So now the word "challenge" means "actually trounces." I love the way that you guys change the definition of words. It seems to be the only thing that is consistent in evolution.
> So now the word "challenge" means "actually trounces."
More accurately, "stands a good chance of trouncing." Excuse me if quickly dashed-off postings are not as fully fleshed out as those by such Creationist heroes as Hillary Clinton.
> I love the way that you guys change the definition of words.
What, you mean "not at all?"
Or do you mean the way the idiotarians have changed the meaning of "theory" to mean "just a guess?"
I will also point out:
"With all these different mechanisms that they have, it’s unlikely that they change willingly over time, as Darwin’s theory says."
For a new idea to challenge an old one... the presenter of the new idea woudl have to understand the old one. Darwinian evolutionary processes do not put forth the idea that genes or organisms change "willingly," anymore than mountains erode "willingly." This statement implies that he's challenging Darwinian evolution in the same way that a guy making a baseball bat with a slightly new shape is challenging the rules of poker.