Replies

Will the real gore please step forward! Gore number one?

I will say that you and your fellow evos are a bunch of cowards who go around attacking someone personally while hiding behind your pseudonyms.

Or Gore number two?

Anyone who clicks on your home page sees something whiter than white.
And purposely so. I know the kind of people I am dealing with and I know that they are always looking for dirt for personal attacks. I am not interested in such juvenile and deplorable behavior so I neither look for nor offer opportunities for them.

What an utterly craven, blatantly hypocritical performance!

"The facts upon which evolution theory is based are rather well established. Mutations happen. They really do. And new species appear over time, really. And they appear in form and DNA to be related to pre-existing species. No joke, that's the evidence. In every generation, those best suited for the game of life are most likely to breed the next generation. Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

What trash---folly...

"the fact was that the eye had evolved and therefore the mathematical difficulties must be only apparent. Ernst Mayr observed that Ulam's calculations were based on assumptions that might be unfounded, and concluded that "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred."

No sane person could believe this madness/drool!

You got him on that one, but you are still down about 15-5 in the threads I've seen. I'm talking about the issues of substance on the thread, - how solid is the proof that currently described evo mechanisms explain what we see?

Most of his losses came in his early days. I respect you guys as worthy opponents, and I think you should respect him as one too. He IS. He maybe got caught on this point, but not on the issue of the thread. Not on the substnace of this debate.

The proposed bird ancestors you show come along AFTER birds, or much more bird-like creatures, are already around. That and the ostrich digit study (showing that birds and dinos have different digits that develop) should tilt the evidence away from ANY of the dinos shown as being a bird ancestor.

Even the evo authors of that ostrich study say that. They think the 'common ancestor' must be pushed so far back that it was something that gave rise to both birds and dinos.

Your standard of proof seems to be 'if I can show you anything that looks like it could be a graduated series (even we know it does not belong in that series) then you must accept evoltion as fact'. If I am reluctant to accept such a flimsy standard of "proof" then I am a person who is trying to "ignore the evidence".

I am calling on gore3000 and all of you to stop with the personal insults and debate the evidence like civilized people. Please?