So You Think You Are a Darwinian?

change in allele frequency over time -- pretty much what it is now.

Change of allele frequency does not account for the creation of numerous genes, organs, abilities, functions, etc. since the first bacteria were around. This is the cowardly definition of evolution (for posting which you insulted me on post# 164). You clearly are shamelessly dancing around as I said you would. In post 200 you give one definition and here ONLY FOUR POSTS LATER you are giving another definite, true, and positively final definition of evolution. Do you think everyone that reads thesse threads is a moron and does not notice your dancing?

Wassamatter, the fact that I'm not running out to read the entire collected works of some deservedly obscure Aussie wanker bother you?

Seems you are too lazy to read what you are talking about. In other words, like the rest of the evolutionists you are blathering out of the top of your head again. Thanks for clearing it up.

I never said I had evidence.

Let's see, in post# 184 you said:

The mechanics of evolution are still debated, but the fact of evolution is not.

You say one thing in one post and you say another a few posts later. Were you lying then or are you lying now (or are you lying all the time)? Inquiring minds want to know.

So basically, anything the biological community does is "pure fantasy"

Nobody has said that. In fact, it is evolutionists that cannot come up with evidence supporting its theory from the facts discovered by the biological community. Those who oppose evolution can find zillions.

Rebuttal to
#1: Huh? Are you dumb? Take another look at it and try to actually figure out what the sentence means, IN CONTEXT!
#2: Dawkins is a disgrace and an idiot. Don't ever pay attention to what he says again. Ever.
#3: What are you refuting here? Where's your counter-point? Oh wait, you don't have one. Idiot.
#4: Nota bene - there have been hundreds, literally, hundreds of documentation on animal homosexuality. Back to the quote, where is your counter-point? Again, you offer no contradictory evidence, but just spouting off what you believe. If you're going to make an argument, make one. Don't write something you have no idea on. Besides, his words are pure speculation. The words are not peculiar to Darwinism, but instead Triversism.
#5 & #6: Again, can't you refute anything? Or are you dumb. Please, I'm curious. Are you dumb??? It would explain a lot.
#7: The reason you can exclude humans because of conscientious decisions, not something always found in animals. It would, though, be correct to say that the simpler the creature, the more offspring it is likely to have. Also, this is in agreement with lower classes having more offspring than upper classes. Know thine enemy. Also though, if you stand truly objective and look at it biologically, women are supposed to have a child every nine months, or else suffer the premenstrual syndrome. Again, consciousness.
#8: Illogical. There is today an overabundance of food in population, but the number is dwindling. Plus, invention of new ways to gather food sustains growing populations. As for the animal world, I don't think any of them can farm. Unfortunately...
#9: Already explained
#10: Who says that certain traits are absolutely deadly? Actually, alcohol is good for the heart. But the statement almost directly refers to most childhood diseases, such as Down's Syndrome, which strictly forbids the diseased person to produce offspring. Also, I don't see how respect for ancestors and anal sex has anything to do with shortening life, or were you just throwing those in to make yourself look dumb. Some of those things are actually good. You have to get away from the individual's paradigm and look at the human race at whole. If there were no deaths, then everyone would die. Think about it. Also, some injuries, such as heart attacks and aneurysms typically happen to persons over the biological age of producing children. It seems your social and cultural values have limited you in this sense, since you didn't realize that people are supposed to be producing offspring long before they are socially allowed to.
Finally, everyone has beliefs that are peculiar to themselves. No one can ever be a true Darwinist, just like no one can ever be a true Christian. Do you follow every one of Christ's commands? If so, then why haven't you given up everything that you own and why haven't you taken up your "cross"? I don't think Christ truly would want rantings and ravings on some computer by his true followers, would he. But, according to the eclectic philosophy, people pick and choose what they think to be true and adopt it as their own belief.