Evolution? How?

My intentional ridicule of your argument from creation (which is, after all, what you have consistently tried to argue throughout, although you often have shown a lack of courage in admitting as much) was that which you are not prepared to argue.

The more i think about your idiotic reference to The Tragedy of Pudd'nhead Wilson, the more amused and pleased i become. In the dénoument of Clemen's novel, Wilson shows himself to be the most intelligent and forensically clever man in the courtroom. Therefore, you latest childish attempt to insult is actually complimentary. I would much rather be compared to Wilson than to say, oh . . . "real" life in terms of forensic skills. I rather suspect that you used the name without a clue, and i suspect you've never read the novel--otherwise, how to explain you silly use of it?

BTW-- I didn't say you were like Pudd'nhead (sorry to pop your bubble), but that he had something to say regarding your style of argumentation.

It's a defense mechanism from the Pudd'nhead Wilson school of argumentation.

Come on, Boss, he was workin' for the Pope, he got the straight skinny from The Man himself . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

real life wrote:

It's a defense mechanism from the Pudd'nhead Wilson school of argumentation.

There we are, preserved from any attempt on your part to change the playing field with the edit function.

Edit: Time and date stamp: Posted: 28/8/2005, 10:39 pm Post: 1539701.

The words "genus" "species" and so forth are subjective as well, only representing someone's idea of what seems to them to go together based on selected characteristics.

Well, i am glad to hear that you are in pain. As i've already pointed out, you grossly misrepresent Mr. Clemen's fictional character. But that is part and parcel of your style, which here has been to grossly misrepresent the core thesis of a theory of evolution. You have assiduously avoided, however, any representation of the creator you allege, and you avoid acknowledging what you have implied many, many times, especially with your feeble attempts to "prove" a world-wide flood. That is that you are an adherent of revealed truth. But you dont' want to discuss it, because you are incapable of sustaining the argument.

Which, of course, would earn your the merited contempt of Mr. Wilson.

You can assume all you want about to what i do or don't adhere, that does not make it so. I consider that there is very good evidence for a so-called "Big Bang." That does not mean that i assert it as truth. The absence of an explanation for something is no evidence for your god fairy tale. If you posit that a deity created the universe, then i ask you who created the deity? Got an answer?

The Big Bang is usually described as an event that is the result of various interactions of matter and energy.

Where did the original matter and energy come from? Two choices are possible. They either were created or they were not.

Let's start at the beginning. You are most likely an adherent of the Big Bang theory, in some form. Where did the original matter and energy come from? They must be accounted for somehow. What's your explanation?

Fast Forward to ancient earth. How did simple chemicals arrange themselves by blind chance into complex functioning (or at least able to function when the cell came together) structures

Only after answering these questions can you even START to posit whether such a thing as evolution took place or not.

The research of Ed Drescher from the Devonian of the the hills of Heiner in the Appalachians and the Devonian of Canada is rather compeling for the transition of osteicthes to amphibians. Lots of key skeletal intermediates showing evidence that the bony fishes of a specific family actually developed walking limbs while a fish, then , within a 10 million year period , fossils of amphibians with similar dentition and eight finger limbs like the ancestral fish had developed, and these wre true amphibians who retained fish characteristics. So many features remained between the bony fish and the amphibians that it reminds one of the 21 or so common features between late Jurassic dromaeosaurs and early bird like reptiles and then reptile like birds (like archeopteryx)

We understand that Jehovah, whose name means 'He who causes to become' is the author of all physical and moral law.

neologist wrote:

We understand that Jehovah, whose name means 'He who causes to become' is the author of all physical and moral law.

Guess who's back
Back again
Shady's back
Tell a friend . . .

Now everyone report
To the dance floor
To the dance floor
Now everyone report to the dance floor
Alright Stop . . .
Pajama time

Hold it right there, Buster. What you mean we, white man? You got a theological mouse in yer pocket? Have the courtesy not to "know" things on my behalf, 'K?