This is precisely the disillusioning thing about arguing with creationists. It's not pretty and there's no glossing it over.
Presumably on His blessing, you have the right to pretend that your objections are about science when they're obviously not. You have the right to pretend that you don't understand why your arguments are wrong, so you can keep trolling for suckers with them again and again and again. You have the right to ignore anything inconvenient and focus only upon what you imagine helps you. You have the right to pretend not to have assumed any of the preceding rights.
Very disillusioning. Faith in things unseen isn't good for everybody.
You know I'm a Christian and you know I take that very seriously. My life revolves around my relationship with Christ and part of that means I find lying rather reprehensible.
This is precisely the disillusioning thing about arguing with creationists. It's not pretty and there's no glossing it over.
Everybody who disagrees with you is a liar or dumb.
Presumably on His blessing, you have the right to pretend that your objections are about science when they're obviously not.
Because you disagree you resort to ad homenim.
You have the right to pretend that you don't understand why your arguments are wrong, so you can keep trolling for suckers with them again and again and again.
I have the right to be objective and think for myself. You on the other hand demand everybody think like you do.
You have the right to ignore anything inconvenient and focus only upon what you imagine helps you.
Healthy disagreement is good and I encourage it. You on the other hand think anybody who disagrees with you is dumb or lying and resort to attacking the person.
Grow up VadeRetro, grow up.
14. David P. Mindell, Michael D. Sorenson, and Derek E. Dimcheff, “Multiple independent origins of mitchondrial gene order in birds,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95 (1998): 10693-10697.
The genetic information possessed by mitochondria, cell organelles with their own small complement of DNA (in a circular chromosome coding for 37 proteins, usually abbreviated as “mtDNA”), has been widely viewed as a good marker of phylogeny: the historical branching pattern that links organisms. In this study, however, David Mindell of the University of Michigan and his colleagues found that the specific order of mtDNA in birds “has had multiple independent originations...based on sampling of 137 species representing 13 traditionally recognized orders.” This suggests that -- contrary to expectations -- patterns such as gene order may be under functional constraints. If so, mtDNA may be subject to the same kind of historically misleading similarities that affect other types of systematic data. “Our finding of multiple independent origins for a particular mtDNA gene order among diverse birds,” conclude Mindell et al., “and findings by others of convergent evolution for mt sequence duplications in snakes and lizards...suggests that some constraints on gene order mutation are in effect” (p. 10696). This may considerably complicate the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies.
What from the above misrepresents the authors views?
Aaaah Vade the mind reader! Funny how all evolutionists (and all leftists, Clintonites, Communists, etc.) seem to be able to read the hearts of men they have not even met! Makes one wonder what you are doing on these threads if you can really read minds. Such a wonderful ability could be used far more fruitfully in other places.
The above is a long way of saying Vade, that your 'refutation' is just a plain slime because as usual you cannot honestly refute what your opponent has said so you make it personal and then use your non-existent mind reading powers to slime him.