"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

he is also dead and he also never called evolution pseudo-science.

Yes where i said he is living, your claim are just like evolution, guesswork and chance

Here is exact evidence

Pierre P. de Grasse wrote:

“Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case.” —*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202. Pierre Grasse (1895-1985). Editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie” Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.

Wicknight wrote: »

then to copy and paste inaccurate quotes from Creationist websites, particularly when these quotes are, as in this instance, out right lies.

Even in a book of lies sometimes you find truth. There is indeed a season for all things

please also check this link, It isn't creationist site, isn't?
http://andrasik.oldpaths.net/English/OSU2008_files/frame.htm please check serial no 5

Wicknight wrote: »

If you truly do know a lot about evolution (enough to say to Robin's sister that her 15 years work has been storytelling for example) .

Why you are repeating the past in fact i had clear that there is difference scientist and evolutionist. In fact you are defending you faith i.e evolution which has become a religion.

Galvasean

dead one wrote: »

In fact you are defending you faith i.e evolution which has become a religion.

Kevin Myers, is that you?

Galvasean

As a side note, the way certain religious people label things that are clearly not religions as religions it makes me wonder if they have any clue as to what they are on about in relation to anything.

MrPudding

dead one wrote: »

Here is exact evidence

Really, there is no excuse...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

And besides, so what if he does not agree? So what if he prefers an alternative theory? None of that takes away from the fact that the evidence shows that the theory of evolution is correct.

No matter what the idea is, in any field, and no matter what the evidence is there will always be those who read it differently. For example, there are a relatively small number of people that think the holocaust did not happen. So, dead one, does the existence of holocaust deniers cause you to disregard all the evidence we have that there was, in fact, a holocaust?

MrP

coffee_cake

"Evolution is a religion, and religion means it's inaccurate, so you should believe in my religion instead"
okayyyy
Good logic there lads

Galvasean

bluewolf wrote: »

"Evolution is a religion, and religion means it's inaccurate, so you should believe in my religion instead"
okayyyy
Good logic there lads

I have noticed a tendency among some religious folk to label things like evolution and atheism as religions as if were a bad thing. It's almost like saying, "Look, you're as bad as me!"
They obviously can't level up to the playing field, so they try drag their opponents down.

dead one

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

.
Please tell us how nothing substantial in biology is explained by natural
selection in this video:

video wrote:

.Since mutation occur at a low rate closely related spiece should use the same condone simple because there has not been enough time for divergence. Just one of piece of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Think about it

Here are my thoughts
Mutation occurs at a rate of one for every ten million cell duplications. This is an insignificant number when compared to 100 trillion cells in a human body. Thus, the chance of having a couple of cells with a mutated form for every gene is possible without any noticeable effect. The reproduction system is a simple and powerful information system within the DNA molecule and it is a very stable system for transmitting that information. Mutations are very rare.
Researchers have by means of genetic breeding, changed a two-wing fruit fly into a four-wing fruit fly. The four-wing fruit fly consistently reproduces four-winged fruit flies. But although a new species has been produced, it is not a new “kind.” The mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. As a matter of fact, the four-winged fruit fly is a weakened form. The second set of wings do not help the fruit fly; they actually get in the way. Its ability to take flight is dangerously hindered. Having been selectively bred in the laboratory, this species will also not survive without the caring assistance of researchers. This is a poor example of evolution by mutation. The bottom line is that mutations always weaken an organism and never change it into something else. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
Beneficial Mutations?
Sickle Cell Anemia is often presented as an example of a favorable mutation. This is because red blood cells carry a sickle cell hemoglobin mutation that resists malaria. Although it resists malaria, 25 percent of those who have this mutant gene can still get the disease. Many have a hard time calling this a beneficial mutation when it brings with it a 25 percent chance of death. Sickle cell anemia causes a sickle shape hemoglobin molecule that bonds to another producing an enlarged molecular structure that cannot pass through the capillary walls. This condition occurs when the oxygen supply is low. How can a diseased hemoglobin molecule that was processed with incorrect information in the DNA be called a benefit to any body? This defect itself can kill a person.
No New Information
A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.
Apes to Humans?
An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable, one might conclude, if we assume the claim to be true, that evolutionists have a point. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

video wrote:

.Protein sequence has produced through tranlation of non over rapping degenrate tripple code......

The Amazing Protein
The protein molecule adds structure and function to every living cell. It is a long molecule that contains many subunit molecules all bonded together. These subunit molecules are called amino acids and are composed of the elements nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. There are twenty amino acids that are involved in living plants and animals. A typical protein will have between 100 to 300 amino acids connected in a definite sequence. These amino acid sequences give the protein its shape and its potential to function as a basic unit of a component of the cell.
It should be noted that the amino acid molecule has a mirror image. Just as one’s right hand is a mirror image of the left hand, so amino acids have a left and a right-hand side to their molecular structure. Amazingly, all observable living things are made of left-handed amino acids.
The protein is encoded with information based on the sequencing of its amino acids. Different sequences give different information, which in turn allows the protein to perform various functions. The sequencing of the amino acids begins in the DNA of the cell. Because DNA starts the process, it is very often called the information center of the cell. The big question is where does the DNA molecule receive its information? The answer is obvious — from an outside source, an intelligent Creator.
The Improbable Protein
A simple protein must have at least 100 amino acids bonded together in a set sequence. There are twenty amino acids to choose from and assuming they were available in number the probability for the formation of a protein molecule would be impossible. The probability comes out to a staggering chance of one out of 1.28 X 10115. That is 1.28 with 115 zeroes. This impossible to imagine number completely exceeds the statistical odds (1 out of 1050 ) that it could ever happen.
There is a 50 percent possibility that amino acids will be right-handed or left-handed. All protein molecules have left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid is added, it could be extremely toxic to the living organism. With this new variable added to the above calculation for the statistical likelihood of the formation of a protein, one is confronted with an even greater problem. Given the criteria that not only do all 100 amino acids have a specific sequence, but they are all left-handed and all bonded on the left hand, the probability that this will occur works out to one in 1.28 X 10175. This last calculation overwhelmingly demonstrates the massive problem evolution has in getting inert matter to form a protein. The statistical improbability for the next step, the formation of a single cell from all these improbable proteins, is beyond comprehension.

please check this http://www.evolutionthelie.com/

Turtwig

HOI Improbable you're up!

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

Yes where i said he is living, your claim are just like evolution, guesswork and chance

Here is exact evidence

Hmmm, I'm wondering did any of the Creationist websites you copied and pasted that quote from happen to give to the sentences before those you quoted?

You will notice evolution is not mentioned in that quote, because Grasse was not talking about evolution.

dead one wrote: »

Even in a book of lies sometimes you find truth. There is indeed a season for all things

It is rather nonsensical to appeal to the authority of Grasse simply when you (mistakenly) think he agrees with you and disregard everything else he says when he doesn't.

How is that supposed to convince the rest of us of the correctness of Grasse's position?

dead one wrote: »

please also check this link, It isn't creationist site, isn't?
http://andrasik.oldpaths.net/English/OSU2008_files/frame.htm please check serial no 5

Yes, it is

"The Old Paths Archive.
Books, articles and sermons
by members of churches of Christ"

dead one wrote: »

Why you are repeating the past

Well like most people I'm doing it in the hopes that you won't make the same mistakes over and over. It has been established that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is supported by evidence and has practical usages which is why scientists like Robin's sister have spent decades doing this.

You seem to have simply ignored this point. Which is far enough, you don't have to address it, but it would seem non-constructive to then continue to post comments that have already been contradicted by these facts.

dead one wrote: »

in fact i had clear that there is difference scientist and evolutionist.

If you say so. Robin's sister is a scientist, an evolutionary biologist if I'm not mistaken (Robin can correct me if I am), and uses neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in her work on a regular basis, as do hundreds of thousands of other scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology.

Whether you want to call them "evolutionists" or not is up to you, but has little bearing on that fact.

dead one wrote: »

In fact you are defending you faith i.e evolution which has become a religion.

Again, if you say so. It still doesn't change the fact that evolutionary biology has strong practical uses, put into practice by large multinational bio-tech firms interested doing research and ultimately making money of such research.

Which is odd (and as yet unexplained by you) if evolution is simply "story telling". Do you have a plausible explanation for how these scientists and these bio-tech firms could continue to operate if their work is nonsense?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with him, you lied about what he said. :rolleyes:

I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,
and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field.
I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in
particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school
curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my
views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be
resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting
'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal
mode of argument.

Wise words indeed.

Colin was speaking about Evolution ... and the question he asked other Evolutionists was about Evolution.

I once met Colin at an international science conference and I found him to be a man of exceptional ability and we are all the very much the poorer for his passing.

Colin got into a lot of 'hot water' over this comment ... Evolutionists can be very emotional creatures when they feel that their worldview is being undermined and poor old Colin had to go into rapid reverse and had to 'dis' all Creationists to restore his 'street cred' with the Evolutionists!!!

I find that some Evolutionists behave like bees in a hive ... they are continually sniffing everyone they meet to see 'if they are one of us or one of them' ... and it's God help you, if they think that you are (or have become) 'one of them'!!! :eek:

King Mob

J C wrote: »

poor old Colin had to go into rapid reverse and had to 'dis' all Creationists to restore his 'street cred' with the Evolutionists!!!

Wow that's some straight up street talk there dawg.
The inverted commas really sell it.

The Mad Hatter

King Mob wrote: »

Wow that's some straight up street talk there dawg.
The inverted commas really sell it.

Don't you 'know' you're supposed to use 'inverted' commas when you use 'figures of speech'?

stevoslice

J C wrote: »

Colin was speaking about Evolution ... and the question he asked other Evolutionists was about Evolution.

I once met Colin at an international science conference and I found him to be a man of exceptional ability and we are all the very much the poorer for his passing.

Colin got into a lot of 'hot water' over this comment ... Evolutionists can be very emotional creatures when they feel that their worldview is being undermined and poor old Colin had to go into rapid reverse and had to 'dis' all Creationists to restore his 'street cred' with the Evolutionists!!!

I find that some Evolutionists behave like bees in a hive ... they are continually sniffing everyone they meet to see 'if they are one of us or one of them' ... and it's God help you, if they think that you are (or have become) 'one of them'!!! :eek:

If this much tripe can be written in 4 small paragraphs by 1 christian given a few minutes. How much ****e can be printed in 1 book, by an unknown amount of christians, given 2000 years?

Is this a rhetorical question?

J C

thebhoy wrote: »

If this much tripe can be written in 4 small paragraphs by 1 christian given a few minutes. How much ****e can be printed in 1 book, by an unknown amount of christians, given 2000 years?

Is this a rhetorical question?

so you have no answer to Colin Patterson's admission that nobody actually knows anything about Evolution !!!

Fluffybums

dead one wrote: »

Here are my thoughts
Mutation occurs at a rate of one for every ten million cell duplications. This is an insignificant number when compared to 100 trillion cells in a human body. Thus, the chance of having a couple of cells with a mutated form for every gene is possible without any noticeable effect. The reproduction system is a simple and powerful information system within the DNA molecule and it is a very stable system for transmitting that information. Mutations are very rare.
Researchers have by means of genetic breeding, changed a two-wing fruit fly into a four-wing fruit fly. The four-wing fruit fly consistently reproduces four-winged fruit flies. But although a new species has been produced, it is not a new “kind.” The mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. As a matter of fact, the four-winged fruit fly is a weakened form. The second set of wings do not help the fruit fly; they actually get in the way. Its ability to take flight is dangerously hindered. Having been selectively bred in the laboratory, this species will also not survive without the caring assistance of researchers. This is a poor example of evolution by mutation. The bottom line is that mutations always weaken an organism and never change it into something else. The fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
Beneficial Mutations?
Sickle Cell Anemia is often presented as an example of a favorable mutation. This is because red blood cells carry a sickle cell hemoglobin mutation that resists malaria. Although it resists malaria, 25 percent of those who have this mutant gene can still get the disease. Many have a hard time calling this a beneficial mutation when it brings with it a 25 percent chance of death. Sickle cell anemia causes a sickle shape hemoglobin molecule that bonds to another producing an enlarged molecular structure that cannot pass through the capillary walls. This condition occurs when the oxygen supply is low. How can a diseased hemoglobin molecule that was processed with incorrect information in the DNA be called a benefit to any body? This defect itself can kill a person.
No New Information
A basic information principle must be violated for evolution to be true. For an organism to evolve upward from simple to complex there must be an increase of genetic information. When mutations take place, however, there is an exchange of information or misinformation, but never an increase. The system is limited to what it has and therefore cannot create new codes. Most frequently, information exchange leads to a loss of information.
Apes to Humans?
An ape could, theoretically, mutate into a man by changing just one percent of his DNA. While the claim of a one percent DNA difference between man and ape is controversial and highly debatable, one might conclude, if we assume the claim to be true, that evolutionists have a point. One must remember, though, that all mutations have to be in exactly the same order as a human person’s genome. It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.


The Amazing Protein
The protein molecule adds structure and function to every living cell. It is a long molecule that contains many subunit molecules all bonded together. These subunit molecules are called amino acids and are composed of the elements nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. There are twenty amino acids that are involved in living plants and animals. A typical protein will have between 100 to 300 amino acids connected in a definite sequence. These amino acid sequences give the protein its shape and its potential to function as a basic unit of a component of the cell.
It should be noted that the amino acid molecule has a mirror image. Just as one’s right hand is a mirror image of the left hand, so amino acids have a left and a right-hand side to their molecular structure. Amazingly, all observable living things are made of left-handed amino acids.
The protein is encoded with information based on the sequencing of its amino acids. Different sequences give different information, which in turn allows the protein to perform various functions. The sequencing of the amino acids begins in the DNA of the cell. Because DNA starts the process, it is very often called the information center of the cell. The big question is where does the DNA molecule receive its information? The answer is obvious — from an outside source, an intelligent Creator.
The Improbable Protein
A simple protein must have at least 100 amino acids bonded together in a set sequence. There are twenty amino acids to choose from and assuming they were available in number the probability for the formation of a protein molecule would be impossible. The probability comes out to a staggering chance of one out of 1.28 X 10115. That is 1.28 with 115 zeroes. This impossible to imagine number completely exceeds the statistical odds (1 out of 1050 ) that it could ever happen.
There is a 50 percent possibility that amino acids will be right-handed or left-handed. All protein molecules have left-handed amino acids. If a right-handed amino acid is added, it could be extremely toxic to the living organism. With this new variable added to the above calculation for the statistical likelihood of the formation of a protein, one is confronted with an even greater problem. Given the criteria that not only do all 100 amino acids have a specific sequence, but they are all left-handed and all bonded on the left hand, the probability that this will occur works out to one in 1.28 X 10175. This last calculation overwhelmingly demonstrates the massive problem evolution has in getting inert matter to form a protein. The statistical improbability for the next step, the formation of a single cell from all these improbable proteins, is beyond comprehension.

please check this http://www.evolutionthelie.com/

Complete Boll*x, non-argument, a good example of ignorance of biology, biochemistry, genetics in fact, science in general. Nice to know my taxes have been so comprehensively wasted on education!

housetypeb

The big question is whether Dead One is speciation within the JC kind or something new.

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

Complete Boll*x, non-argument, a good example of ignorance of biology, biochemistry, genetics in fact, science in general. Nice to know my taxes have been so comprehensively wasted on education!

quite!!!
... if you don't believe Dead One ... perhaps you will believe this:-

"As stated in the Introduction, evolutionist scientists know perfectly well that not one single branch of science has corroborated their theory and that the whole concept is totally groundless. Yet for the sake of ideology, they continue to defend the theory, even while some evolutionists confess that it’s invalid."...

... Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. . . .The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs

Pierre Paul Grassé, author of the book Evolution of Living Organisms New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 8


... or Prof. Derek Ager, who is the former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (and head of the department of geology and oceanography at University College of Swansea) who said:

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student . . . have now been debunked"
“The Nature of the Fossil Record.” Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

The big question is whether Dead One is speciation within the JC kind or something new.

Just an example of two great minds thinking alike!!!

Dead One is a separate Creation ... but can I compliment you on your Creation Science abilities.:D

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

He is a separate Creation ... but can I compliment you on your Creation Science abilities.:D

I read it in a 34 year old book-it must be true.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

I read it in a 34 year old book-it must be true.

If you say so!!:D

sponsoredwalk

Dead One copying & pasting hack creationist responses to questions & topics
that I didn't bring up (though the statements in the responses are full of strawmen) is not
an honest response by any means & I notice you haven't chosen to defend
yourself for taking Stephen Jay Gould out of context as well as avoiding the
points brought up in the video. We heard no mention of codon bias in
your response nor it's predictive power yet you're so quick to repeatedly
post "invalidity of Evolution"...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Dead One copying & pasting hack creationist responses to questions & topics
that I didn't bring up (though the statements in the responses are full of strawmen) is not
an honest response by any means & I notice you haven't chosen to defend
yourself for taking Stephen Jay Gould out of context as well as avoiding the
points brought up in the video. We heard no mention of codon bias in
your response nor it's predictive power yet you're so quick to repeatedly
post "invalidity of Evolution"...

I gave Dead One a 'dig out' on the Codon Bias issue here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71001887&postcount=3349

sponsoredwalk

JC why do you continually quote scientists? This is trash-debating of the
lowest form - appeals to authority.

Here we see you constantly appealing to the authority of scientists in
their personal comments - most of which have been shown to be taken
out of context (In fact both you & dead one have taken Gould out of
context in this very thread).

You just can't take any of the claims made by evolutionary theory &
debunk them so instead you repeat your religious mantra's & pull up
scientists in a pseudo attempt at credibility.

In fact, what happened when you tried to actually focus on the claims
made by evolutionary theory? We got you to admit that you accept all
of the claims in the theory you've referred to as a "fairytale" :pac:

J C wrote: »

I gave my second trolling account Dead One a 'dig out' on the Codon Bias issue here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71001887&postcount=3349

Sorry but you telling us that the predictive theory of evolution is in
fact evidence for god intelligent design just because you say so is
trash & you are seriously contradicting your own words when you tell us
that things predicted by evolution actually benefit your religious claims
because you keep telling us evolution is a "fairytale" with neither logic
nor science underpinning it.

I'll repeat for the third/fourth time, do you admit that you hold views with
neither logic nor science underpinning them? Do you admit that you
are using the the very theory you are telling us has neither logic nor
science underpinning it's claims to say that the fact that it is 16
million to one is further evidence of an intelligent origin?

Here again is more evidence of you literally refuting your own words, no
one is that stupid this has to be calculated stupidity...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

JC why do you continually quote scientists? This is trash-debating of the
lowest form - appeals to authority.

Here we see you constantly appealing to the authority of scientists in
their personal comments - most of which have been shown to be taken
out of context.

I have quoted other Evolutionists in the (vain) hope that you would accept what they have said ... when you clearly won't accept my word on the invalidity of Evolution!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I have quoted other Evolutionists in the (vain) hope that you would accept what they have said

Why would the quotes of evolutionismists matter? You seem to take the
Ben Stein approach to life - construe matters in the way EXPELLED! makes
things out to be & expect to debunk evolution. Just as Ben Stein takes
Dawkins, Myers etc... out of context in the film you take Gould, Dawkins
and all these other people out of context & expect it to make sense.
If you had better evidence than conversation we would take you seriously
but this trash style is bogus as 85 40-post pages makes it perfectly
clear

J C wrote: »

... when you clearly won't accept my word on the invalidity of Evolution!!!

If I took you at your word when you quoted Gould in this thread I would
have been deceived because you took him out of context.

So if I were to take you at your word I would be inadvertently deceiving
myself.

What does that say about you? Trying to lead men astray? :rolleyes:

If I took you at your word when you called evolution a fairytale I would
have been led astray because later on in this thread you told us that
"everybody" accepts natural selection, that you accept microevolution
etc... but that would mean you were deceiving me! :eek:

You were deceiving me when you called evolution a fairytale because
it's not a fairytale, you told us everybody accepts NS? Wtf???

Take you at your word... Jeesh...

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

I have quoted other Evolutionists in the (vain) hope that you would accept what they have said ... when you clearly won't accept my word on the invalidity of Evolution!!!

We didn't accept "evolution is wrong because I say so". We're hardly going to accept "evolution is wrong because this guy says so".

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why would the quotes of evolutionismists matter? You seem to take the
Ben Stein approach to life - construe matters in the way EXPELLED! makes
things out to be & expect to debunk evolution. Just as Ben Stein takes
Dawkins, Myers etc... out of context in the film you take Gould, Dawkins
and all these other people out of context & expect it to make sense.
If you had better evidence than conversation we would take you seriously
but this trash style is bogus as 85 40-post pages makes it perfectly
clear



If I took you at your word when you quoted Gould in this thread I would
have been deceived because you took him out of context.

So if I were to take you at your word I would be inadvertently deceiving
myself.

What does that say about you? Trying to lead men astray? :rolleyes:

If I took you at your word when you called evolution a fairytale I would
have been led astray because later on in this thread you told us that
"everybody" accepts natural selection, that you accept microevolution
etc... but that would mean you were deceiving me! :eek:

You were deceiving me when you called evolution a fairytale because
it's not a fairytale, you told us everybody accepts NS? Wtf???

Take you at your word... Jeesh...

All my quotes are within context and not artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated.

... and when I speak of 'evolution' I am talking about Materialistic 'big picture' Evolution ... unless I say otherwise.

J C

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

We didn't accept "evolution is wrong because I say so". We're hardly going to accept "evolution is wrong because this guy says so".

This shows just how stubborn you all are!!!:D

... and how determined you are to cling to your belief in Evolution ... even when all logic shouts that it is specious nonesense!!!

coffee_cake

J C wrote: »

This shows just how stubborn you all are!!!:D

... and how determined you are all to cling to your belief in Evolution ... even when all logic shouts that it is specious nonesense!!!

You're specious nonsense

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

All my quotes are within context and not artificially truncated or otherwise manipulated.

Well we have evidence in this thread that you are lying right now
but okay...

I just want to apologise for accusing you of taking Gould's quote out of
context, what you did was take Dawkin's speaking about Gould's theory
out of context. Apologies for the confusion, maybe now you'll see what I
mean when I say that you are lying.