Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Who are you to determine how dumb somebody is? Who's dumber than you? Luck doesn't enter into it. Chemistry doesn't happen by chance. There are reasons why we have H₂O and not H₉O. Living organisms are made of chemicals. 1. Show us your calculations. (You can't, can you, idiot?)
2. Small does not mean zero. If the probability is not zero, it CAN happen.
3. The probabilities that creationist idiots are touting - and that you are stupid enough to believe - are for a living organism to pop into being from a pile of random atoms. That's not how chemistry works. It happens stepwise. Two atoms combine to form a molecule, then two molecules combine to form a larger molecule and so on. It might take thousands of steps to make a complex molecule, adding one piece at a time. (Think of a jigsaw puzzle: you don't put a thousand pieces together in one step.) But you don't have an ounce of common sense. It's entirely scientific, whether you understand it or not. (As I've demonstrated above, you don't.) You should be embarassed. Even creationists are saying, "Please get off our side." Not as dumb as you, idiot.

It is, but you keep doing it. Your contempt for biologists isn't even veiled. Luckily, it fits everything else pretty well. Your idea of what is "irrational" has no effect on reality.

Er... yes, you did. In Message 439 you said, "I prefer to believe that humans did not evolve but were created as per Genesis 2:7, about 10,000 years ago."There is no significant difference between young earth and young humans. You are denying the science of dating.

Get out of the nineteenth century. I don't try to define reality but I can see it. Your doubts are as worthless as your beliefs.

Wait till you see my persistence.

quote:

---

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.

-- Woody Guthrie

---

I'm still waiting for you to show how Dredge could have decades of symptoms in 3 years.

I've already answered that. If it was important, they would have done it. It doesn't matter how many replications it takes. I'm three or four credits short of a degree in mathematics. The question is: Do they agree with your conclusions? The answer would appear to ne no. Was it a real peer review for a real journal? Or di the review consist of seeing whether your check cleared? If nwr disagree with me, he isn't afraid to say so. How is that silly? If you make a claim, YOU back it up. It certainly isn't MY responsibility to find out whether or not they agree with you. You're the one who mentions them hundreds of times. Basic honesty would require you to find out what they actually think. You should be asking THEM why they haven't explained it to your satisfaction instead of trying to flog your nonsense here. When I want to "deal with" science, I go to the scientists, not some Internet crank. Biologists can and they did. Why do you think the nested hierarchy was established before anything was known about DNA? If it was just a bunch of wild guesses, why does DNA confirm it instead of refuting it? I know. That's where you fail. No biologist on earth understands but you do. Do you get your arrogance wholesale? I doubt that many physicians share your opinion. I argue with the stupidest people and they bring up the stupidest things. I try to avoid arguing with people who are smarter than me. Blah blah blah.What I asked was, "So is it Kishony best, Lenski second-best and Desai third-best? Then give us your fourth-best and fifth-best."Answer that. Sure it does. But unlike you, I don't call the experimenters incompetent. You're trying to make biology the equivalent of phrenology by claiming that biologists don't know what they're doing. A fool would.And the "we" here is not you. I got three cheers for that post, so "we" seem to agree with ME. They haven't explained it to your satisfaction because your satisfaction doesn't matter. I'll tell them to go with biology, not creationist quackery.

Go ahead and whistle in the dark.Then start a topic about abiogenesis, like I suggested. Let's see what Kishony, Lenski and Desai have to say about that.

Kishony, Lenski and Desai. (And if that's too subtle for you, Kishony, Lenski and Desai.) I agree, but he seems to be bored with your nonsense.(And he's one of my biggest fans.) I mostly debate people who are delusional.

Get out of the nineteenth century. Do you know what "synthesis" means? Hint: it doesn't mean "down the drain".And it certainly doesn't mean "replaced by creationism".

Only to somebody who is totally ignorant of chemistry.But the topic here is Kleinman's ignorance of biology. If you want to make stupid statements about abiogenesis, start a topic about abiogenesis.

But you admit to being a fool.Which is it? Are you an idiot or a liar? Or both?

Well, your wishful thinking won't get rid of me. You can run but you can't hide. Nice sports analogy. I may not be in the major leagues but youre playing tee-ball.

While you're waiting, you could answer some of your unanswered posts. I count about ten different topics that you've missed answering.

What I said was: "While you're waiting, you could answer some of your unanswered posts. I count about ten different topics that you've missed answering."This topic is not about abiogenesis. Start an appropriate topic. If you're even worse than some goober who thinks abiogenesis is "impossible". I can see why you're avoiding the subject.

You know nothing about chemistry. Abiogenesis is practically inevitable. It has nothing to do with atheism. It's about chemistry.And there's no "panic" about it. I will gladly give you a kindergarten-level lesson in chemistry - in an appropriate topic. Try to be wrong (and stupid) about one thing at a time.