[yellowdoghunter]

When you have to resort to 3rd grade comments, you have already lost the argument. Didn't your mother teach you that????

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Still waiting on someone to explain the complexity of the cell to me or "molecular machinery". Nothing in Darwin's "THEORY" accounts for the complexity of the cell.

[VadeRetro]

When you have to resort to 3rd grade comments, you have already lost the argument. Didn't your mother teach you that????

I can't tell you the incongruity in your characterization of your creation. Of course, who am I to question God's will? God may have wanted to create an obnoxious ignoramus to heckle science from a seat on an upended crate.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Then what's this then?

Still waiting on someone to explain the complexity of the cell to me or "molecular machinery". Nothing in Darwin's "THEORY" accounts for the complexity of the cell.

This thread is about how the "no transitional fossils" mantra you guys chant is false. Now, all your other mantras are dishonest, too, but even if one or two weren't it wouldn't give you a license to lie about anything else, would it?

Point One: Complexity can evolve.

Point Two: Molecular evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution.

So, in summary, the "no-transitional fossils" mantra is a lie, and all your other mantras are lies.

[Condorman]

Nothing in Darwin's "THEORY" accounts for the complexity of the cell.

Please post Darwin's theory so we can see for ourselves.

[RightWingNilla]

Still waiting on someone to explain the complexity of the cell to me or "molecular machinery".

You really have no excuse to be so incredibly ignorant. Try reading a book sometime:

Alberts