Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

Not "creative" powers. Accumulative powers.Tiny changes, that nobody would notice, accumulate over long periods of time to make huge changes.And we do have long periods of time. You creationist idiots often make the mistake of thinking that science makes up long periods of time because evolution needs long periods of time.But we HAVE long periods of time. We have the geological evidence of long periods of time whether evolution happened or not. Long periods of time are there even if life never happened.

I laughed when I read that. You seem to be saying that one mutation starts with one LEGO and other mutations each add a LEGO until the structure is complete.What actually happens is that a mutation makes a change in an existing structure and subsequent mutations make further changes. The originally function of the structure will continue as long as the accumulated changes allow it - and a new function may arise at some point in the series of changes.

The prey animals with thicker skin had a better chance of survival, so thicker skin became prevalent. The thin-skinned prey may well have become extinct because of snake predation.Similarly, the snakes with stronger fangs had a larger food supply (thin-skinned AND thick-skinned), which increased their chances of survival.You really shouldn't be laughing at ideas that are easy to explain.

You left out "empty". You keep forgetting that you're a self-confessed idiot. (Of course, your forgetfulness is understandable.) Your conclusion is worthless. The problem is in your feeble mind, not in what people are telling you.

If you don't understand the explanations, ask questions. Don't pretend you're smart enough to reject them out of hand. They can be tested against the fossil record. Get out of the nineteenth century.

Well, you are, and we won't forget - especially since you insist on flaunting it in every post. You'll look a lot less stupid if you ask questions and try to understand the answers.

It's a long story. My first avatar was Lee Van Cleef because I'm quick on the draw. Then, for reasons that I don't entirely remember myself, I affected a gender-unspecific persona for a while (not that it was really different from my usual persona). Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead seemed like a more suitable avatar - and it was quite popular. Then, for other reasons that are lost to history, I switched to Sean Connery (Marko Ramius, the Vilnius Schoolmaster, from The Hunt for Red October). That's closer to what I look like in real life. Finally, I realized that I still had the Sharon Stone graphic, so I switched back.

A similar joke that applies to Dredge, candle2, Kleinman, et al.:

Your assurance means nothing. I have no reason to think you're not lying.

You're shooting yourself in the foot by admitting that you DO know how to do it. You're also admitting that you're a troll by going on and on about it. You'd be better off just shutting the fuck up about it.

Was I wrong about you going on and on about it? You're making my case.

You already responded arrogantly to that statement in Message 908 and now you're admitting you didn't understand it? How many feet can you get in your mouth at once?

We didn't "require" relativity to get to the moon. We might have gotten there safely if we had never discovered relativity. But we did use it.

​Umm... they share genetic similarities because they're related - i.e. they have common ancestors. That's what "related" means.

Your "argument" is thoroughly incoherent. When somebody can't understand you, it may be them. When NOBODY can understand you, it's you.