Talk.Origin.Banned.subject\The BudiKKKa Hole Series:\ Reptile and Bird; Hole II

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal

temperature

will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature.

Please refer me to where evolutionists have stated that birds evolved
from modern reptiles.

never said modern reptiles did ?

never the less here :

http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htm

Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a
relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature
outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from
cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the

dinosaurs

(which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. But the general view is still

Robert Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were

cold-blooded

animals."

There is no evidence that conclusively proves that dinosaurs were
ectothermic ( "cold blooded" to you). On the contrary, there is
evidence, according to, I believe, Robert Bakker, that at least some
of them were endothermic ("warm blooded" to you).

DuH..as me kids say, what with you selective reading?

so, Robert Bakker versus Robert Jastrow? are you saying that uh.. there is a
bit of disagreements among scientist?

let me give you some recent material, to back up some old date material...
peered-review articles at that:

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/coldbloo.jsp

excerpt:
Palaeontologists still cannot agree whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or
cold-blooded, and there is still no conclusive evidence to settle the
argument. But John Ruben at Oregon State University in Corvallis and Williem
Hillenius, who used to be one of his students, say that the presence or
absence of scrolls of bone or cartilage in the nose, called respiratory
turbinates, could decide the question.

All warm-blooded animals have respiratory turbinates, although they evolved
independently in birds and mammals. Cold-blooded species do not have them at
all. When a bird or mammal breathes, the warm exhaled air passes over the
turbinates and is cooled. This causes the water vapour in the air to
condense on the membranes covering the scrolls. If this did not happen, the
rapid-breathing warm-blooded animals would dehydrate.

Ruben and Hillenius reason that if dinosaurs were warm-blooded, they would
have needed respiratory turbinates too. 'This is really the only way to cut
down on respiratory water loss,' says Ruben. With the help of CAT scans, the
researchers are peering into the fossilised skulls of dinosaurs to see if
they can find any trace of the scrolls.

Dinosaurs were not reptiles - they were a different group of animals,
and to my knowledge there is no "barrier" between endotherms and
ectotherms, because there is no solid demarcation between the two.
Even today there is a wide variation in maintained temperatures even
in mammals.

some people may disagree with you:

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2000Apr/msg00382.html

Are dinosaurs reptiles?
Yes one of those simple questions that I have a hard time answering

without

boring the heck out of everyone. So, I thought I'd leave it up to the
experts, who have probably answered this question to droves of school

children

in simple language. The kind of simple language that would be good for a

special aimed at a very general audience. Sometimes knowing a lot about a
subject makes the simplest question difficult. And I thought I'd never

need

that "Handy Answers" book...shame,shame,shame.

Answer: yes

Old System of Classification (Linnaean): Reptilia includes all
land-dwelling vertebrates which lay eggs with shells except for birds
(Aves) and mammals (Mammalia).

New System (cladistic/phylogenetic): Reptilia includes the most recent
common ancestor of turtles, crocodiles, snakes, lizards, and tuataras,
plus all of that ancestor's descendants. Dinosauria is a subset of this
(and Aves a subset of Dinosauria -- hence Aves is part of Reptilia, too).

I think Bakker's Linnaean classification might be the only one that
excluded Dinosauria from Reptilia.

-- T. Michael Keesey ..................................
<***@dinosauricon.com>
My Worlds (including The Dinosauricon) ...
<http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>

I guess not everyone agree with your buddy Bakker eh?

You see, your knowledge on the subject is about as fanatical as a
creationist...

you throw around opinions, as they were bonafide 100% Fact...

Same arrogance, used by evolutionist, pseudoscientist wannabe, throwing
evolution as 100 fact in the school system.. Student should be taught that
there
is disagreements among real scientists... now how come stuff like this shows
upn in the T.O Faqs huh..????

Is this suppsoed to be one of your "colossal holes"? How does it
constitute a hole?

Yes

the Fact, that there is still disagreement among real scientist is a
COLOSSAL hole among itself.. ofcourse you will tryn to play this one down as
well..

This is not even close to a "colossal hole". Even

if you could support it, which you apparently cannot, since once again
you are reduced to plagiarising, unreferenced, someone else's work, it
does not constitute a "colossal hole".

I just did support it.. with updated material, and I did not use a
"creationist" website... on the other hand all you can do is quote T.O un
peered review Faq's

It offers no barrier to

evolution unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible for any
ectotherm to develop endothermy. To my knowledge this has never been
done. Or do you have a reference to evidence that it is impossible?
I thought not.

Lecomte du Noüy, the French evolutionist, said concerning the belief

that

warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: "This stands out

today

as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." He also made the admission
that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute
creation"-unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.

Did Pierre Lecomte du Noüy say this in his book "Human Destiny" in
1947, or do you actually have some evidence from *this* millenium?
You plagiarised the article about colossal holes from two decades ago
and now you think to support it with a reference from over half a
century ago?

I guess the quote and website I posted in this article is also Plagerized
eh??/

Give it up, this is a hole you can not cover up...
I just snipped the same repeitive arrogance ...

now stop pretending you know so much.. you embarrasing other
pseudo-evolutionist...

Budikka

2003-09-21 14:24:26 UTC

Post by jabriol
never said modern reptiles did ?
http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htm

This "reference" from the same moron who whones that the talk-origins
archives are not peer-reviewed? LoL! The bottom line remains that
dinosaurs are not reptiles.

DuH..as me kids say, what with you selective reading?

Once again the professional moron offers not a shred of support for
his clueless whimperings. If you have something to back up what you
say, post it or post a valid reference, otherwise all you ahve is yet
more Jabriol Lies (TM). Where is your evidence that no dinosaur was
endothermic?

Post by jabriol
so, Robert Bakker versus Robert Jastrow? are you saying that uh.. there is a
bit of disagreements among scientist?

Duhh! Here is a quote from your own reference: "...there is still no
conclusive evidence to settle the argument." Once again, where is
your evidence that dinosaurs were without a doubt ectothermic?

Post by jabriol
let me give you some recent material, to back up some old date material...
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/coldbloo.jsp

You need to get a clue as to what peer-reviewed actually is, in terms
of a science paper. What you quote is no more peer-reviewed than you
claim the talk origins archive is. It was not even written by
scientists as far as I can see, but once again, by a journalist (your
favorite source from which to plagiarize "science") and it is almost a
decade old. You call this recent? Yeah, it is, in geologic time.

Now once again, and let me try to make this as simple as possible so
that even your limited iontellect can process it:

1. Where is your evidence that all dinosaurs were ectothermic?

2. Where is your evidence that an ectotherm parent species cannot
give rise to endothermic descendants through evolution?

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2000Apr/msg00382.html

And humans are apes. Or are you not willing to allow that? Next
please.

Post by jabriol
You see, your knowledge on the subject is about as fanatical as a
creationist...
you throw around opinions, as they were bonafide 100% Fact...

Hypocrite.

Is this suppsoed to be one of your "colossal holes"? How does it
constitute a hole?

Yes

In what way is it a hole? You have failed to demonstrate that there
is no way birds could have arisen from dinosaurs. Once again, your
entire armory consists of argument from incredulity. Because your
limited intellect cannot conceive it, it cannot have happened. Well
that's not science. The correct term for that would be
"cluelessness".

Post by jabriol
the Fact, that there is still disagreement among real scientist is a
COLOSSAL hole among itself.. ofcourse you will tryn to play this one down as
well..

That shows how little you grasp of science. The disagreements (not
one of which have you demonstrated to be real so far) are over **HOW**
evolution happened, not over whether it happened or not. deal with
it.

Post by jabriol
I just did support it.. with updated material, and I did not use a
"creationist" website... on the other hand all you can do is quote T.O un
peered review Faq's

You haven't supported the cube root of jack. All you have done - all
you ever do is post yet more material (virtually none of which was
written by a scientist, and none of which was an actual published
paper) which consists entirely of argument from incredulity.

You have not demosntrated anything to suggest that it is impossible
for a dinosaur (or even a reptile) to evolve into a bird.

You have not addressed the fact that at least some dinosaurs already
had feathers.

You have not addressed the fact that archaeopetryx was a transitional
form, having features both of dinos/reptiles *and* birds (whether or
not it was the actual ancestor of modern birds).

Post by jabriol
I guess the quote and website I posted in this article is also Plagerized
eh??/

You still whimpering about that half-century old Pierre Lecomte du
Noüy argument you tried to get away with, which was, yet again, an
argument from incredulity supported by no scientific evidence
whatsoever?

Post by jabriol
Give it up, this is a hole you can not cover up...

Then explain why it is a hole, because so far all you have deomstrated
is that there is some disagreement among scientists about the
mechanisms of evolution. No one has ever denied this. This is
precisely what you would expect to find in a fluourishing science.

Now once again, please list these colossal holes. I mean **an actual
list**, right here in this thread in repsonse to this post. No
excuses. No wise-cracks that do nothing but highlight your own
ignorance and incompetence. No more misdirection and strawmen. No
more directives to go search for mispelled names where you claim
(another lie) you have listed the holes.

What oyu need to do to back up your case and make me withdraw my
accusation that oyu lied about the colossal holes is post, right here,
a simple list of every hole you cna think of with a brief description
as to why it is a hole.

I want actual holes, not simply brain-dead argument from incredulity
from decades old articles that you have stolen without attribution.

Can you do it?

I thought not.

Any response to this challenge that does not consist of a list of
these holes will be a direct admission from you that there are no such
holes and you all have instead is a colossal lie. It will be a direct
admission from you that you are a waste of a human being, because if
your only mission in life is to spread disinformation and lies, then
you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Budikka

jabriol

2003-09-21 15:31:17 UTC

Post by jabriol
never said modern reptiles did ?
http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/birds/morphevol/main.htm

This "reference" from the same moron who whones that the talk-origins
archives are not peer-reviewed? LoL! The bottom line remains that
dinosaurs are not reptiles.

DuH..as me kids say, what with you selective reading?

where is your evidence the contrary? Robert Bakker, one loneguman eh?

Post by jabriol
so, Robert Bakker versus Robert Jastrow? are you saying that uh.. there is a
bit of disagreements among scientist?

Duhh! Here is a quote from your own reference: "...there is still no
conclusive evidence to settle the argument." Once again, where is
your evidence that dinosaurs were without a doubt ectothermic?

Post by jabriol
let me give you some recent material, to back up some old date material...
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/coldbloo.jsp

You need to get a clue as to what peer-reviewed actually is, in terms
of a science paper. What you quote is no more peer-reviewed than you
claim the talk origins archive is.

Let me get this straight.. newsscinetist.com has nothing to do with science
eh?
besides did I say it was peer reviewed?, I said these quotes are not from
"creationist websites.. but from science based ones...

Post by Budikka
It was not even written by
scientists as far as I can see, but once again, by a journalist (your
favorite source from which to plagiarize "science") and it is almost a
decade old. You call this recent? Yeah, it is, in geologic time.

so, you bring into account that "newscientist "is a sham, written by non
professionals, because they are not scientists... do they know that?

Post by Budikka
Now once again, and let me try to make this as simple as possible so
1. Where is your evidence that all dinosaurs were ectothermic?

where is your evidence that they were all not?

Post by Budikka
2. Where is your evidence that an ectotherm parent species cannot
give rise to endothermic descendants through evolution?

where the evidence that, this is a fact, and not specualtion?

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2000Apr/msg00382.html

And humans are apes. Or are you not willing to allow that? Next
please.

evasion noted.

Post by jabriol
You see, your knowledge on the subject is about as fanatical as a
creationist...
you throw around opinions, as they were bonafide 100% Fact...

Hypocrite.

ad-hom noted...

Is this suppsoed to be one of your "colossal holes"? How does it
constitute a hole?

Yes

In what way is it a hole? You have failed to demonstrate that there
is no way birds could have arisen from dinosaurs.

you have failed that they have.. it is a hole, it has not been observed, it
can not be duplicated...

Post by Budikka
Once again, your
entire armory consists of argument from incredulity. Because your
limited intellect cannot conceive it, it cannot have happened. Well
that's not science. The correct term for that would be
"cluelessness".

we are not talking about percetionof the intellect, another word for
"ïmagination",
we are talking about evidence... you have not provided any...

Post by jabriol
the Fact, that there is still disagreement among real scientist is a
COLOSSAL hole among itself.. ofcourse you will tryn to play this one down as
well..

Go back and study logic 101... If their is disagreement of "How" then "DID"
it occur this way, is suspect as well...

Post by jabriol
I just did support it.. with updated material, and I did not use a
"creationist" website... on the other hand all you can do is quote T.O un
peered review Faq's

You haven't supported the cube root of jack.

no.. that id for a mathematitian..

I've supported my claims.. if you wish to not accept it.. that is on you.. I
dont see anyone else disagreeing here...

Post by Budikka
All you have done - all
you ever do is post yet more material (virtually none of which was
written by a scientist, and none of which was an actual published
paper) which consists entirely of argument from incredulity.

same could be said about your non-peered review T.O. faqs.

Post by Budikka
You have not demosntrated anything to suggest that it is impossible
for a dinosaur (or even a reptile) to evolve into a bird.

you have not demostrated the contrary neither..

Post by Budikka
You have not addressed the fact that at least some dinosaurs already
had feathers.

You have not demostrated that they were infact dinosaurs and not birds...

Post by Budikka
You have not addressed the fact that archaeopetryx was a transitional
form, having features both of dinos/reptiles *and* birds (whether or
not it was the actual ancestor of modern birds).

because even real scientist doubt that it is a transitional form, if they
have doubts, then why sould I not..?

Post by jabriol
I guess the quote and website I posted in this article is also Plagerized
eh??/

Post by jabriol
Give it up, this is a hole you can not cover up...

Then explain why it is a hole, because so far all you have deomstrated
is that there is some disagreement among scientists about the
mechanisms of evolution.

and that is a hole... there is no conclusive link, just data, and data can
be infered to anything.. pro and con...

Post by Budikka
No one has ever denied this. This is
precisely what you would expect to find in a fluourishing science.

so you accept that there are holes... good you are showing signs of
progess...

Post by Budikka
Now once again, please list these colossal holes. I mean **an actual
list**, right here in this thread in repsonse to this post. No
excuses. No wise-cracks that do nothing but highlight your own
ignorance and incompetence. No more misdirection and strawmen. No
more directives to go search for mispelled names where you claim
(another lie) you have listed the holes.

just did.. you miss them...

Post by Budikka
What oyu need to do to back up your case and make me withdraw my
accusation that oyu lied about the colossal holes is post, right here,
a simple list of every hole you cna think of with a brief description
as to why it is a hole.

been doing that for some time...again it went Whoooosh right over your
head..

Post by Budikka
I want actual holes, not simply brain-dead argument from incredulity
from decades old articles that you have stolen without attribution.
Can you do it?
I thought not.

did you see it.. of course you did not...

Post by Budikka
Any response to this challenge that does not consist of a list of
these holes will be a direct admission from you that there are no such
holes and you all have instead is a colossal lie. It will be a direct
admission from you that you are a waste of a human being, because if
your only mission in life is to spread disinformation and lies, then
you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Budikka

Budikka

2003-09-23 01:43:39 UTC

Post by Budikka
Once again the professional moron offers not a shred of support for
his clueless whimperings. If you have something to back up what you
say, post it or post a valid reference, otherwise all you ahve is yet
more Jabriol Lies (TM). Where is your evidence that no dinosaur was
endothermic?

where is your evidence the contrary? Robert Bakker, one loneguman eh?

That's exactly the point, moron - we don't know. You are the one
insisting that they were all ectothermic, period. I am saying, "Where
is your evidence?". You're the one making the claim for the positive.
You are required to support it. As far as I can see, as your own
quoted article made crystal clear to everyone but the most
congenitally retarded (i.e. you), there is no final word on this. And
what if there were? Once again, where is your definitive proof that
endothermy could not evolve?

Post by Budikka
Duhh! Here is a quote from your own reference: "...there is still no
conclusive evidence to settle the argument." Once again, where is
your evidence that dinosaurs were without a doubt ectothermic?

Your complete avoidance of an answer to this challenge has been noted
world-wide.

Post by jabriol
Let me get this straight.. newsscinetist.com has nothing to do with science
eh?

Never said that. Please learn to read. Please learn to tell the
difference between a peer-reviewed science paper that establishes
scientific research pr discovery, and an article in a science magazine
that is essentially an argument from incredulity.

Post by jabriol
so, you bring into account that "newscientist "is a sham, written by non
professionals, because they are not scientists... do they know that?

These are your words. once again I never said them. If you cannot
follow what I am saying, then please do admit to it and I will dumb it
down some, so that even your half-wittedness can cope.

Post by Budikka
Now once again, and let me try to make this as simple as possible so
1. Where is your evidence that all dinosaurs were ectothermic?

where is your evidence that they were all not?

Once again for the asswipe, you are the one insisting that they were.
I am not insisting that they were not, I am saying that the case has
not been made. So once again, quit evading the issue and show me the
evidence you have that all dinosaurs were ectothermic.

What was that you were saying in another thread about you noting me
avoiding an irrelevant question? You take hypocrisy to brave new
heights. Your avoidance of this question has been noted world-wide.

Post by Budikka
2. Where is your evidence that an ectotherm parent species cannot
give rise to endothermic descendants through evolution?

where the evidence that, this is a fact, and not specualtion?

Genetics demonstrates very close relationships at DNA level between
all living things. This, in and of itself, is pretty conclusive for
evolution. So science has established this line of evidence and many
others, including comparative anatomy and the fossil record.

So once again, let me clarify this so that your one remaining
overworked brain cell can cope. I am not saying evolution is
conclusively proved beyond all doubt. I am saying that it is the best
explanation, given the evidence.

You are the one insisting evolution could not possibly have happened
because of these mythical "colossal holes" which you have proven you
cannot even make a list of (your repeated avoidance of that question
has been noted world wide).

You are the one making this absolute statement. All I am asking is
that you back it up with evidence. Clearly you cannot. Your
avoidance of yet another question is once again noted world-wide.

What was that you were saying in another thread about you noting me
avoiding an irrelevant question? You take hypocrisy to brave new
heights.

Post by Budikka
In what way is it a hole? You have failed to demonstrate that there
is no way birds could have arisen from dinosaurs.

you have failed that they have.. it is a hole, it has not been observed, it
can not be duplicated...

One word: Archaeopteryx. Do you deny this fossil had features of both
dinosaur and bird? Answer the question.

Now I have answered yours, once again I note you have avoided
answering my questions. How many times is this in this one thread
now?

Post by jabriol
we are talking about evidence... you have not provided any...

But the scientists have for 140 years. The person who has provided
not a shred, who cannot even make a list of these colossal holes, is
**YOU**. You lose. Deal with it, Loser.

I am not trying to make a case for evolution here. science has
already done that. If you want to overthrow that work, **you** need
to provide the evidence, not me. **You** are the one claiming
evolution does not work. All I am asking you to do is offer evidence
to support your hitherto empty claims. And once again, argument from
incredulity (even if it appears in a science magazine) is irrelevant.
Argument comparing modern birds and modern reptiles is irrelevant.
Half-century old argument is irrelevant. Obscure South African
newspapers from two decades ago are irrelevant. Are you getting any
of this?

What I have consistently been trying to do is **GET YOU TO LIST THESE
COLOSSAL HOLES** you invented, and you have consistently proven that
you cannot even make a list, let alone offer any evidence to support
items on such a list. You have nothing but empty bullshit. Do you
even understand what making a list means?

You started this by posting these unsupported bullshit articles. What
I have been consistently asking you to do is back up your clueless
postings. And you have conclusively demonstrated that you cannot.
You Lose. Deal with it, Loser.

Post by Budikka
You have not demosntrated anything to suggest that it is impossible
for a dinosaur (or even a reptile) to evolve into a bird.

you have not demostrated the contrary neither..

Comparative anatomy, genetics, fossil record. You lose. Deal with it
Loser. Now once again the world has noted that while you
hypocritically accuse me of avoiding issues, you are the one who is
running away in panic from with every single challenge I have laid at
your door. You lose. Deal with it Loser.

Post by Budikka
You have not addressed the fact that at least some dinosaurs already
had feathers.

You have not demostrated that they were infact dinosaurs and not birds...

No, but the scientists have, Read the reports. Archaeopteryx could
not fly, it did not have all the features of modern birds, but it did
have an equal amount of bird and dinosaur features, therefore it was
at the halfway stage, regardless of whether it was an *actual*
ancestor of modern birds. You lose. Deal with it Loser.

because even real scientist doubt that it is a transitional form, if they
have doubts, then why sould I not..?

Yet another Jabriol Unsupported Nonsense Claim (J.U.N.C.) (TM) noted.

Post by Budikka
You still whimpering about that half-century old Pierre Lecomte du
Noüy argument you tried to get away with, which was, yet again, an
argument from incredulity supported by no scientific evidence
whatsoever?

Post by jabriol
Give it up, this is a hole you can not cover up...

Once again, until you have demonstrated that it is a hole, you lose.
Deal with it, loser. Half-century old books that make argument from
incredulity and offer not a shred of scientific support for their
ancient claims are hardly effective science.

Post by Budikka
Then explain why it is a hole, because so far all you have demonstrated
is that there is some disagreement among scientists about the
mechanisms of evolution.

and that is a hole... there is no conclusive link, just data, and data can
be infered to anything.. pro and con...

Avoidance of yet another question noted. When the World Trade Center
towers fell down, there was some disagreement about the **precise**
mechanisms which caused it. Does that mean the towers never fell
down? You lose. Deal with it Loser.

Post by Budikka
No one has ever denied this. This is
precisely what you would expect to find in a fluourishing science.

so you accept that there are holes... good you are showing signs of
progess...

No. There are no holes - clearly there cannot be: how can there be
any holes when you cannot even make a list of them? Make a list of
these supposed holes, and then we'll discuss whether they are valid,
but until you can actually provide a LIST, there is nothing to
discuss. You do understand what a LIST is, don't you?

Disagreements about evolutionary mechanisms are not holes in the
Theory which has been established beyond all reasonable doubt by 140
years of science. There is no disagreement about the fact that
evolution happens. It has been demonstrated in the lab and observed
in the wild. It is supported by modern medicine, geology,
paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy and biochemistry. You
lose. Deal with it, Loser.

Post by Budikka
Now once again, please list these colossal holes.

just did.. you miss them...

Yet another evasion noted world-wide (how many is that now - in this
one thread alone?). Jabriol cannot make a list of these holes he has
invented, therefore there cannot be any holes. If there actually were
holes, Jabriol would list them just to shut me up.

Note that this challenge went unresponded to, as has every single
challenge I have ever posted requesting that you do nothing more than
supply a simple list of these holes. Once again, the world notes that
you cannot even make a list of these holes because there are no such
holes. You Lose. Deal with it, Loser.

Budikka

JaBrIoL

2003-09-23 11:07:05 UTC

where is your evidence the contrary? Robert Bakker, one loneguman eh?

That's exactly the point, moron - we don't know.

Thank you for making clear point...
the most important one that all evolutionist should admit to beforeing
teaching it as a fact. WE DON'T KNOW

rest of the useles rant snipped--------------

Budikka

2003-09-24 09:37:01 UTC

Post by JaBrIoL
Thank you for making clear point...
the most important one that all evolutionist should admit to beforeing
teaching it as a fact. WE DON'T KNOW

Never has this been an issue. It is not the evolutionists who are
making claims they cannot support, but you. The issue is not what the
ecolutionists are saying or not aying, but what you are failing to do.
You are claiming there are colossal holes in the Theory of Evolution,
but you cannot even offer a list of them, let alone explain why they
are holes.

You complete avoidance of dealing with the difficult issues raised in
this post has been noted worldwide, as has your hypocrisy in your
brain-dead blather that people are avodiing answering your questions
whilst you go around proving on a daily basis that you are the king of
avoiding the issue. Jabriol once again proves evolution by evolving
into a chicken.

Your continued evasions of repeated questions have been noted. I
repeat my instructions - also evaded by you - that I will answer your
questions when you ANSWER THE ONE I ASKED FIRST which was to provide
**A LIST** of the supposed "colossal holes" in the Theory of
Evolution. I am not even asking for any details or definitions any
more, just a simple list. You do know what **A LIST** is, don't you?
Here is an example for the cognitively challenged:

1. THIS
2. IS
3. A
4. NUMBERED
5. LIST
6. OF
7. THE
8. WORDS
9. IN
10. THESE
11. TWO
12. SENTENCES.
13. GET
14. IT
15. NOW?

Budikka

JaBrIoL

2003-09-24 15:31:43 UTC

Post by JaBrIoL
Thank you for making clear point...
the most important one that all evolutionist should admit to beforeing
teaching it as a fact. WE DON'T KNOW

Never has this been an issue. It is not the evolutionists who are
making claims they cannot support, but you.

It was always the issue, it is taught as a fact, like every scientist
in the world agreed, And I just Porve, that there are colossal hales
in the theory.. in fact you demanded some sort of evidence, and I gave
it to you, now you changed your panties, and say "Never has this been
an issue"????????????

you should work for the prez...

snip useless banter........................................

Budikka

2003-09-25 22:49:56 UTC