[music_code]

This is a disingenuous response, an evasive maneuver on your part. It pretends that there is no more burden of proof required for the fantastical "theory" of evolution than there is for something repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable, like say, lighting methane bubbles and watching them rise in the air as I saw last night on Letterman. The claims made by evolutionists are much more akin to "Alice-in-Wonderland" adventures than anything remotely resembling true science.

[Dimensio]

This is a disingenuous response, an evasive maneuver on your part.

No, it is a means of pointing out that you apparently do not understand how science works and as such are holding the theory of evolution to a standard that no scientist holds any scientific explanation.

It pretends that there is no more burden of proof required for the fantastical "theory" of evolution than there is for something repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable,like say, lighting methane bubbles and watching them rise in the air as I saw last night on Letterman.

You are making an invalid comparison. You are comparing a scientific theory with observed events. Observed events are not theories. Observed events are used as the basis for theories and indeed observed events are the basis for the theory of evolution, however observed events on their own explain nothing and as such are not theories. Theories are attempts to explain why observed events occured. For example, the explanation for why lightning methane bubbles come to exist in the first place would be "theory" and it would be held to the same standard of evidence as would the theory of evolution.

I should also note that you are using presumptive language when speaking of the "fantastical" theory of evolution, which may indicate to some an unwillingness to actually learn about the subject.

The claims made by evolutionists are much more akin to "Alice-in-Wonderland" adventures than anything remotely resembling true science.

Perhaps you could provide specific examples to support this assertion?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Evolutionists have "Physics Envy."

LOL!!

This is ironic considering the current mess physics is in and how well biology is doing.

The mysterious attraction towards the sun (MATS) being experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft was so unexpected, the Planetary Society has decided to jump in and move the discussion along.

The accelaration of faraway galaxies was not only not predicted by any theory, there's still no good speculation, much less a proposal.

There's that mysterious "dark matter" consisting of "WIMPS" or "MACHOS". More data looking for a theory.

Then there's those mysterious gravity waves. $100's of millions later and there's still not a shread of evidence.

Last, but not least, there's that string theory. No particles to be found, barely a wisp of evidence of rolled up microscopic dimensions, and the thing has to be renormalized for each use.

I'm sure the biologists are all dropping what they're doing to get involved.

On the other hand - and I don't know if you're a creationist or ID'er, as long as it's anti-science you guys are OK - you guys have all these billion year old human fossils in your basement that you're not willing to show anyone. Trot out some of your evidence that mammals appeared before trilobites. We're all waiting to see it.

/sarcasm