Replies

>>Still not goign to address any of the issue brought up eh? Whatever<<

You won’t and still you insult yourself and people who read you.

I have made it clear what real science requires. I can’t do anything if you don’t understand basic science well enough to meet the tiny challenges I have posted. It isn’t about insulting (your posts indict you more deeply than anything I could ever say — in form and content), it is about how your imagined logic applies to hard scientific processes and procedures.

I have patiently explained these to you and yours over and over. I can’t help you if you can’t understand them.

But keep disrespecting yourself. Your posts look like a baby who keeps soiling himself while smiling and saying “I did a poopy!”

You have the tools — I even described them to you. If you choose not to use them then we know your agenda. And you are so gonna get it when mommy (who knows if you have a daddy — your “look at me” issues suggest not) comes downstairs and finds you are wasting real grown-up’s time again.

[[But keep disrespecting yourself. Your posts look like a baby who keeps soiling himself while smiling and saying “I did a poopy!”

And you are so gonna get it when mommy (who knows if you have a daddy — your “look at me” issues suggest not) comes downstairs and finds you are wasting real grown-up’s time again.]]

As I mentioend in previous post- I really don’t liek discussing anythign with you because you start off reasonable enough- but the more facts refute your claims- them ore you turn to childish insults and avoiding the issues

[[I have made it clear what real science requires.]]

You have doen no such thing- All you’ve done is deny deny deny without giving ANY evidnece whatsoever that life was able to violate chemical biological and natural laws- ALL you’ve doen is insist it did- You’ve avoided the issues right from the beginning, and done nothign but obsess over my spelling and insinuating that creationsits ‘don’t understand science’- Sorry- but any 5 year old can make those kinds of lame generalized ‘arguments’- so don’t flatter yourself- Let’s see the evidnece that chemicals purified themselves soemhow- let’s see the science behind nature providing the means for htose chemicals to purify themselves- let’s see the evidence that amino acids made the biologically impossible leap to protiens- let’s see the evidence that shows nature was able to violate the second law trillions of times- let’s see th3e evidence that nautre weas able to trnasfer metainformation to species so they coudl remain fit and antipiating problems down the road-

Again- you’ll simply wave all this away and insist that somehow 10 million other scientists who also IGNORE these impossibilities equates to the impossible hypothesis of Macorevol,ution being true without providing ANY evidnece that it coudkl had accomplished even one of the above problems it faces- ASSUMPTIONS are apaprently al lthat is needed in your brand of ‘science’, and when you can’t provide evidence, then just resort to name calling and attackign someone’s typing skills- Yep- what a winniong strategy you’ve got goign for yourself therte- Not! (Oh, and oyu’ve got a lot of nerve statign that others ‘don’t understand hte science’ when you can’t even provide basic answers to basic problems that macroevolution faces- foot stomping aint gonna cut it here fella- let’s see some evidenece- Any child can hurl insults- let’s see some real grown up ‘science’ come from you for once- step it up a notch (not that I expect you will- but meh- do what you want- your continued aversion to the issues speaks volumes!)