Iridium Nightmare and Living Fossils

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Thanks for the heads up. I think that several of us have seen karl coming for some time now, though I have to admit that he's kept a low profile for at least a few days. I'm sure we'll see the old KC any time now.

---

I thought everyone here knew ksc was karl? I tend to ignore him since he is only slightly more coherent than Mcfall. At least McFall is funny.Cheersjoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by ksc:
As you see, proof has ben presented that the coelacanth should have evolved.
Of course I don't expect the evos will agree...therefore, they will still cry foul and claim I presented no evidence and/or answered the question as to where their theory claims things need to change over time.

---

Actually, you presented nothing at all. Your original assertion was that the coelacanth SHOULD evolve. Several people have pointed out to you that it has, indeed evolved. Now you are claiming that it has not evolved enough or not at all. Do you just ignore everyone else's posts? Basicaly what you are doing is called moving the goalposts and it is a tactic all creationists learn early. Once again KC, your arguments are bankrupt.CheersJoe MeertPS: As always, I expect you to refer to me as "Dr. Meert" or "Sir"

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

Here's your problem Karl. You desperately want evolution to claim something it does not. Karl's definition of evolution requires that ALL organisms undergo major morphological (or other) changes during a sufficient time period. Evolution makes no such claim. You want people to argue your straw man and are finding no takers on this board. Perhaps, if you went elsewhere, you might find an audience unable to recognize the fundamental flaws in your argument. The simple fact is that your argument (like many before) is a bad argument. I suspect the origin of your argument stems from the super-hyper macro evolution required by the flood model.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ksc:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
Here's your problem Karl. You desperately want evolution to claim something it does not. Karl's definition of evolution requires that ALL organisms undergo major morphological (or other) changes during a sufficient time period. Evolution makes no such claim.

​

Repeat after me Joe...Time and mutations, time and mutations, time and mutations. Do you get it yet Joe?

---

No, repeating a false claim in a mantra like fashion does not make it any more real.

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

​

ps: it's still Dr. or Sir to you!

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-10-2002]

Percy,I would think that a ban and a message to Karl's service provider would be in order. This was a malicious attempt by Karl to run away from an argument. In the past, he simply disappears. Apparently, he now feels he must disappear with malice.CheersJoe Meert