Replies

Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

Opinion is not evidence, and all you ever post is highly subjective opinion, and out and out falsehood. Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist is all we need to judge the credibility of the tripe you constantly post to disrupt these threads.

Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

It's far easier for creationists to dismiss Ichnuemon's massive evidence-filled posts as "worthless spam" than it is to actually address the content -- even some of the content. Addressing the content would require the creationists to actually understand the evidence for evolution, and they can't allow themselves to do that.

Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist

Instead, all they have to offer are lies.

Thanks for the PING)))) E.S.....

But what's up with all the spam..??? is this the new EVO strategy?

Looks like DC sent out a memo....

Thank you for the worthless spam Ichy!

If you think examining the actual evidence and research is "worthless", then it's clear why you're an anti-evolution creationist, and attack scientific findings. So tell me, how's life back in the sixteenth century? You've got a lot of company with the Muslims.

Opinion is not evidence,

Which is why I posted a lot of evidence, and very little opinion.

and all you ever post is highly subjective opinion,

Wow, you're really unable to tell the difference, aren't you?

and out and out falsehood.

Support this slander, now. Or don't, and make it clear to all the lurkers just what a disgusting liar you are, like all too many other anti-evolutionists.

Stephen Gould's admission that the evidence didn't exist is all we need to judge the credibility of the tripe you constantly post to disrupt these threads.

Your lie about what Gould actually said is duly noted, liar

. Here's what Gould had to say about that common creationist lie:

"Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. [...]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [...]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
[...]
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. [...]
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad."
-- Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" (1994)

Do even you believe the falsehoods that pour out of your brain? And is "lying for Jesus" really the best you can do?

Will you have enough honor to retract your false claim about Gould? And about me? Or will you be a typical anti-evolution creationist and have absolutely no shame whatsoever, not a shred of concern about truth?

Your move.

To the folks on editor-surveyor's ping list -- do you approve of his grossly lying and slandering in order to try to further creationism? Yes or no?