The burden of proof remians in the evolutionists court. What you and your buddies continually do again and again and even in your last reponse is simple critisize anyone who challenges the idiocy of evolution. Evolution is not anything more than a fanciful idea that provides an alternate universe for those who like to dismiss the idea of a creator and all that it implies. Still if you are so sure of yourself let's see if you can explain how life began. I always enjoy a good soup recipe so lets hear yours.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
Since you don't include quoted text from the message to which you are responding to give it context, it's always interesting for me to go back and check what post of mine you're ranting about this time. This time, it was (condensed):
[snip] The linked material did a lot of fancy math and citations in order to try to convince the reader that it was being "scientific" and actually concluding something useful about whether life could or could not have arisen naturally. Unfortunately, either by design or incredible cluelessness, it fired an arrow right into the wrong target. It (correctly, as near as I can tell) showed that chemical processes would take place too slowly to form life "at equilibrium". Well peachy keen, but only an idiot (or liar) would claim that conditions on the Earth have ever been "at equilibrium". So the whole chapter was vastly irrelevant to the topic at hand. [snip]Fascinating. I specifically asked you if you were going to deal with the particular point I made about the flaw in the creationist material that had been linked (since you had dodged it the *first* time I made it), and what do you do? You dodge it *again* by *again* failing to deal with the rebuttal and launching off into another generic anti-evolution/evolutionist screed that in no way attempts to refute or accept the point I took the time to make in my post about the creationist link.Now, are you going to actually deal with that point, or are you going to just sit there and giggle some more?
Typical.
Look, if all you want to do is go off on rants, and you have no interest in dealing with the content of what I actually write, why should I even bother with you? If you're not going to bother with my challenges and rebuttals, why should I spend another instant on yours?
That is not a rhetorical question, I want an answer.