You are confusing comprehension with independent thought.
No, I'm not, and your current misreading of my clear statement is yet another example of your ability to misunderstand.
When I talk about you misreading and misunderstanding, I am talking about actual misreading and actual misunderstanding. But even *that* clear statement seems hard for you to grasp correctly, you have to twist it in your own mind into something else.
I have no problem with a difference of opinion. I do, however, have a problem with people such as yourself who consistently are unable even to correctly grasp what it is that's actually being described. Disagree with my arguments or evidence if you wish, but for pete's sake, at least try to properly *understand* them first.
[Feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong by describing its function. We'll wait.]
For what?
For the purposes of a rational discussion, which you have trouble maintaining.
You say it's useless until I point out a function at which point you move the goal post and say "Oh, I never said it had to be totally useless, etc." It's another example of evolutionists setting up a question where either answer "agrees" with the theory.
Now see, that's *another* example of your inability to read simple English and understand it properly. That's not what I said, son. I made *two* separate points, which you are bizarrely trying to twist into one in a way that I never did.
Come back when your reading comprehension improves, I get tired of arguing with people who are talking to the voices in their own heads instead of responding to what *I* actually wrote.
[Sorry, no, we prefer things that aren't transparently silly to a five-year-old.]
You mean like EVOLUTION? ROFL
You know, *arguing* like a five-year-old doesn't help your reputation either.
A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a watch and tell you it didn't come together by shaking a bunch of watch parts in a bag. A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a sand castle and tell you it wasn't created simply by the action of waves and sand. A FIVE-YEAR-OLD can look at a log cabin and tell you it wasn't made by a bunch of logs randomly falling in a forest.
Because watches, sand castles, and log cabins really are constructed things and did not form by evolutionary processes (and indeed can't, because they do not reproduce). Duh. You have a masterful grasp of the obvious, son.
Come back when you have the understanding of an educated adult.
Now, tell me what engineering team constructs each newborn puppy. What's that you say? Living things aren't built from blueprints? They get born naturally, without the assistance of a factory or toolboxes? Lineages of living things aren't *built*? They live and die and reproduce and pass on their genes and the occasional mutation introducing changes, all via *natural* processes without intelligent supervision? Gee, even a five-year-old realizes this!
Let us know when you rise to the level of a five-year-old's grasp.
But of course you have all the "answers"
Because I have vast mountains of evidence and research on my side. All you have is childish taunts and bluster and belligerence.
Go play with the other kids, the adults are trying to have a serious conversation.
Did you really type that without feeling a hint of hypocrisy? Good grief. Others have grown tired of your condescension, personal attacks, and arrogance and it's quite obvious why.