Quote:

Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy.



@NITRO77: I know that defending creationism requires strange methods. But Voodoo?? Or for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate.

Quote:

Good job trying to divert the issue, however, the point is still made that you have an impossibility ahead of you in these sentence writing nonsense.



Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.

You don't need a billion monkeys. Nor a billion years. What you need is some math lessons for creationists.

Quote:

The problem I have noticed about your answers is that when they fall outside the domain of any referential talkorigins link, you seem to be at a loss. For example, I posted the impossibility of the 100,000 year period of evolutionary transition period between species of much less life spans(like insects and cells) and you never answered probably because you didnt know, didnt understand



Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.

The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within 100 years, and the assumption that the evolution of an eye requires 1000 consecutive steps of comparable complexity. See

http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/sho...true#Post640933

Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 2 years, thus an effective mutation rate of 1 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.

Quote:

As for science, it doesnt really matter, I have posted links on Goldschmidt's work , punctuated equiblrium and your hopeful monster theories three times to show that your gradual mutation theory was bogus three times yet noone has responded or listened to the theories yet.



Hmmm. I see that you've found some names and theories, but got them utterly mixed up. Goldschmidts "hopeful monsters" (I had to look that up) was a long-abandoned outsider hypothesis and has nothing to do with modern evolution at all. Thus I have indeed no idea what you wanted to tell us by posting it three times. Punctuated equilibria on the other hand is a modern evolution theory...

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, you are not even aware of current evolutionary thought. You are a believer in phyletic gradualism and you probably didnt know what that term meant untill just now. However, this theory was wiped out by your fellow evolutionists long ago.



...but you've got again something very wrong about "phyletic gradualism". It was not "wiped out", but is in contrary the very basis on which the punctuated equilibria theory was developed.

Gradualism and punctuation are part of evolution, "hopeful monsters" is not. We know that mutations occur with a relatively constant rate in a species. However their effect can vary drastically depending on external and internal circumstances. We observe both gradualism and punctuation in nature, although some parts of the punctuated equilibria theory are disputed.

-

I see that you're beginning, maybe in lack of serious arguments, to permanently repeat in your posts that I "don't get it" and "dont know it". Indeed I know very little about evolution - but apparently still a lot more than most creationists. If you think that I don't understand something, please explain it to me. Claiming other people's ignorance, but exposing one's own lack of knowledge in the very same sentence is maybe not the best way to defend creationism.

In an online discussion, most people - me included - prefer to answer on clear and understandable statements, and don't like to answer on a bunch of nebulous claims. When people don't answer or "fail to understand" what you're saying, a possible reason might be not their dumbness, but some incoherence or lack of sense in your words. Of course - I don't want to get in trouble with your Voodoo cult - this is only a theoretical possibility that I only want to mention here for the sake of completeness.