Just to say to Percy regarding my last topic since I wasn't allowed to respond to his charged. Firstly, my apologies if you took my mischief-humour to be "insults", they were tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps people don't remember my sense of humour here.
Secondly, the reason I don't participate in actual debates is that I only get ad-hominem responses from people like Paul K. When I have stayed to discuss things, him and people like him just try and put me on the witness stand instead of providing anything substantive. I also think it would not be a very clever tactic to energise the trolls of atheism you get online, given their mendacious tactics. This is not an insult of any particular poster, but a general observation of their behaviours.
The reason I still post is to get new readers, lurkers, and reasonable agnosts to see the true level of creationist literature/intellect available online rather than focusing on the weak-man type fallacy that occurs at echo-chambers like this forum where evolutionists basically pretend Kent Hovind is the highest limit of creationist intellect. At least that has been my experience historically.
This topic is about convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is a bad argument and an excuse for why homology predictions are not born out. To back what I say I submit my recent blog entry with this link;
Creation and evolution views: I Changed A.I.s Decision About Convergent Evolution
One last thing Percy. I shall not create any more topics this year as I don't want to give the impression I am only here for a spam-by-shooting. I really would just like more readers to know of my arguments in case they are open to the possibility that evolution theory is a pile of pseudo-scientific Victorian HORSEAPPLE.
All the best!