[VadeRetro]

I've read alot about speciation and species and that is another area where evolutionists talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Where? At ICR? AiG? Why don't you know the first thing about it?

That funny half-a-claw half-a-wing fossil? There were once lots and lots and lots and lots of those. A whole population over some large area in China. Populations evolve, and it's gradual in the generation-by-generation sense if not always the geological sense.

First you show us a fossil of a something halfway between one species and another.

I was throwing antihannity's dumb-bleeping back in his face. Evolution does not mean one day a dinosaur somewhere in the world turned into a bird. Only a creationist could be this clueless, know it himself, and still be sure he's right.

The worse news is you aren't even doing creation science wrong. You're doing it about average.

And you say I am the idiot.

It's worth repeating. You are the idiot.

[microgood]

I was throwing antihannity's dumb-bleeping back in his face.

So you were lying when you posted all those supposed transitional fossils. That is good to know for future reference that you admit there are not transitional fossils... because evolution does not work that way.

So now if I go along with gradual evolution than you have to see transitional fossils but you have just stated there aren't any so I have to buy into punctuated equilibrium, which is good for you evolutionists because then I would not see any fossils. I guess this means you are a punctuated equilibrium type like Gould.

The worse news is you aren't even doing creation science wrong. You're doing it about average.

I am not a creationist. I just do not believe evolution is correct. Science does well when its theories can be verified empirically, and macroevolution cannot.

It's worth repeating. You are the idiot.

Since you admitted you are a liar, are you sure you are not lying when you call me an idiot?

[antihannityguy]

First of all your picture of the skull has no label no caption so I have no idea what I am supposed to claim what it is not.

Second Why the personal attacks you sound like a liberal just personal attacking instead of having a polite discourse.

Third The way that most Darwinists today claim that species evolve is through mutations. Mutations are too rare to be produce even the necessary traits for just one life form to survive let alone the thousand upon thousands of species in the world today. Mutations are almost always harmful, and they are never beneficial. NOT ONCE has there ever been a truly beneficial mutation documeted out of the hundreds of thousands of experiements done. Sickle Cell Anemia is the "one good" mutation evolutionists point too, but it causes serious anemia, pain and death in those aflicted with it