Summations Only

Genetics, morphology, biogeography, the fossil record, that sort of thing. ... without any actual scientists noticing this remarkable event ... ... something that creationists are unable or unwilling to define ... You mean, apart from consistency with all the facts? No, in that respect it is in just the same boat as every other scientific theory. Try telling that to Michael Behe. That would be a more compelling argument if it meant anything.

And if saying things made them true, creationists would long since have achieved victory, as would flat-earthers. You seem to have failed to understand the argument. This leaves you in a different position from scientists, who do.

Oh my.There isn't a big enough palm or a big enough face.

Evolution is being tested. By looking at the evidence, and seeing if it fits with the predictions of the theory.This is what is known as "science".I like it better than your way of vaguely rambling about stuff that you've clearly never bothered to study or tried to understand.

Well I know why you didn't even try to put up a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of an argument for that assertion. But do you?

Your chosen title for this thread was, I believe, "Best Evidence Macro-Evolution" and not "Every Dumb Mistake That Any Creationist Has Ever Made About Anything".I am disinclined to participate in a Gish Gallop, so why don't you pick your very favorite creationist blunder and start a thread in which it would be on topic?

If I was asked for (let us say) an instance of a fire that is not due to a fire-breathing dragon, I would just answer the question. I wouldn't whine about the fact that the question included the words "that is not due to a fire-breathing dragon". But then, I'd be right, and so I would in fact be able to produce such instances with ease. Interesting lie. What a shame you can't argue for it. But you can say it. I bet you can say it a whole lot. To render that sentence accurate, you'd want the words "to mad people" between the words "seems" and "like". That is a falsehood so vast it would make Satan himself shudder.Who do you think found out about the functionality of non-coding DNA and passed that information on to you and your pathetic cult? Do you suppose it was a bunch of dumbass creationists? You think that one day they paused from spewing out fatuous gibberish about subjects of which they were ignorant and did some sodding science? No, it was done by evolutionists, and now that they've informed you about it, you have the gall to whine about how they are "blind" to the stuff they looked for, painstakingly discovered, and then spoonfed to you while you were sitting on your flatulent creationist ass whining about them. ... apart from the whole of morphology, the whole of the fossil record, the whole of the genetic record, and the whole of biogeography.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are now lying about the course of this thread.So much evidence has been pointed out to you that it would take you several lifetimes to look at it all. You have responded by reciting random bits of creationist dogma. Then you have dissimulated your disinterest with great care. See my first post on this thread.

That's not a paper. That's a letter. A paper has more than one paragraph, does not begin with the words "To the Editor", and traditionally contains some actual research. Wow, so as far back as 1994 creationists were suggesting that non-coding DNA had function?So, that would be only three decades after real scientists described the structure of tRNA, right? And only two decades after the discovery of introns and alternative gene splicing? And ... I can't even find out how long ago scientists discovered promoter regions. If I google on "discovery of the promoter region", I get such hits as this paper from 1981, but they're talking about the discovery of a particular promoter region for a particular gene, not the discovery of promoter regions in general. That seems to be lost in the mists of time ... can anyone tell me whe the concept was discovered?But, hooray!, as far back as 1994, creationist nutters started lecturing scientists on how it was possible that one day scientists might make the discoveries that they had already made, and when these discoveries had, presumably via the medium of popular science articles, been spoon-fed to the creationists.---Creationism is, as it were, a parasitic organism. It cannot discover facts for itself; it lacks the necessary organs. Instead, it must leech off evolutionists, who do all the actual work, feeding on the facts and then using its organs of misinterpretation, stupidity, and mendacity to turn them into the putrid slime it finds digestible.The analogy breaks down on one point: there is, so far as I know, no parasitic organism so stupid as to aspire to kill its host.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, we do tend to discuss things round here. It's a forum. You see at the top of the page where it says: That would be what we call a "clue". See my first post on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The title you gave to this thread was not: "How do you wipe out design completely"?If you're interested, you do that by pointing out that creationists are a bunch of gormless idiots without a shred of evidence for their futile beliefs, and then you mock them. But this is by-the-by, since it is not the subject under discussion.

See my first post on this thread. No, it's evidence. Such as I referred you to in the first post on this thread. Actually the reason for the things you've made up in your head is that you are a fantasist unrestrained by such considerations as facts. Perhaps you could tell us more about these imaginary barriers, I could do with a laugh.