[Sentis]

Gore 3000 give up and quit lying about me. I refuted every ourageous claim you made quit saying "NO YOU DIDN'T" your like a broken record. Those posts you claim are just posts where you refute me by saying "NO YOUR WRONG" No Your Wrong is not an argument. People that have read this thread know I trounced your one hundred year old arguments and I am not going to rewrite everything I said over and over like you do. I mean I can just go cut and paste the same tyhings I said earlier ovber and over again like you do but whats the point. Your point is to get the last word I know that but you are meaninfless. Your a whisper in the wind a dead end alley. Learn some real sscience and come back and actually debate instead of using your half formed ideas. Your sitting on the back of a mental midget Behe and trying to look unto the Giants table give up until you can find a more literate guide.

[Sentis]

Sorry about the errors in that last post it's early in the morning and Blueman calling me a liar (which by the way fits him perfectly) got me angery and I posted without checking to see how many double keys I had hit. I'm probably the worst typist alive.

[gore3000]

Gore 3000 give up and quit lying about me.

I did not lie about you, I proved you a liar. You could have used this post to show my statement to be wrong but instead you write a bunch of rhetoric and nonsense and do not answer any of the points I said had not been refuted. In the post you are responding to I said:

Correction - you wrote page after page of ATTEMPTED refutations of my posts. The reason you gave up was that you were unable to back up your claims when I challenged you to do so in Post# 988 where I challenged you to give proof of evolutionary transformations and disprove the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, you were also unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 989 to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, and you were unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 991 to show detailed proof contradicting Behe's statement in post #984 that the eye spot could not have evolved as Darwin had claimed.

Seems to me that it is I who should be saying that you are disregarding the strong proofs against evolution which have been presented to you and which you are unable to refute.

Now where did you refute those posts? They are totally unanswered. Where is the refutation to Post# 988, 989 and 991 which said:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000