To: betty boop
For the "opposition" — doctrinaire Darwinists — evidently has no case. At least not one that they have systematically presented here. At least, not so far. It's just been piles and piles of "rant" and debating "'tricks" so far.... Are you suggesting that all the data I have posted over the years amounts to "no case" and consists of "piles and piles of rant" and "debating tricks?"
Is this really what you are claiming?
540 posted on
01/05/2009 5:46:40 PM PST by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: Coyoteman
I think that one is covered under “Glittering Generalities”.
542 posted on
01/05/2009 5:48:59 PM PST by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Coyoteman
Its not your fault. You are possessed by the Devil.
To: Coyoteman; betty boop
Throw a stone over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.
545 posted on
01/05/2009 5:54:01 PM PST by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Coyoteman
Can I answer? Can I? Can I?
All of it? No- A LOT of it? YES- You present one example of adaption after another, and claim they are examples of Macroevolution when clearly, when examined, they are NOT. But soem of what you post is itneresting- Irrelevent to the discussions about Macroevolution, but itneresting non-the-less- Always interestign to see how scientists distort the actual evidence.
To: Coyoteman
Are you suggesting that all the data I have posted over the years amounts to "no case" and consists of "piles and piles of rant" and "debating tricks?" Is this really what you are claiming? WHAT "data"???? You want to give me a quick summary here?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson