In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution. In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision. In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not. In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis.
Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully. Even a good comedy gets tiresome with repetitions.
To which I responded at great length in post #118.
annalex: "In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision."
To which I responded at even greater length in post #125.
annalex: "In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not."
Those, plus your posts #126 and 128 I responded to at incredible length in my posts #125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135."
annalex: "In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis."
I responded at great length to all nine of your posts between #134 and 176.
See my posts #137, 139, 152, 153, 162, 171, 173, 175 & 177.
annalex: "Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully."
I note with interest that you consider "ridicule" a method of "successful" response to scientific arguments.
In fact, all ten of my posts from #179 to #200 are cogent, coherent thoughtful and lengthy responses to each of your arguments, "word salads" and ridicule (or ridiculous) posts.
Nothing you've claimed remains unanswered, but no answer matters to you, does it -- because actual science is not what you care about.
Discrediting science is what you care about, isn't it?