Replies

Despite reading over your hundreds of repetive blue posts over the last year or so, I still can't figure out if you are a) truly stupid, b) an unstoppable liar, or c) Behe's lover. Perhaps some other posters can help me out...

Anyway, for what it's worth, you do understand what you're doing, right? I mean, you've been doing it so prolifically, I think you may have lost sight of your aim. In your lone quest to turn 150 years of evolutionary science upside down, all you constantly do is pick out a few anomalies and harp on them OVER and OVER. The platypus, the flagella, "irreducible complexity," etc. Even though these 3 current darlings of Behe and the ID movement have been explained to you numerous times, they are the ID flavor of the month, so we'll continue to hammer away at your thick skull. Remember just a few years ago it was dust on the moon, 2nd Law of Thermo, and the best one: "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Interesting, is it not, that the Fundy Creationist movement has EVOLVED, in a way, to become a bit more stealth, a bit more organized, and at the more conniving reaches of it, not so completely stupid anymore (see the monkey argument).

By continuously zooming in on these things which you consider problems with evolution, can we assume you accept all the other tenets of the theory? It would seem that way to me. Geeze, imagine if I went through the bible page by page and picked out historical or logical or scientific errors, anomalies, and contradictions. You think 1000+ post crevo threads are long!

And so it goes with Gore3K... He's almost outdone himself with this one: "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

I won't even waste my time with the myriad scientific and logical ridiculousness of that sentence... it's simply too insulting to my mind to do so.

Anyway, for what it's worth, you do understand what you're doing, right? I mean, you've been doing it so prolifically, I think you may have lost sight of your aim. In your lone quest to turn 150 years of evolutionary science upside down, all you constantly do is pick out a few anomalies and harp on them OVER and OVER.

If evolution is science, and a scientific theory is supposed to answer the questions posed by the scientific evidence, then evolution has to answer those questions. It cannot. In fact it never could. One of the things about evolution is that the theory is always behind the science. First it proposed melding of traits, that was disproved. Then it proposed a convoluted explanation of how mutations could be spread. This was made ludicrous by DNA since it required so many mutations, new genes, etc. for it to accomplish a simple change. So the evolutionists proposed duplication of whole genes. When it was found that genes needed a whole support system to make them even work, they ran out of answers.

There has never been a real how to evolution, just an 'it happens'. The mutations cannot be found, the species transforming into other species cannot be found. The only thing that can be found is a lot of tall stories. That's why evolutionists cannot answer scientific questions and need to insult those who ask them - because evolution is a joke.

By continuously zooming in on these things which you consider problems with evolution, can we assume you accept all the other tenets of the theory?

I do not accept any of it. What I show is that evolution is full of contradictions. To explain away one problem they need to contradict something else they have said. Take the problem of homology for example if features are similar, it is evolution, however, if similar features exist on species that could not have an ancestor/descendant relationship, then that is evolution too. If one can see gradual changes, then it is evolution, if there are no gradual changes then it is evolution also. The inconsistencies are all over.

And so it goes with Gore3K... He's almost outdone himself with this one: "According to evolution, changes in species are due to their fitting themselves to environmental conditions WHICH ARE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. Thus the species, if evolutionary theory be true, would indeed be harmed by this overspecialization"

And the above is one of the many contradcitions I speak of. You cannot refute it because it is true so you try to laugh it off but contradictions in a theory render it null and void and are nothing to laugh at (except for opponents of it).