Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB.

I should have stayed in lurk mode.Davison clearly cannot support his claims with anything of substance or he would have done so by now.I will do what I can to avoid posting to him until he gets his act together.

The claim that macroevolution is finished is not mine alone by any means. It was Broom's, Grasse's and believe it or not, that of the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" page 571, Julian Huxley. Don't ascribe to me credit which belongs to a spokesperson for Darwinism. How do you explain this curious lapse on Huxley's part? I am sure you have a ready explanation for this as you have for everything else. Let's hear it Scott. Don't cop out on me, as I am having too much fun! salty

Go right ahead and close it. That is always the response when things get a little sticky. What a forum. What a discussion. salty

Chill out, dude. You're not being silenced, just asked to open a new topic to refresh the discussion. As it is now, you say "is too" and others say "is not", and that's not productive debate. I think restating the premises, presenting data, and debating evidence is entirely in order.

The thread shouldn't be closed if the original topic is still under discussion. Is that the case?

I'm still game to take on the opposition. Anytime - anyplace. salty

I see you start this off with another fictional statement ascribed to me. I want a statement from the management on this flagrant abuse. salty

How about a statement from management on your unwillingness and/or inability to support your assertions here (or in your Manifesto for that matter)? A nice place to start would be the forum rules1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided.6. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.7. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.8. Participating as more than one ID is extremely stronglydiscouraged.Let's see. You have violated 1-4 in virtually every post. 5 you have violated sometimes since when a specific question is asked of you, you occassionally link to your Manifesto rather than addressing the specific question...you are ok on 6. 7 is questionable since I think you don't actually know what evolution or Darwinism are so it would be hard to accuse you of misrepresentation as opposed to ignorance of the subject matter....you are fine on 8.As far as I can tell, Scott has only violated rule 3...he cannot be held responsible for rule 1 violation because YOU dragged the thread of topic in the first place.to sum up, before you go crying to managment about Scott you might want to reconsider your own debating tactics on this forum.cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 04-25-2003]

quote:

---

Davison:
I see you start this off with another fictional statement ascribed to me. I want a statement from the management on this flagrant abuse

---

LOL!

Yes, I know, but the question was whether anyone still has any on-topic contributions to make. I'm going to close this thread, but if anyone feels they would like to reopen discussion of GUToB then please let board administration know with a post to the too fast closure of threads thread.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator