[gore3000]

I find it wildly amusing at how you and your fellow evolutionists keep trying to turn an ellipsis into a circle. You all seem to be quite good at it and certainly put quite a lot of effort into it. Seems that evolutionists are constantly practicing their semantics in an attempt to square a circle. Evolutionists of course need to constantly sharpen their semantics in order to prove something which they have absolutely no proof of - the transformation of one organism into another.

[longshadow]

I find it wildly amusing at how you and your fellow evolutionists keep trying to turn an ellipsis into a circle. [snip]

I find it wildy amusing that you were unable to refute a single word of my post to you.

Once more, since you seem to be unable to comprehend this: circles are a type of ellipse, specifically with eccentricity = 0.

Your characterization of the planets having "wildly elliptical" orbits was "wildly" innaccurate. Most of them are "nearly circular" as "Junior" said they were. The data provided by "RadioAstronomer" substantiates this.

I DARE YOU TO PING HIM IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.

[medved]

Evolutionists of course need to constantly sharpen their semantics in order to prove something which they have absolutely no proof of - the transformation of one organism into another.

There was a scene in the Wizard of Id in which the spook in the dungeon asked a newcomer what he was in for and the later replied "Transmuting base metal into gold..."

By what process??!!" asked the spook.

"Counterfitting" replied the newcomer.

Maybe that's the approach the evos need to look into. I mean, Darwinism is flatly falsified by the fossil record, Gouldism is patently idiotic, and even Stevensism appears to be fairly limited in explainatory power.