Replies

As usual you refer to things not in the discussion, not in the current thread - on four posts. The fact is that strong anti-evolution arguments made in this thread have gone totally unchallenged by the evolutionists. The only arguments they have made is character assassination and charges of spamming. Can't you folk defend your theory on its merits?

You are the one who said we never present you with any evidence or references and I simply pointed out that was incorrect. And, I pointed out for those who may not be familiar with your style that on several other threads you have not only been answered, but you were answered with references -- which you claimed never happened. Not only that, I gave a concrete example of you ignoring the evidence presented to you (the hippo/whale thingy). You raise the frustration factor of these debates considerably by these tactics.

These crevo debates are not individual duels with not relevance to one another -- they are part of an overarching, for want of a better word, war. Remember when I said (on another thread) that you appeared to be incapable of seeing the forest for the trees? Your posting above is evidence of that.

As usual you refer to things not in the discussion, not in the current thread - on four posts.

It is somewhat off topic, but as someone pointed out already, the main article is frequently ignored on the crevo threads to dive instantly into the standard back-and-forth. The article of this one seems particularly neglected and I don't wonder, since it nicely analyzes many creationist arguments and finds them deluded.

Speaking of delusions, I guess it's the psych. major in me that makes me wonder what the heck is going on with people. That's the real reason I keep asking you about your bold, blue-highlighted pronouncement that DNA testing had conclusively eliminated hippos as the nearest relative of whales.

I'm not asking because I'm wondering if that's right. I know it's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong. Interestingly, AndrewC has spun a line of logic that uses the close relationship of hippos to whales as an anti-Pakicetus, if not anti-evolution, argument. (It's bogus, but it's worth noting that everything disproves evolution when you're a Data Lawyer dazzling the jury.)

No, I'm asking because you never admit error in your egregiously ill-informed posts. This is perhaps more self-discrediting than the original making of the errors, but you either can't see or can't help yourself.

You've let it go on a long, long time. Why?