[Gumlegs]

Your entire post can be reduced to “name calling,” pure and simple. Did I miss something? Was the debate over? Did someone win?

I think you missed the following: GoreMMM has posted repeatedly that "all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution." He chose the criteria, not me. He linked to Hartwell and quoted Baltimore. I've been showing that neither man's work can rationally be considered to have disproved evolution.

Gore is now trying to change the subject.

[RobRoy]

>>I've been showing that neither man's work can rationally be considered to have disproved evolution. <<

Then I hereby join gore3000 to disagree with that statement - to a point. I believe their work can be used to chip away at some of the foundational assumptions in many camps of "evolution theory apologists."

Like Rush Limbaugh often does with his political "enemies," you can use these mens own words to discredit them and damage their own theory's, hypothesis' etc.

>>all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution.<<

I would agree with that statemnt regarding the winners who have written "very much" on the subject, whoever they may be.

Those who have written little, have said little and therefore may not have done damage to the theory.

[gore3000]

: GoreMMM has posted repeatedly that "all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution."

That's not a quote, but a subtle, well thought out misrepresentation. What I have said is that all Nobel Prize Winning discoveries in biology (which are given under the medicine and chemical categories usually) have tended to disprove evolution. I have even a list of those discoveries for evolutionists to more easily try to refute my statement. They tried a couple of times and then they gave up. So now the evolutionists rely on insults and misrepresentations to refute my words by attacking the person.