Page v. Borger

This has to be one of the best exchanges in the history of this site. I've never seen an evolutionist whipped so thoroughly since the "PhiGuy"...The only downside is that Page seems unable to respond objectively and professionally. I wonder if Page is actually a woman? It would explain the emotional responses.Kudos to Borger though for maintaining professional integrity and respect.NRM is brilliant; RM is an argument from ignorance....Keep plugging away Dr. Borger, you will find your mechanism and cause shortly!

Really John?Does random mutation mean a mutation that has no cause? Or is the mutation "random" because you are ignorant of its cause?Please advise.No fear either; the observation that women are more emotional than men is, well, science.Therefore, the inference was valid. Yours, however, was not. (again)

Quetzel,What relevance does registering have upon the content of discussions promulgated by a population of anonymous internet posters?You are a nobody.Shraf,Don't you feel better after you take a midol? Try it sometime before you post. You are unwittingly proving the point.John,Why do you so firmly believe there exists no mechanism of mutation? Is your belief in evolution so blinding that you would deny the scientific exploration of the matter and riducule those attempts at the same?We need people like Borger to think beyond the archaic paradigms because those committed to the outdated paradigm are unable to "see" beyond it.Indeed, saying something is "random" doesn't really expain anything. Good try though.

John,Tell me then if I have this part of 5th Grade Evolutionary (sorry, Evolution and Biology are mutually exclusive) Theory correct with respect to your belief in "random" mutations:Random as to cause, random as to end?Again, this doesn't explain much. Your paradigm requires a committment to "random as to cause, random as to end" and therefore you aren't interested in further biological inquiry to ascertain whether we are seeing a common mechanism at work. You are rejecting science in this area because it clearly militates against your world view. I believe Borger is attempting to scientifically identify a common mechanism to prove NRM. The ignorant de facto position is always random,and the peanut gallery will always be full.The joke is on you.

quote:

---

What relevance does registering have upon the content of discussions promulgated by a population of anonymous internet posters?

---

Because somebody might abuse your persona like this. Besides, maybe you can be a great help to Dr Borger's research. This board needs a jester! Please register and join the fight. Maybe you can take on Dr Page himself and bring down his arguments.

quote:

---

O BTW, you could have left out the term 'coevolution' since nothing evolved here. We simply do an observation on an intricate interplay of organisms. Did you see it evolve? No, so better keep it scientific.

---

Congratulations Doctor! For exposing the trade secret of "evolution". Evolution is an erroneously extrapolated conclusion in which no one has ever seen, is seeing, or will see. Keeping it scientific and sticking to the observations would seem the prudent course of action. Conclusions come later.I also find it interesting that evolutionists rely upon the conclusory term "evolution" when explaining a mere observation they believe is a result of evolution or the pontentia for evolution in the future. No one ever sees evolution in the present.

quote:

---

are accidents defined as being outside of the laws of nature?

---

only if by "accident" you mean "evolution"

Shraf and Quetzel,You are both hypocrites of the highest order. And both of you do a pretty sorry job of defending that archaic and bunk theory of evolution.Do your random thoughts follow from the random mutations? How is it you believe your thoughts are organized if you also believe you are the product of purposeless undirected evolution?

quote:

---

The unregistered should only be allowed so many messages (5?) before it's register or shut up time.

---

You're just mad cause I'm stoopider than you.

quote:

---

The unregistered should only be allowed so many messages (5?) before it's register or shut up time.

---

You're just mad cause I'm stoopider than you.Although the above response was not written by myself, but rather an unscrupulous evolutionist whose other means of debate has left us all bored to tears, I do find it worthy to comment upon. Not "my" alleged response, however, but rather the little snippet from the administration desiring to censor me on this so-called "unmoderated" forum.What a biased ball of bile! Take your evo-glasses off man!!But the joke again is on the evolutionist who allegedly started the "Free for All" as a joke, but now wants it to be serious and, to accomplish that end, would censor those who don't believe in evolution, themselves generating the "serious" content. Sounds disingenously counterproductive, doesn't it? Bet you wouldn't want to censor the evolutionist posting their version of "serious" content...But, hey, what else are we to expect from the evolutionist who constantly gets whipped at defending that silly belief?Any other random thoughts from the evolutionist crowd who are themselves the undirected, purposeless, and random products of random mutation?JesterPS> Shall I change this username now? Or should I wait patiently for the next intellectually dishonest evolutionist to discredit themself?

Hey! Who are you claiming to be me? Stop using my name for your own opinions!

I wish to take this opportunity to apologise for trolling here. I will behave myself in future, and convert all the poor atheist evos with my Grand Unified Theory of Creationism (GUToC).
If only I were smart enough to register, maybe I would stop being so mixed up.