Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.

The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.

If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?

false comparison

Explain your ignorant comment ?

 

[daws101]

I was talking about Gravity.

The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.

By explosion do you mean the big bang ?

could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on what direction the object is heading.

 

[daws101]

Can gravity be seen or is it like the wind you can only see it's effects ?

Do you believe the Hebrew language back then can be spoken in the same pattern that english is spoken today ?

two bullshit statements by ywc...
there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.

modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
fun fact! both languages have evolved over time.

I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"

 

[daws101]

If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?

false comparison

Explain your ignorant comment ?

since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .

 

[Youwerecreated]

The universe isn't held together by gravity, like I said, things are moving away from each other as though they came from an explosion. Better luck next time. Please try again soon.

By explosion do you mean the big bang ?

could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on what direction the object is heading.

Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.

 

[Youwerecreated]

two bullshit statements by ywc...
there is no way to directly "see" gravity" as it is not a form of radiation.

modern Hebrew is not spoken in the same pattern as modern English so there is no reason to expect ancient hebrew would.
fun fact! both languages have evolved over time.

I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"

The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.

 

[Youwerecreated]

false comparison

Explain your ignorant comment ?

since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .

Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie is not the only dense one here.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie is not the only dense one here.

Your lack of critical thinking skills is no reason to lash out at me in childish tantrums.

You can't defend your notions of gods, supernaturalism and mysticism. That's your fault, no one else's.

 

[Hollie]

I did not say you can see gravity, What I said was you can see it's effects.

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"

The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.

That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.

 

[daws101]

By explosion do you mean the big bang ?

could be...but....ever heard planetary collision?
another fun fact! everything in the universe is moving everywhere all the time.
the phenomenon our new friend is talking about is called red or blue shift depending on what direction the object is heading.

Nonsense, the planets in our solar system travel the same direction on the same plane. How do you explain Venus and Uranus traveling on the same plane,going the same direction,but spinning the opposite direction of other planets ? Defies logic if it was the product of an explosion and this contradicts your comment above.

you truly are ignorant .

 

[daws101]

Explain your ignorant comment ?

since it's not an ignorant comment and self explanitory ,there is no need .

Enlighten us or once again did you make an ignorant comment and are now just catching on ?

asked and answerd ..

"If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from nature, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?" ur
if you can't see the misconceptions and flaws in logic in the above statement.. then it's not surprising you're a silly ****.

 

[daws101]

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"

The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.

That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.

it's in the capt obvious course.
actually you can "see" the air or wind, next time you barbecue and the coals are red look at the heat ripples rising from the lid or the grill.

 

[LOki]

WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.

First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."

Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.

Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.

Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't.

You consider this observation invalid?

Yes.

In what way is this observation invalid?

You attempt to prove this assumption with your assumption.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution.

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.​

You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.

You seem to be a moron.

Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above.

Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

This is the last time I a going to explain this to you, pumpkin.

If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.

No cheesecake, that only species with more "fitness" survive long enough to pass on their dna.

I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.

I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument.

WHAT ******* ARGUMENT?

The observation that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations?

That's not an argument ... it's an observation.

The argument that evolution can be tested, donut.

Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?

What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I asked you to provide me with a testable definition of fitness largely accepted by the scientific community. You epically failed.

No I didn't.

The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.

However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

All of your links employ the same basic flawed reasoning, i.e., the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here.

NONE employed that reasoning.

But you can't prove this is true and therefore you can't even begin to say there is evidence for evolution. Why are you having such a difficult time following the argument? Did you go off your meds again?

There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove.

Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.

Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.

You mean like the theory of evolution we have been talking about for the last 500 pages??

Yes.

Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... ******* DEFINITIVE!

NO! We need to define what constitutes fitness, ...

This has been done for you.

... and that isn't your "just so" stories or circular proof, ...

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!

... before you can began to claim that some trait was kept because it made the organism more fit. If you don't have a workable definition, how can you make your silly claims that the giraffe survived because its longer neck allowed it to reach higher fruit or run faster or whatever.

There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.

Your whole "fact" of evolution is based on guesses as to what traits contribute to an organisms fitness.

No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.

Your pseudo science starts from the assumption that evolution has to be true ...

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

... (not setting out to prove it is true) ...

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

... so you look at the giraffe and observe it has a long neck. There is no other reason for his long neck other than evolution.

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.

The theory of evolution tells us the long neck HAD to contribute to the giraffe's fitness in it's environment.Otherwise, it wouldn't have a long neck.

No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?

Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.

The assumption of evolution is present prior to the observation.

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!

AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.

And it definitely isn't testable under any REAL scientific method I am aware of.

Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?

This birth's the "just so" stories that are presented as fact in school textbooks.

"Just so stories" is your invention too.

And we are back to square one after all your hand waving and link pasting and that is: The long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.

Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?

Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?

I'm not.

"And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist “can judge reliably which ‘characters’ are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.”

“What is required is an experimental program of unpacking ‘fitness.’ This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.”[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."

It looks like this might be happening.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."

Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrae this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?

 

[LOki]

Humor me, give me one example.

Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.

In your dreams.

No. Right here and here.

Seriously. I've not seen 101 rebuttals from you. (101 denials of reality don't count.)

 

[UltimateReality]

There are many more "scoffers" because religions simply don't have ability to instill the paralyzing fear they once had. As knowledge has peeled back the layers of superstition that define religious belief, we have come to understand that natural events (planetary eclipse, tornadoes, thunder, lightning, etc.), are not the results of angry gods but are forces of nature. We largely understand those forces and events. If you want to know the date and time of every lunar eclipse in the next 1,000 years, you could consult a fundie (who might tell you "it's up to the will of the gods" and may want to slaughter a lamb ), or you could ask an astronomer who will explain the orbits of planets around the sun and the coincidence of planets in those orbits.

The instillation of fear as a means to enforce religious belief is still a tactic, but that tactic is much less effective when science counters fear and ignorance with knowledge and reason.

If humans randomly come from nature, and circuit boards, spaceships, and engines comes from humans, don't circuit boards, spaceships, and engines come from nature?

false comparison

I had a typo. See above.

 

[UltimateReality]

your lying :"Can gravity be seen"

The wind cannot be seen either only it's effects.

That must be one of the more profound things they teach at Harun Yahya.

You should know since your online degree Is from there.

 

[UltimateReality]

WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.

First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."

Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.

Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.

In what way is this observation invalid?

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.​

You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.

You seem to be a moron.

Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.

I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.

Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?

No I didn't.

The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.

However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

NONE employed that reasoning.

There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove.

Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.

Yes.

This has been done for you.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!

There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.

No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.

No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?

Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.

Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?

"Just so stories" is your invention too.

Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?

Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?

I'm not.

"And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist “can judge reliably which ‘characters’ are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.”

“What is required is an experimental program of unpacking ‘fitness.’ This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.”[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."

It looks like this might be happening.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."

Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrae this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?

There are so many things wrong with your responses I don't even know where to begin. I won't waste my time anymore trying to reason with a total moron who keeps responding while simultaneously claiming he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

But just a few preposterous things a cursory read reveals:

You post numerous links for DIFFERENT definitions of fitness but claim there is consensus in the scientific community.

Anytime you get backed into a corner you scream strawman. This may work on ignorant people, but since you never actually explain why it's a strawman with evidence, any casual observer can't be falling for your distraction technique.

In order for traits to continue in an organism that organism must reproduce. That means the organism must survive until reproductive maturity. Evolution assumes that the more fit specimen in a specific species survives longer than less fit specimens, thus giving it more time to reproduce more offspring. Therefore one can deduce, based on the principles of evolution, that the giraffes long neck offered some reproductive advantage. According to evolutionary theory, if the long neck didn't offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not have survived. Please explain where the strawman lies here.

Sorry I couldn't address more but I am typing from my iPad while traveling and just can't take the time for the typing needed to break this down to a 3rd grade comprehension level.

 

[UltimateReality]

Doubletap

 

[LOki]

I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.

First, I clearly demonstrated that there are plenty of sources where a definition for fitness can be found ... despite your obtuse insistence that you "... couldn't find anything."

Secondly, your strawman caricature of fitness in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used by population geneticists, hence in NO WAY invalidates the actual concept as used evolutionary theorists.

Fitness is not an argument. It is a description. It has a useful definitition. The fact that you can't find one (ANYWHERE, apparently) amongst the many provided, suggests that you are profoundly retarded.

In what way is this observation invalid?

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.​

You seem to be asserting here that an organism's phenotypes have unverified, untested, and entirely assumed effects upon that organism's successful reproduction. You seem to be asserting that the link between phenotype and genotype has NEVER been tested; has NEVER been confirmed; is ONLY an assumption that is used to "prove" some "other" assumption.

You seem to be a moron.

Fitness is not an argument. So, ... WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

If you never again try to explain evolution to me in your intellectually dishonest manner, it will be too soon.

I suppose if fitness was actually a hypothesis or theory, then it could be falsifable (hence not a circular argument) if someone could demonstrate how genetic information can be passed to the next generation from member of a population that failed to survive.

Evolution CAN be tested. WTF is wrong with you?

No I didn't.

The fact that you have zero concept of what definition means, in no way disqualifies ANY of the links I provided to you.

However, if you meant to say "measured" rather than "tested," I provided that too. If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

NONE employed that reasoning.

There is no disproving the strawman arguments you purposfully engineer to not be proveable, and then require me to disprove.

Since you're the one making up these arguments ... YOU disprove them.

Yes.

This has been done for you.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Your own made-up nonsense about evolution? That shit isn't my responsibility ... it's YOURS!

There IS a definition for fitness ... I have no idea what your problem could possibly be.

No. Why don't you get an education--somewhere outside of Sunday School--about evolution.

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

Evolutionists don't do this either. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

You're just griping because they won't invent a creator and call it "science," and they won't accept your imaginary superfriend as any kind of scientific explanation for anything.

No it doesn't. Why do you make this shit up?

Oh yeah ... that's how you deal with everything.

No. Evolution does not conform to your intellectually dishonest Intelligent-Design paradigm of what constitutes science.

AND ... It's NOT what evolution claims either. Your insistence that evolution puts the cart before the horse is just another one of your desperate strawmen.

Well what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be testable under any REAL scientific method ANYONE is aware of?

"Just so stories" is your invention too.

Well, what do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to be tautological? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented and engineered to not be falsifiable? What do you expect from the version of evolution YOU invented that is founded upon "the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce"?

Are you really surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out just the way you engineered it to?

I'm not.

It looks like this might be happening.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."

Yet despite your every opportunity to do so, you just refuse to demonstrate this with any kind of intellectual rigor. Why is that, Cupcake?

There are so many things wrong with your responses I don't even know where to begin.

Just another case where you rationalize an excuse for your inability to present any substantive account for how I am wrong.

I won't waste my time anymore trying to reason with a total moron who keeps responding while simultaneously claiming he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

I would find it ALOT easier to respond to you if you knew what you were talking about.

But just a few preposterous things a cursory read reveals:

You post numerous links for DIFFERENT definitions of fitness but claim there is consensus in the scientific community.

Anytime you get backed into a corner you scream strawman. This may work on ignorant people, but since you never actually explain why it's a strawman with evidence, any casual observer can't be falling for your distraction technique.

You backed me into nowhere, retard. While I don't have to explain--certainly not to you--why your inventions are your inventions, the fact of reality you refuse to acknowledge is that I often do anyway. <---This link posted earlier, is posted for you again.

In order for traits to continue in an organism that organism must reproduce. That means the organism must survive until reproductive maturity.

Why do you present this as if it's contentious?

Evolution assumes that the more fit specimen in a specific species survives longer than less fit specimens, thus giving it more time to reproduce more offspring.

Strawman. Specifically explained to you earlier, BTW.

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.​

Therefore one can deduce, based on the principles of evolution, that the giraffes long neck offered some reproductive advantage. According to evolutionary theory, if the long neck didn't offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not have survived. Please explain where the strawman lies here.

There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."

Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!

The presence of skin among all humans is only contentious under this principle of your particular bullshit version of evolution.

Got that, Pumpkin? Has it now been sufficiently illuminated that the strawman you invented is your invention?

Are you really still surprised that your invention--your "just so" story--turned out to be plain crap, just the way you engineered it to be?

I'm not.

Sorry I couldn't address more but I am typing from my iPad while traveling and just can't take the time for the typing needed to break this down to a 3rd grade comprehension level.

Right.