Actually, I do believe I've posted a substantial body of substantive material. See post 398, or 329, or 310, or 273; I fully appreciate that because you were either unwilling or unable to understand any of it you're inclined to deny it exists, but that's par for the course for a creationist. On the other hand all I've seen from you are sanctimonious platitudes. Do you have anything else to offer, or should I put you on permanent ignore?
Only my belief that you surely enjoy shutting down belief before convincing anyone.
To: Right Wing Professor
>>well now that you know what I was trying to say, will you reply with full context answer? or will you belittle my grammatical skills for lack of an scientific example?
329 posted on 06/01/2005 11:17:26 AM PDT by flevit >>
When you produce a sticklefish that develops legs and walks on land, or starts breathing air, let me know
Here's a fish that walks on land and breathes air.
I take it that since your challenge has been met, you will concede you lost the argument.
That was a Sticklefish?<<
310 posted on 06/01/2005 10:05:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Crap logic prof, did you get your stuff off a box of corn flakes?
To: blueblazes
I am referring to the process by which primeval ooze produced amoebas that somehow became shrimp that somehow became fish, that somehow became frogs, that somehow became reptiles that somehow became mammals, that somehow became primates, that somehow became man.
First of all, you should get your basic facts straight. Evolution does not put shrimp on the human ancestral line
More importantly, though, science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence.
The molecular phylogeny of living things is strong evidence of common ancestry and of evolution by mutation and natural selection. It allows us to construct evolutionary trees for all of life that agree with the fossil evidence, have the mathematical structure predicted by evolutionary theory, and cannot plausibly be explained by alternative theories.
273 posted on 06/01/2005 7:50:33 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Again crap logic. You too make many assumptions. Prove them or let your theory die an untimely death.
No one is asking you to prove them but that is your burden.
You're not a scientist in this case.
Oh, sorry, you have CREDENTIALS.
You're silly! You're a hoot.
DK