'We' Evo's think.....................

I am aware of your input Mark, and I thank you but I've got a neck ache and can't be bothered reading them again, feel free to aim them at yec's in general

Mike,We don't doubt your motives. However, everyone has been asking you, and is still asking you for examples of what you think is a jigsaw phenomina or "doesn't fit". If you don't know what you think doesn't fit into our family tree, why are you here debating about it? There's nothing more annoying than arguing with someone who won't say what it is specifically that they think is wrong.Please, Mike - for the sake of this thread, name a specific. Surely there's enough creationist literature out there that you can grab something that you think doesn't fit into the fossil record - i.e., some sort of chimera, or something whose date doesn't match where a species of such features should exist in. There has to be *something* that you can use to present a specific. If not, you should really question why you believe as you do on this particular subject, or at the very least hold off judgement.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-20-2003]

Could you read all the messages - it's over, I was a stubborn bum untill I recieved an honest answer , somewhere in here you have missed the full jigsaw phenomenon explanation furthering my amusement at your evo predictability rate via message 1 rendering goon enjoyment from the wiz box.

quote:

---

somewhere in here you have missed the full jigsaw phenomenon explanation furthering my amusement at your evo predictability rate via message 1 rendering goon enjoyment from the wiz box.

---

... does EvC always turn creationists into Brad McFall, or is this just a strange exception?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I don't understand the puzzle is me when the nature of the message 1 has been explained fully even of itself being an explanitory nature. Further analysis was that of the Admin which I accepted entirely despite it's indirect stab at my brain.

I'm so glad the ring master included the predictions on the navigator squadron as 'we' confused me but sometimes my programme jams I wont insist on cleaning the filter if the bin is full.But next time I will review the process with fun at the forthcoming nature of the conclusions which have no choice but to happen. There is logic to this logic from my point of view but at no stage will I activate a new character. For the wiz box very much enjoyed the whole thing. Isn't that what counts?

Mike, So basically your happy touting an unrepresentative sample as if it's a problem for evolution, if you are granted that Turkana boy is out of sequence, that is?I remember you saying once (or words to this effect) that evolutionists should have been able to trounce you with massive evidences of evolution, yet they didn't, perhaps this is why? If you don't address the issue, you are never confronted with the evidence?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Mike, Has anyone ever seen you & Brad in the same room? Mark

That seriously hurt my brain, though not quite as badly as the one before. All that's missing from a genuine McFall is some name-dropping and odd capitalizations.Seriously, wiz. It's hard to effectively respond to your ideas when the presentation (e.g. sentence structure and mechanics) is imprecise and confusing. Would you consider taking a bit more time on each post?

Since it is a nice chap that asks this of me, I will indeed try to represent myself in a more clear way. I am indeed terribly impatient when posting. Mark: Your posts were grade A, 10 out of 10, top dog genius material ; leaving an un-learned fool to dodge them

quote:

---

Has anyone ever seen you & Brad in the same room?

---

And has anyone checked if Gertrude Stein's grave is undisturbed? Nobody saw a hunchback with a jar and a shovel sneaking away in the rain?

quote:

---

But I would rather not meaning not rather but rather not list the evidence meaning not listing rather than listing meaning listing but not listing the evidence rather listing--

---

Mike, Can't say fairer than that.Mark

However the main gist through quantum determination maintains the degree of elimination out of a nuclear bound setting, regardless I accept the arrogance chance as a polite way to manufacture the outcome without rivalry. This I apreciate because it digests well with coffee, but only with 2 sugars. If we remove the sweetness I think you'll see an ulterior motive, though this logic might not translate in a logical capacity. Nevermind I'm grateful anyway as the rivalry ended. Next time maybe another programme can be divulged, though the necessary outcome will require predictable means to an end.

This actually makes sense if you read it with a Cockney accent.

That's it, folks. The boy has cracked. No doubt whatsoever.