Replies

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?

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

microgood: So you were lying when you posted all those supposed transitional fossils.

Always, always you bludgeon with your ability to misunderstand. This doesn't make you a scientist. It simply forces people to ask themselves whether you're telling the truth about what you know. Did no one before me ever try to explain this stuff to you? You've said as much. That seems improbable, given that you've been on these threads a bit. And yet you really don't seem to know anything.

Will you be back again dumb as a stump on the next thread claiming no one ever explains evolution to you? Even if we believe that, again, how do you know it's wrong if no one has ever even explained it to you and you've never tried to Google it on your own or went to the library and checked out a non-cretinist book?

What's supposed to be a lie about the fossil evidence? How do petrified bones lie?

The fossils posted inline and/or linked are real. Those arranged in a series occur in the fossil record in the order shown. They indeed show a transformation in progress. Creationist strawman versions of evolution like yours and antihannity's say this progress should reveal a dinosaur changing into a bird or a mouse changing into a bat--one actual individual or mouse fossilized mid-transformation in one generation. And how would the fossil of one individual even show that? All a fossil can do is just lay there.

Evolution says whole populations change over time. The average genetic makeup of the average individual within the population changes. "A shift in allele frequences," is a common term. I prefer the classical Darwinian "variation and natural selection," which is still accurate anyway.

So now you're going to know this, right? Wrong! You're a back-again-dumb-as-a-stumper.

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.

Puctuated equilibrium is a Darwinian model. I suppose no one has ever tried to tell you about that, either. I post the following web sites so the lurkers can learn something. One thing they'll learn is that there's no excuse for you showing up on the next thread as ignorant as you are today, which you will do come Hell or high water.

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium, including lots of links to lots of examples.

All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost). Nicely documents how little new there is to punk-eek.

I am not a creationist.

No, you're a lying a$$hole.

I just do not believe evolution is correct.

People generally don't twist themselves into pretzel shapes for no reason. Your behavior is absolutely classic militant Holy Warrior Syndrome. Think more about what your story is before the next thread where you show up knowing nothing nothing nothing but spewing away nevertheless.