[VadeRetro]

Again, VR, you are engaging in "attacking the messenger." As long as you persist in doing this, we will not be able to consider the merits of any point she has raised that you dispute. Personally, I'd rather be talking about the issues than about Ann.

My statement nowhere addresses Ann's looks, personal behavior, or life. My statement addresses her statements in "Godless" and where they go wrong. What I raise in my statement sums up my issues.

I'm sure you don't remember, but you and I have already discussed every point Ann raises. We have discussed whether or not there are transitioal fossils, whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution is impossible, etc. It is theoretically possible therefore that you could realize that nothing in Ann's book would look like anything but the usual bad creationist pennies I have wearily dissected for the last several years on this forum.

The problems with Ann's work do not reflect well on Ann. You can't make that my problem. I hope that's clear enough.

[betty boop]

We have discussed whether or not there are transitioal fossils, whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics says evolution is impossible, etc. It is theoretically possible therefore that you could realize that nothing in Ann's book would look like anything but the usual bad creationist pennies I have wearily dissected for the last several years on this forum.

I guess that must mean I'm stupid, too -- because I remain unconvinced by your arguments.

In any case, I never said the Second Law of Themodynamics means that evolution is impossible. I also never said that I hold evolution theory to be false. All I have ever said in that regard is that the neo-Darwinist version both claims more than it can justify, and is incomplete.