TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

No he didn't.This is why the statement that you have put in quotes is not an actual quotation.

But, as we have noted, this is not actually true. Ah, I see. Not a creationist website, a creationist pamphlet.

You really assert that a black widow and a tarantula are the same species?And yet I suppose you will assert that humans and chimps are different species?Will you present us with a definition of "species" other than "because Peg says so"?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ah, so you do in fact get your nonsense from a mess of creationist propaganda ... but it does indeed have too many pages for me to call it a "pamphlet". True, they have indeed written entire books of this gibberish: I've laughed at them myself, so I sha'n't deny it.How about you try to get your nonsense from well-researched scientific studies based on the observable evidence?Oh, right, because you can't.

In English English the word "graft" tends to mean "hard work" rather than "bribery and corruption".

But this nonsense shows that you have studied nothing yourself. You are just reciting creationist lies and creationist gibberish.No, you're not wrong because you haven't done the "field study" yourself. You are wrong because you thought that a hyrax was "fox-like", because you thought that a salamander was a fish, and because, as that post demonstrates, you talk arrant nonsense about evolution, the fossil record, and every other biology-related subject you discuss.It's not that you "don't do the field study yourself", it's because you flatly ignore and deny the findings of the people who have. It's not that you haven't studied the evidence yourself, it's that you live in an imaginary world entirely disconnected from the findings of the people who have studied the evidence.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You claim that you can "verify" that each of those statements was not taken out of context.Well, good for you. Hooray! Only, before I believe that you're telling the truth, I'd like to see you, for each of those statements, quote the sentence that preceded it and the sentence that followed it. Just to check that you really have seen the context and that you're not just an ignorant stinking gasbag of creationist lies like so many people who post here. I mean no insult to you personally, but you must realize that so many filthy stupid degraded creationist liars crawl on these forums oozing their foul degenerate slime of falsehood that I am obliged to check.Thanks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Apart from the fact that you have been taken in by a clumsy obvious fraud, which has been thoroughly exposed, I should like you to spend half a minute thinking about what you just said.We know what dinosaurs look like without having actually seen them.Really. Spend fifteen seconds thinking about this fact.

Er ... what do you think that "evolutionists" have to refute?It's a rock. No "evolutionist" denies the existence of rocks.Please explain to us why you are having hysterics about this rock.

Since actual human footprints do not, in nature, have white lines around them, I presume that the "photograph" that you have shown us is something that you have faked.I should be interested to see the original photograph before you drew white lines on it shaped like a clumsy hand-drawn image of a shoe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But you have not studied this enough to know that it is a fraud. This study would take you all of five minutes, and I urge you to undertake it. That would be a wonderful argument if personal attacks had any merit as arguments ... and if it was true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

One reason that your point is more obscure than you would wish it to be is that having said that "the problem is a mathematical one", you then do not, in fact, do any math.

Yes, every new intermediate form that turns up is another nail in the coffin of evolution. No, wait, I mean creationism. Oops. I nearly said that proof of how tyrannosaurids evolved was evidence against evolution. But that would have been retarded. As you yourself appear to admit: "The Raptorex fossil proves that these features evolved".Yes, once more an indisputable intermediate form has been discovered, and once more creationists have egg all over their stupid faces. Your fantasies are evidence of nothing but your own peculiar mental state.And since this is not going to happen, you'll have to make do with basing your absurd faith on fraudulent cartoons scratched on rocks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What evolutionists can discover is indeed pretty darn awesome. But I don't see how this observation will hasten the day on which Calypsis's absurd fantasies will come true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. For the same reason that I've never wondered why I'm being attacked by vast flocks of flying pigs. * sighs deeply *Whenever we find a culture with a mythical reptile, we translate its name into our word "dragon". The reason why all the stories we classify as dragon legends have things in common is that the things that these stories have in common are the reason why we classify them as dragon legends. Yeah. From boa constrictors to crocodiles to Komodo dragons, the world is indeed full of large dangerous reptiles. The concept of large dangerous reptiles should sound familiar, because they actually exist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.