|
So you already admitted what a liar you are for continuing this fraud? Or you already admitted that this is yet another lie since you have consistently failed to provide a list of even *one* such hole?
I guess that must be it, because I have yet to see a **LIST** of these colossal holes' you claimed were in the Theory of Evolution back in August. I know you are known for avoiding good references like the plague (especially since the ones you do give have turned out 100% to be proof that you're a liar in my experience (remember the banana, Jabriol?).
So are you going to prove yourself a liar again and pretend you posted a list somewhere, or are you actually going to offer a reference to where this **LIST** of these 'colossal holes' is? Why not post the actual list right here and shut me up?
Or are you trying to pretend that those arguments from incredulity you posted were the list? No - those were arguments from incredulity. They did not constitute a list. I asked for a **LIST**. I didn;t ask you to post arguments form incredulity all over the place without even having the courtesy to tell me, and to misspekl my name int heprocess (in the hope I would enver ifnd them and not be able to respond?
Well I *did* respond and shortly after I did, you abdandoned each and every single one of those threads, in a direct admissiont hat oyu cnanot answer my chalelnges and quesitons and cannot supprot your material. get it now?
Originally I asked that you list and support the 'colossal holes', but I haven't been asking for that for some time. All I have been trying to get out of you lately, is a simple, unsupported, unreferenced **LIST** and you cannot supply it. As usual, any response to this that does not supply such a list will be a direct and open admission by you, to the world, that there are no such holes.
And while you're at it, answers to these questions would be nice, too: 1. I am *still waiting** for you to admit that your original reference to the similarities between humans and bananas said 'up to 30%' and not a definitive 75% as you lied, not 90%, not even 60%, not even 50% as you have subsequently claimed without any useful support.
2. I am *still waiting** for you to admit that regardless of what it is classed as, and regardless of whether it was or was not in the line to birds, the archaeopteryx had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and therefore represented an example of a potential intermediate stage, or give a supported refutation.
3. I am *still waiting** for you to admit that the okapi is pretty much what a transitional giraffe would have looked like or give a supported refutation.
4. I am *still waiting** for you to explain why something akin to a mouse, could not change 300 genes over 60 million years to become either human or a modern mouse, or give a supported refutation.
5. I am *still waiting** for you to acknowledge that no evolutionist has ever claimed that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles and that argument from incredulity addressing this non-issue, no matter how ancient it is, does not constitute a 'colossal hole' in the Theory of Evolution.
6. I am *still waiting** for you to acknowledge that a letter from a creationist, no matter how ancient it is, no matter how much it argues from incredulity, published in _New Scientist_ magazine is not the equivalent of a peer-reviewed paper published in a professional science magazine.
|
