the reason you linked that article. Nor does that article in any way support any other "intelligent design" argument, except in lame sense of the usual creationist assertion that "if it's more complex than a rock, it had to have been designed, QED".
Admit it, that article in no way supports your side of the argument, it's just an inventory of some of the known genes that relate to flagellum development in *one* kind of organism (out of the countless which have flagella of varying types).
Unlike you and your fellow evolutionists, I do read what I link to.
Support that childish slur, or retract it. Or else we'll add it to the FABNAQs.
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.
Holy cow! If that's what you got out of that article, you didn't understand it at all!
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??????
Um, what it actually shows is your defective reading comprehension, because it says no such thing. It always amazes me how often creationists can read clearly written articles on a given topic and then come away with some jumbled Alice in Wonderland misunderstanding of it.
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).
What your excerpt is actually saying (contrary to your hallucinatory "summary" of it above) is that evolution is real, punctuated equilibrium has been demonstrated to be a validated theory, and that they are established facts in evolutionary biology. The interesting new notion, however, is that alongside natural selection working at the *individual* level to produce evolution at the *species* level, there may be a "larger" kind of natural selection (nicknamed "species sorting") that works at the *species* level to bring about change at the *taxon* level.
That's no refutation of evolution, son, that's confirmation and further discovery into the forces which drive it.
Not too good on the reading comprehension, are you?
[I wrote:] these threads consistently contain reams of facts,
Not from evolutionists,
I'll let the obvious falseness of this brazenly transparent lie speak for itself.