Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > JAD was banned again from UD...

Pages: (14) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,11:58    Hey, 'VMartin', you never said whether you agree with Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements: Quote To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again. Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments. To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ. Except for all the Jesus bothering, he sounds just like you. Are you sure you're not him? -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,12:05    VMartin continues his cowardly evasions       Quote I am not the one who claimed that transitional fossil exist. I am also not the one who claimed that there exist a trasitional particle between electrone and positrone. So why should I even try to define such a transitional particle (transitional fossil)? Because you (and JAD) are the ones trying to support his goofy 'manifesto' claims.  The burden of proof is on you to define your terms and provide your positive evidence, not me. It's obvious you can't provide any support at all for his brain damaged ideas about 'no transitionals' and 'no new information', and are just doing the standard semantic soft-shoe and evading the questions.  In fact, the 'manifesto' claims are so vacuous that he/you can't even define the terms you are using. JAD's just another harmless crackpot stringing together sciency-sounding buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing unless they are defined.  Only an idiot would latch on to such unsupported garbage.  Just like you have done. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,13:42    Does that ringing in my ears bother you? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,15:32    Uh, Vmartin, I applied your "key is in the text" malarkey using your screen-name as the text, remember. Like, yesterday. Remember what we came up with, way back on yesterday? Vmartin ==> moron. Dude, you're a sockpuppet.  Nobody who was for "real" would call themselves a moron!! That's be like somebody coming right out and calling themselves a pinhead!! How stupid do you think we are, huh?

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2006,21:07    Quote Kristine,   Quote   Mine too! Got that? Love it down. I write it so! (Someone help me.)       Er, help you do what, exactly?     Surprise me!     Quote I still think Martin is JAD. He isn't enough of a skirt-chaser to be JAD. (Or else he's been burned where it don't show.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

pwe Posts: 46 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,05:58    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 08 2006,11:03) As to the "new information" - I gave you example that information can be in a text if you read the text backwards. The question  How would you recognize 'new information' in a text if you saw it? has no sense. You and I see the TEXT - not information.  The text I  may underestand but you may not (or vice versa). I would say  the same process we may find in genome. Information written in DNA is the function of "reading frame" - each different reading frame read different information. I have read that in some cases information in a gene is overlappinig. Reading and underestanding of what has beed coded is what matters. For instance you do not underestand Magyar and let say you have a magyar book. Do you think that information is there or not? I suppose that to decide such a question would require to learn Magyar first. Observer (reading frame) is for recognising of information crucial. VMartin, do you know that only prokaryotes use frame shifts? Eukaryotes do not. Is this behavioral difference encoded in DNA or is it not? Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 08 2006,11:03) Summary - I dont know what does it mean to "see information" in genome as much as I do not know what does it mean to "smell information" in genome. You might be probably aware that DNA is not information - DNA is only bearer, carrier of information and not the information itself. Could you be more specific here? Is it like Richard Dawkins making a distinction between DNA molecules and DNA patterms? - pwe

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,15:42    Re "do you know that only prokaryotes use frame shifts?" Really? If that means what I think it means, that's just... weird. Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three? Henry

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2006,20:19    Is this guy the eastern european version of AFDave? He keeps touting Davison's "manifesto", but hints suggest he thinks in terms of "frontloading", which really isn't the point of Davison's idiotic PEH, strictly. so what of it, Slopey?  Do you really understand what JAD is blathering about?  do you think it really is all about frontloading (make that pantloading)? why do you think Davison himself has NEVER been able to make one, single, testable prediction based on his "manifesto", eh? the reason he gets repeatedly banned from sites, is because after the first few posts he makes, he just endlessly repeats himself, getting ever more obtuse and rude in the process, as he fails to realize he is repeating himself and saying nothing of substance in the process. are you really as clinically insane as Davison, Slopey? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,13:20    Quote Does that really mean that in bacteria the reading of the gene might start at any base pair, even if two genes start at positions that aren't separated by a multiple of three? Thats right. There is documented case where reading frame is shifted only by 1 nucleotide to obtain different outcome and then again by 1 nucleotide to obtain another different outcome! It was observed in bacterial virus sigmaX184. All three results of the reading are fully functional! 1. ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC 2. (A) BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA BCA 3.  (AB)C CAB CAB CAB CAB CAB... So you see that exegese or interpreation or hetmeneutic is what is important. Even if someignorants here insist that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???). -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2006,14:38    VMartin continues to fart and bluster:     Quote Even if someignorants here insist that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???). That's right -  you're still cowardly evading the simple questions about JAD's manifesto.  Since you are now using semantics an an excuse, I'll reword them and add clarification: What is your definition of a transitional fossil?   Is it different from the one accepted by the scientific community? If so, how? How would you decide or not if a fossil belonged to a transitional series? What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different? What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not?   They're still simple questions, and you're still cowardly avoiding them. Should we assume that you think JAD's nonsense is indefensible, but your ego is too big to admit you backed a fool? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

pwe Posts: 46 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,11:14    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 10 2006,13:20) So you see that exegese or interpreation or hetmeneutic is what is important. Even if someignorants here insist that I am evading the "simple" question how would I "see" new infrormation in genome (???). Well, but bacteria do not interpret their genome at will, so what's your point? Of course, on its own, a genome means nothing, it carries no information (except the information about its particular sequence of base pairs), so where do the interpretative rules reside? - pwe

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,14:45    Quote Of course, on its own, a genome means nothing, it carries no information (except the information about its particular sequence of base pairs), so where do the interpretative rules reside? So your opinion seems to be correct - information is non-material and as a such we cannot see it (Shaved Occam is incapable to underestand this and he hunts me with his stupid question how would I "see" new information). I would say that interpretative rules reside in the organism as a whole or more specifically at the beginning in zygote. Without zygote is interpetation impossible. My opinion is that DNA is not enough to create life - even if we would have complete DNA from marsupial wolf we would never recreate one without its zygote - which we do not have. Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads in different species seems to be unexplainable from common ancestor is interesting. It would mean that zygotes between species differ more than darwinists believe. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,15:00    Quote So your opinion seems to be correct - information is non-material and as a such we cannot see it (Shaved Occam is incapable to underestand this and he hunts me with his stupid question how would I "see" new information). Now we see VMartin is both a coward and a liar.  I clarified and asked you for your definition of biological information, and how you would determine (not "see") if new information was present.   Quote What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different? What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not? You have no answers to this or the asinine "no transitional fossils" claim.  You're a liar, and an idiot, and a troll.  Have fun under the bridge. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,15:00    another duplicate post - -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 11 2006,18:50    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 11 2006,14:45) Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads Nahhhhhhh . . . . .  too easy . . . . . . -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,00:02    Shaved Occam ravage: Quote Now we see VMartin is both a coward and a liar.  I clarified and asked you for your definition of biological information, and how you would determine (not "see") if new information was present. Everybody on this thread can check your stupid questions: Quote How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it? Quote How would you recognize 'new information' in a genome if you saw it? So who is a liar? Or are you as bipolar as Rev Dr Frank? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,00:16    wow, he's still around? Quote Shaved Occam ravage: there's some evidence in support of him being a sock puppet of JAD, who also seemingly enjoys lackwit attempts at name re-arrangement. the fact he won't actually answer legitimate questions is another. OTOH, come to think of it, so does Robert Obrien, so it could be him. ready to discuss the evolution of mimicry yet? or are you still trying to figure out the difference between Mullerian and Batesian? bwahahaha! by this time, i would have at least expected you to do a google on it and spew out something that sounded at least plausible. here's a hint for you: mimicry is the same problem for evolutionary theory that aposematic coloration is. c'mon slopey!  that's what you came here for wasn't it?  to argue that mimicry disproves the ToE? get to it, faker! -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,00:19    VMartin, I haven't been following this thread, but what are you going on about in that last post?  Honestly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,00:31    JAD's alter-ego VMartin vomits up         Quote So who is a liar? Or are you as bipolar as Rev Dr Frank? You are VMartin, and a chickensh*t coward to boot. Why are you so obsessed with John Davison's gonads?   Here's a picture of you, JAD, and his supporters. You must be the big one, right?  Pick me a winner! Oh, I forgot.  You're still too much of a cowardly ass to answer these simple questions         Quote What is your definition of information as it applies to biological structures such as a genome?  Is it merely the determination of the genetic sequence as proposed by Crick?  If not, how is it different? What is your definition of 'new information', and how do you determine if the 'information' in a genome is 'new' or not?                       -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

pwe Posts: 46 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,06:49    Quote (VMartin @ Dec. 11 2006,14:45) I would say that interpretative rules reside in the organism as a whole or more specifically at the beginning in zygote. Without zygote is interpetation impossible. My opinion is that DNA is not enough to create life - even if we would have complete DNA from marsupial wolf we would never recreate one without its zygote - which we do not have. Anyway Davison observation that development of gonads in different species seems to be unexplainable from common ancestor is interesting. It would mean that zygotes between species differ more than darwinists believe. Ok, but from whence then the first zygotes? Do you suggest that all species have a different origin? - pwe

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,09:04    Quote OTOH, come to think of it, so does Robert Obrien, so it could be him. I thought of that too -- especially since ROB takes a great deal of adolescent pride in being able to post in places where he's unwanted or outright banned. But the language doesn't really indicate it's him, and the emphasis on discussion of science (barmy as it is), is also out of character for him. ROB's specialty is more pretentious insulting of people who aren't as religious or rightwing as him. Still, it's not impossible. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,12:23    Shaved Occam I am much impressed by your exceptional ability to "see" information in a genome. Its a big gift, do not waste it. Anyway John has something to tell you: Quote Since I cannot post at After The Bar Closes, please post this for Occam's Aftershave (whoever that is) as a response to what Francis Crick believed. "But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true." Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 224, his emphasis. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,12:38    Cowardly liar VMartin sings "troll, troll, troll yer boat...."   Quote I am much impressed by your exceptional ability to "see" information in a genome. Its a big gift, do not waste it. Not nearly as impressive your ability to see the inside of your rectum from where you have your head lodged     Quote Anyway John has something to tell you: JAD is a doddering old codger with serious mental health issues.  I feel sorry for him, making such a fool out of himself in so many public forums.  You, however, are just a flaming assho1e troll.  It's fun seeing how much I can get you to do your troll-y dance. Got that?  write it down! -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,12:46    You want to hear something about Batesian mimicry boys? So Nabokov ridicules darwinistic logic behind the phenomenon by these words - enjoy:       Quote ...pursuing this goal consciously, having conferred beforehand with the model and determined that the latter, during the full number of centuries required by the toiler at evolution toward a gradual attainment of resemblance, would remain unchanged (in the kind immobility that a painter demands of his model). The process would accelerate further if the model just as consciously indulged the imitator by mutating part way in proportion to the mime's mutations, or if the very goal of the imitator were to change concomitantly with the evolutionary metamorphoses of the model, in the same way a painter, having begun a nude of a young female model, might strive for a likeness with such ardor that, as he tirelessly recorded every trait, he would, in the end, find that he was depicting the old woman into which the model had evolved during her plurennial pose. Yet the concept of evolution in no way presupposes either the existence of a conscious and focused will within a developing creature, or a coordination of actions between two creatures or between a creature and its environment. As for the presumption that nature mesmerizes subjects selected for mimetic study, influencing them to perform specific roles, that notion must be relegated to fantasy, for where are the anchor points for the cobweb of hypnosis? The same variations that might result from a blind struggle for survival, no matter how credible their results may appear … endlessly retard the putative course of a given evolutionary process, for it is here that the element of happenstance reappears. (Nabokov's Butterflies 225) Be sure Nabokov was an expert - he also supposed that patterns on wing cells are independent of each other what was ridiculed at his time. Yet new research approved his concept (see Nijhout). -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,13:09    AfterShaved Occam O.K. Ill try to respond to your intelligent question: Quote How would you know ‘new information’ if you saw it? Answer: New information has red color and looks like a cube. Are you satisfied? -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,14:36    Yo, you complete self-annointed moron (since, leave us not forget, that's what rigorous application of Vmartin's "key-within-the-text" as applied to the text of Vmartin's self-selected screen-name led us to), Nabakov qualifies at most as a distinquished lay "expert" in butterfly--a high-level hobbyist. His true expertise was literature.  As a butterfly hobbyist, he may have been superb at identification and collection.  As an evolutionary biologist, he has no credentials whatsoever. Natural selection coordinates the environment with the creature and natural selection coordinates one creature with another.  End of that story. There is nothing "happenstance" about natural selection.  Go step off a precipice and then come back to report whether there was anything "happenstance" about your demise and your failure to contribute further to the gene pool.   The remarkably productive field of evo-devo spells doom for arguments as repetitively moronic as your own.  Further "contributions" from you, or from your proxies, Nabokov and Davison, should simply be ignored.  They afford no learning opportunities, even for fence-sitting lurkers, because they lack any utile coherence whatsoever.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,14:41    PWE   Quote Do you suggest that all species have a different origin? I suppose that fact of missing links is accepted - it were Eldredge and Jay Gould who wanted to solve the problem by "punctuated equilibrium". So either are correct Creationists or Davison who represent tradition of Nomogenesis and macroevolutionary saltationism. My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto - that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind. I agree with great Russian philosopher S.Bulgakov that evolution is driven by inteligentsia and in some point of development man obtained spirit. Spirit present itself in language. Language and speech of mankind cannot evolve by random mutation and natural selection too. It is also  Noam Chomsky opinion. (some folks here like linguists very). -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,14:41    Hey, 'VMartin', you STILL haven't said whether you agree with Kazmer Ujvarosy's following statements:     Quote To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ's body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin's natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he's going to live with us again. Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments. To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based then the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ's reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ. Except for all the Jesus bothering, he sounds just like you. Are you sure you're not him? How about an answer, 'VMartin'? Is 'Darwin's imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ'? Is it a bad thing 'if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system'? Does 'the theory of creation from Christ's body' satisfy 'rational requirements'? Do tell. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,15:00    it is JAD.  I'm convinced now. BTW, John, this:   Quote The process would accelerate further if the model just as consciously indulged the imitator by mutating part way in proportion to the mime's mutations, or if the very goal of the imitator were to change concomitantly with the evolutionary metamorphoses of the model, in the same way a painter, having begun a nude of a young female model, might strive for a likeness with such ardor that, as he tirelessly recorded every trait, he would, in the end, find that he was depicting the old woman into which the model had evolved during her plurennial pose. does not distinguish between batesian and mullerian mimicry, nor does it actually go into anything actually resembling science. I gave you all the hints necessary to track the issue back to after Fisher introduced his model, so you could see what came after that fully explained the evolution of mimicry, but no, you are too addled to even recall your basic training on the theories any more. the mere fact that you think the quote above deals conceptually or scientifically with the issue of mimicry simply further indicates your degrading mental status. get help. really. btw, Nabakov's dithering on this subject is no more informed than Nietsche's ditherings on malthus and evolution. aren't you proud to be promulgating such drivel? as to this: Quote My opinion is - and its thanks Davisons Manifesto - that evolution is a fact. But it WAS driven by forces we are not aware of. Forces that probably are not in effect nowadays. I do not believe with Davison in random mutation and natural selection as forces behind evolution of mankind. *ahem*: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124611 you have a lot of work to do to show how ALL of these peer reviewed articles (the ones not dealing with fossils, anyway) are NOT evidence of current evolution (and those are but a very small subset of all the recent articles out there on the subject). you're brain dead.  hasn't anybody told you that zombies belong in "b" movies, at best? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2006,16:14    If Vmartin's moronicity is any example of the level of "discussion" we would be inviting via JAD's return, then on the underlying question, my vote is NAY. How do you like chomping on THOSE horseapples?

Pages: (14) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard