Destroying Darwinism: Getting Technical

OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Really?
WHICH Portion of her OP did she write?
All the 'relevant' material was her usual (indeed infinitely Redundant) Out of Context quote snippets.
She NEVER can discuss evolution, merely paste up additional nonsensical quote snippets, with her usual Retarded vertical spacing. (for the illusion of more content)

The Only source/Link she posted was "CreationMinisteries".
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
You consider that "good source" on Science/evolution?

Another CLOWN.
`
You still have not responded to the OP.
And YOU have just 100% Whiffed on our exchange.
100% Conspicuous Cop out.
Another Creationist FRAUD caught Lying.
You FILTHY POS, you accused me of being dishonest but can't back up Your claim about me, or her.

As to the OP.. what do you want me to respond to?
Some ridiculous quotes from an Idiot German Creationist 'Gitt', who is NOT even a Bio-science person?
`



As pointed out constantly.....you haven't responded to the scientifically accurate OP my little proto-coprolite.

But I realize why:
Your so stupid, that you'd get fired from the M & M factory for throwing away all the W's.


I find that stupidity is a prime requisite for fanatics like you.
Have you noticed that too?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.


"What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory."



Sorry, dude....but that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

An hypothesis is open to testing.



I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.


You may consider me a solid wall of noncompliance.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.


"What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory."



Sorry, dude....but that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

An hypothesis is open to testing.



I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.


You may consider me a solid wall of noncompliance.
You aren't testing a hypothesis. You are throwing shit into a fan in an attempt to make something stick.

What is really obnoxious about this is that your motives aren't scientific. You aren't interested in the search for knowledge. You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too.

Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.; you can understand the good laugh I had about your opinion on my understanding of science.
 

Big Black Dog

Gold Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
23,293
Reaction score
7,828
Points
340
Does this mean that Dwarf tossing or Dwarf bowling is going to go away?
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Nothing PC writes can overturn the destruction of Bishop Wilberforce's strategic blunder on Origin of Species by T. H. Huxley, who, when apprised of the blunder, reportedly said, "The Lord hath delivered him into my hands,", and then tore Wilberforce's argument to shreds.

The fact remains that ID, creationism, or creation science (call it what you wish) exists only in a religious mindset and cannot be taught as science in the public school science class room.

I do defend PC's right to have her beliefs taught in public schools' liberal arts and humanities classrooms.
I wholeheartedly support it being taught in comedy school.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.


"What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory."



Sorry, dude....but that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

An hypothesis is open to testing.



I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.


You may consider me a solid wall of noncompliance.
You aren't testing a hypothesis. You are throwing shit into a fan in an attempt to make something stick.

What is really obnoxious about this is that your motives aren't scientific. You aren't interested in the search for knowledge. You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too.

Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.; you can understand the good laugh I had about your opinion on my understanding of science.




1."your motives aren't scientific."
Let's dispense with any notion that your inclinations have anything to do with science.
My 'motives,' whatever you imagine them to be, have nothing to do with the facts and questions posed by the OP.

In reality you are merely seeking to obfuscate the fact that you have no answers for same.
You've danced around the questions and attempted to make the argument about me.

Let's be honest: you're a dope.


2. "You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too."
Another fib....with the same purpose as exposed above.

And to prove it....my 'agenda' is right there in the title....you know, the words that inflamed you.
AND...the reason they inflamed you is that you believe in Darwinism...yet can't defend it.


3. "Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.;..."
First, I have never mentioned my degree...

...second, M.D., in your case, clearly stands for Mundane Drivel.



4. "...your opinion on my understanding of science."

Hardly my opinion....I'll prove it. I'll put up post with the four questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.





Read post 32 if you dare.....and quake in your shoes.
 
Last edited:
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.
Just out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?





1. "...what is your scientific background?"

It's clear that it is of greater depth than yours, eh?


2. I have a great idea....how about you don't change the subject?

You really haven't handled the OP....

as with the other dunce, I'll post the questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.


That'll settle any question about our 'scientific backgrounds.'
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.
Just out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?


I'm about to destroy you....

Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.




Let's review:

A well constructed scientific critique of Darwinian evolution reveals the weaknesses that have make a number of experts discard said theory.

Objects of two varieties popped up:
a. aspersions aimed at your humble messenger,
and b. suggestions that the critique is based on religion.


Of course, there was no reference to religion, leading one to believe that criticism of Darwinism serves as a personal affront to the less intelligent.





And none of those who objected to the OP dared to address the questions raised. These include:


1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?




2. Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?




3. All of those new and original organs and body forms each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.

a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous." 5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?




4. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?




"...great questions often make very good science.

Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions



I just proved which of us is a scientist, and that you, merely an acolyte.
 

Steven_R

Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
4,852
Reaction score
922
Points
245
I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.
Just out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?





1. "...what is your scientific background?"

It's clear that it is of greater depth than yours, eh?


2. I have a great idea....how about you don't change the subject?

You really haven't handled the OP....

as with the other dunce, I'll post the questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.


That'll settle any question about our 'scientific backgrounds.'
I'm just trying to gauge how much formal science training you've had. You're complaining about other's lack of scientific understanding, but what about your understanding? Did you take any science classes in college? Elective classes in high school? Were you home schooled and never exposed to science? Watch Nova every now and then?

Just how much exposure to science have you really had?

Me? I always had an interest in science and took the standard Bio/Chem/Phys course in high school and an elective Marine Biology class (I got to dissect a shark!). Despite that, my first degree was a BA in History, so I took the bare minimum of science classes, which ended up being an intro to Astronomy, Geology (aka Rocks for Jocks), and some class in environmental impact on life.

The degree I am currently working on is a BS in Physics, which I should complete in December. Outside of the physics, I took Chemistry I & II, and will end up with a minor in mathematics.
 

NoNukes

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
12,794
Reaction score
1,402
Points
255
Location
At the computer
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

[......]
.
`
I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.

`
This is not the first such thread, but one of her favorite subjects.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Just out of curiosity, what is your scientific background?





1. "...what is your scientific background?"

It's clear that it is of greater depth than yours, eh?


2. I have a great idea....how about you don't change the subject?

You really haven't handled the OP....

as with the other dunce, I'll post the questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.


That'll settle any question about our 'scientific backgrounds.'
I'm just trying to gauge how much formal science training you've had. You're complaining about other's lack of scientific understanding, but what about your understanding? Did you take any science classes in college? Elective classes in high school? Were you home schooled and never exposed to science? Watch Nova every now and then?

Just how much exposure to science have you really had?

Me? I always had an interest in science and took the standard Bio/Chem/Phys course in high school and an elective Marine Biology class (I got to dissect a shark!). Despite that, my first degree was a BA in History, so I took the bare minimum of science classes, which ended up being an intro to Astronomy, Geology (aka Rocks for Jocks), and some class in environmental impact on life.

The degree I am currently working on is a BS in Physics, which I should complete in December. Outside of the physics, I took Chemistry I & II, and will end up with a minor in mathematics.


Still trying to change the subject?


Geezz...you must have been filled with fear when you saw post #32.....


Good.


What is clear is that the issue at hand is over your head.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
DISHONEST PoliticalChic is NONCONVERSANT on evolution.
Her program is merely Pasting OUT of Context quotes from whack job Genesis/Jesus Freak websites.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994


`
I repeat, Politicalchic is DISHONEST and NONCONVERSANT on Evolution.
She cannot Debate or discuss it AT ALL, never has.
She Merely pastes up UNCONTEXTED Quote snippet Sequences she Hijacked from some LOON site.

`
This is not the first such thread, but one of her favorite subjects.





Beside the one on top of your head....what is your point?



And my favorite subject is moi.
 

NoNukes

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
12,794
Reaction score
1,402
Points
255
Location
At the computer
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.


"What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory."



Sorry, dude....but that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

An hypothesis is open to testing.



I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.


You may consider me a solid wall of noncompliance.
You are always a solid wall of noncompliance when someone gets the best of you.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
1."your motives aren't scientific."
Let's dispense with any notion that your inclinations have anything to do with science.
My 'motives,' whatever you imagine them to be, have nothing to do with the facts and questions posed by the OP.

In reality you are merely seeking to obfuscate the fact that you have no answers for same.
You've danced around the questions and attempted to make the argument about me.

Let's be honest: you're a dope.


2. "You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too."
Another fib....with the same purpose as exposed above.

And to prove it....my 'agenda' is right there in the title....you know, the words that inflamed you.
AND...the reason they inflamed you is that you believe in Darwinism...yet can't defend it.


3. "Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.;..."
First, I have never mentioned my degree...

...second, M.D., in your case, clearly stands for Mundane Drivel.



4. "...your opinion on my understanding of science."

Hardly my opinion....I'll prove it. I'll put up post with the four questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.





Read post 32 if you dare.....and quake in your shoes.
To be clear, you aren't making any novel arguments against evolution. You are tossing out the same academically dishonest crap that creationists (or proponents of intelligent design) often toss out to try and muddy the waters.

As you have no background in the natural sciences, I could understand how an ordinary person could be confused by all of these items. However, you are intelligent enough to know exactly what you are doing. Watching you be intentionally obtuse is not terribly inspiring or interesting to those of us who know better.

As an aside, when did you become so easily flustered? Perhaps you are experiencing some cognitive decline as you progress into the golden years?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Ugh. The same, stale, boring logical canards thrown out by the enemies of the Scientific Method that have been quashed soooooooo many time get re-introduced to the naive who think they are novel and insurgent counter arguments.

Congrats PoliChic, no one has ever approached this argument from the basis of the questioning the Cambrian Explosion or that claiming that the fossil record isn't just complete enough....

I won't waste time and bandwidth regurgitating peer reviewed literature that covers all of this. You can find that yourself if you are truly interested (which I doubt).

What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory.


"What is your alternative hypothesis? It's not sufficient just to cast stones without offering a counter theory."



Sorry, dude....but that is exactly what the scientific method entails.

An hypothesis is open to testing.



I doubt the wisdom of following the instructions of one like you who has such a poor understanding of science.


You may consider me a solid wall of noncompliance.
You are always a solid wall of noncompliance when someone gets the best of you.


I'll be interested to observe if that event ever happens.


I'll also be looking forward to seeing your picture on a milk carton.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1."your motives aren't scientific."
Let's dispense with any notion that your inclinations have anything to do with science.
My 'motives,' whatever you imagine them to be, have nothing to do with the facts and questions posed by the OP.

In reality you are merely seeking to obfuscate the fact that you have no answers for same.
You've danced around the questions and attempted to make the argument about me.

Let's be honest: you're a dope.


2. "You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too."
Another fib....with the same purpose as exposed above.

And to prove it....my 'agenda' is right there in the title....you know, the words that inflamed you.
AND...the reason they inflamed you is that you believe in Darwinism...yet can't defend it.


3. "Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.;..."
First, I have never mentioned my degree...

...second, M.D., in your case, clearly stands for Mundane Drivel.



4. "...your opinion on my understanding of science."

Hardly my opinion....I'll prove it. I'll put up post with the four questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.





Read post 32 if you dare.....and quake in your shoes.
To be clear, you aren't making any novel arguments against evolution. You are tossing out the same academically dishonest crap that creationists (or proponents of intelligent design) often toss out to try and muddy the waters.

As you have no background in the natural sciences, I could understand how an ordinary person could be confused by all of these items. However, you are intelligent enough to know exactly what you are doing. Watching you be intentionally obtuse is not terribly inspiring or interesting to those of us who know better.

As an aside, when did you become so easily flustered? Perhaps you are experiencing some cognitive decline as you progress into the golden years?





1. Still tap-dancing to hide the fact that this is not a subject you understand.

Let's see.....four questions....you answered....mmmmm.....none.

Grade: zero.


2. "Watching you be intentionally obtuse...."

Your post, upon given the opportunity to support Darwinism....and you use the phrase "intentionally obtuse".......

Priceless.


The concept of irony has spent the entirety of its existence waiting for you to come along and give it meaning.



But....I did enjoy forcing you to reveal how little you know.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top