[gore3000]

I am not ashamed of my beliefs and your constant repetition of that slime shows that you are completely defeated and cannot scientifically suport your atheistic evolution. Here is what you are trying to avoid by changing the discussion:

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

1063 posted on 12/26/2002 5:40 PM PST by gore3000
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Maybe a few of his refutations could be found in that massive jumble of blather spewn about a few days ago. Now if you could only free-up a few hours to pick through it, I am sure you would find something worth reading. Now whether it contains proof that the flagellum could have evolved "by chance" is a whole 'nother question.

[Sentis]

Answer the question How old is the Earth?


The entire debate hinges on this question you can't answer the question because hen you do you arguments become mute. In fact once you answer the question I'll again g over all your silliness and refute the lot again like I have in the past simply answer the question How old is the Earth? What the matter does this question bother you does nswering it make you nervous? Once you have answewred this question I'll answer anything you want.


For the people in the peanut gallery his refusal to answer this question proves my point that he has no scientific knoiwledge to add to this debate.


This is for the peanut gallery not you Gore3000 I though tI would answer a few questions for them.

gore 3000 wrote"to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, " This is a simple decrease in egg shell thickness in an animal that already was giving live birth. I don't even understand why evolutionists use this example as it is so easy to dismiss and I have done it before. Step one the Retile/Mammal gives birth to young where the egg shell breaks before birth and the young are born live. This happens in many reptils on Earth even to this day. Step two the egg shell in each successive generation becomes thinner and thinner as it becomes thinner the original blood vessels in the uterus that fed the egg before it hardens remain attached (these generally detach before the egg is laid. Over time the shell is becomes so thin that it no longer even exists and the cellular bundle (blood vessels etc) attached to the fetus becomes the main source of nutrition for the fetus.

Now this lack of a egg creates a new problem for mammals that reptiles don't have. Without the time in the egg mammals are less physically delevoped at birth so need more care by its parent. In fact live birth is almost easier to explain than the original rise of the eggs itself. Now this was very simple refutation and does not include modern evolutinary idea such as genetic drift fromspecies to species but i don't expect everyone to understand this sort of genetic theory.