Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: An Honest Man at LAST!

>Thank you for admitting the obvious. However, one slight but cosmic correction.
>The answers are profoundly unknown to you, but they are ALL known to God.

Sorry, two logical fallacies here.

1. Simply because the answers are not currently known to science does not mean that they can never be known, nor does it mean that the answers won't be naturalistic. All it means is that it is not currently known.

2. False dichotomy. Assuming that evolution does not exist doesn't mean that God does. There could be a better, tertiary answer. The question of God is very different from this discussion on evolution.

Thank you, Brian, for your amazing admission.

In regard to your reply on my request that you offer a step-by-step scenario of how mutations and natural selection actually build novel or more complex:

"The answers to your questions are unknown."


Yes, of course they are unknown because they only in exist in the imagination of the evolutionist.

That is exactly why evolution should NOT be taught as fact in schools, and why genetic research should focus on the importance of 'junk DNA' instead of the millions of dollars continually spent on research in a desperate attempt to prove that man came from molecules.

How evolutionary science and presupposition has limited genetic discovery is absolutely shameful.



The following is from a peer-reviewed journal published by the Public Library of Science:

“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Summary: “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, … Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”
Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.
“This seemingly paradoxical corollary follows because, as stated above, the PPV of isolated findings decreases when many teams of investigators are involved in the same field. This may explain why we occasionally see major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention. With many teams working on the same field and with massive experimental data being produced, timing is of the essence in beating competition. Thus, each team may prioritize on pursuing and disseminating its most impressive “positive” results. “Negative” results may become attractive for dissemination only if some other team has found a “positive” association on the same question. In that case, it may be attractive to refute a claim made in some prestigious journal. The term Proteus phenomenon has been coined to describe this phenomenon of rapidly alternating extreme research claims and extremely opposite refutations. Empirical evidence suggests that this sequence of extreme opposites is very common in molecular genetics.”

Re: Thank you, Brian, for your amazing admission.

Haha, so predictable. Geez, I never imagined that my answer would cause you to jump to completely unjustifiable conclusions...

But just for fun, let's look at the questions you asked: what are the first three mutations that lead to a pressure sensing device.

Let's compare that with the question you're now claiming that you asked: how do mutations and natural selection actually build novelty and complexity.

In case you have forgotten, you didn't ask that second question, you only asked the first. My answer to the second question is NOT "unknown". But you did not ask that question. And your desire to print a revisionist history on this board is transparent.

As for your final comment on the article from PLoS, congratulations on finally finding a peer-reviewed journal. You're heading in the right direction. I really am proud of you. I'm wondering what conclusion you are drawing from this paper. Do you understand the scope of what the authors measured? Have you read the responses? Because the process for publishing a paper in PLoS is different than it is for most journals, it is vital for readers to read the responses. Here is one such response to this paper:
1. From Steven Goodman, As. Prof., Johns Hopkins:
~"So the model employed cannot be considered a proof that most published claims are untrue, but is rather a claim that no study or combination of studies can ever provide convincing evidence."
~"In addition to the above problems, the paper claims to have proven something it describes as paradoxical; that the “hotter” an area is (i.e. the more studies published), the more likely studies in that area are to make false claims. We have shown this claim to be erroneous (www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper135)."
~"the claims that the model employed in this paper constitutes a “proof” that most published medical research claims are false, and that research in “hot” areas is most likely to be false, are unfounded."

Again, what exactly do you take from this paper? Should we, ironically, decide that Ioannidis's (the study's author) claims also are false? Are we debating the theory of evolution, or are we debating the value of science in general?

Good dodge ball technique. Why don't you just give it a shot?

You would be much more effective at actually providing the scenario that would prove you know what you are talking about. Since you obviously forgot about it, here it is again:
(From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/746941/)

Since you so clearly understand how mutatations and natural selection drive evolution, please share with us the likely scenario of mutations creating some of the components for hearing. Please be specific as this shouldn't be difficult for you considering your vast knowledge of the process:

1. The first 3 random mutations creating just ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations in creating the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations that would create the receptors that receive and react to the signals
4. The first 3 mutations needed to connect everything together while you're at it.
Unless, everything gets linked together, nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity, which is about as basic as you can get in the evolution of hearing.

These links might help you with the mechanics of it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378

Re: Good dodge ball technique. Why don't you just give it a shot?

The theory of evolution does NOT suggest that a genetic road map exists for all humans, all living organisms, and all of life that has evolved over the past several billion years.

I am happy to help you understand any premises that are actually supported by the theory of evolution.

Interesting display of knowledge ...

Are you now claiming that mutations and natural selection aren't the mechanisms that caused the initial biological components of hearing to appear?

If so, please share with us what genetic mechanism has been proven to cause novel or more complex traits to arise.

If not, why don't you give the previous request a shot?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The theory of evolution does NOT suggest that a genetic road map exists for all humans, all living organisms, and all of life that has evolved over the past several billion years.

I am happy to help you understand any premises that are actually supported by the theory of evolution.

Re: Interesting display of knowledge ...

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer a question that you already know the answer to...but I've maintained all along that mutation and natural selection are indeed the very mechanisms that drive evolution. I have written nothing to suggest otherwise. I am further asserting that, while the mechanism is known, the genetic road map from the past 3.5 billion years is not. As I've said previously, the human genome project was "completed" only 2 or so years ago. The full genomes of very, very few organisms are known, therefore your questions are neither clever, interesting, nor relevant.

A recap of why evolution is a religion

So, you claim that mutations and natural selection are the mechanisms that turned molecules into man ...

However, you are unable to articulate, even when given the license for fantasy, a reasonable scenario for those events occuring.

Is that correct? Yes or no are your only two options. If yes, please provide the requested information:

Since you so clearly understand how mutatations and natural selection drive evolution, please share with us the likely scenario of mutations creating some of the components for hearing. Please be specific as this shouldn't be difficult for you considering your vast knowledge of the process:

1. The first 3 random mutations creating just ONE mechanically gated hair cell
2. The first 3 random mutations in creating the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that need to transmit to the brain
3. The first 3 random mutations that would create the receptors that receive and react to the signals
4. The first 3 mutations needed to connect everything together while you're at it.
Unless, everything gets linked together, nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity, which is about as basic as you can get in the evolution of hearing.

These links might help you with the mechanics of it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cell
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378
Replies:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer a question that you already know the answer to...but I've maintained all along that mutation and natural selection are indeed the very mechanisms that drive evolution. I have written nothing to suggest otherwise. I am further asserting that, while the mechanism is known, the genetic road map from the past 3.5 billion years is not. As I've said previously, the human genome project was "completed" only 2 or so years ago. The full genomes of very, very few organisms are known, therefore your questions are neither clever, interesting, nor relevant.

Do you have better answers?

>However, you are unable to articulate, even when given the license for fantasy,
>a reasonable scenario for those events occuring.

First of all, even if Brian or someone else were to answer AS a hypothesis, you would very well jump down their throat for the research papers to back it up, etc etc. I certainly wouldn't oppose that request, but the simple fact is that there are no papers for these specific questions yet, so answering from a hypothetical nature serves this debate none.

Secondly, you are assuming that because these answers are not currently known that they CANNOT be known and that they will NEVER be known. That, unfortunately for you, is a false conclusion. You are speaking like the Greeks or Romans with respect to lightning bolts - "we don't know how that works! we'll never know how that works! the gods did it!". You belittle the human race by saying "it can't be discovered".

Thirdly, you are asking for detail that is simply impossible at this point. Are you asking for the numbers and positions of the changes in a DNA strand that would cause these effects? Do you realize how unrealistic that question is given today's technology? Are you going to be OK with the answer when it DOES come within your lifetime (assuming you've got 20-30 years left or so [my personal estimation])?

Thirdly, supposing that evolution doesn't work this way, and we are instead to study creation, could I pose simpler, even more dramatic questions to you that YOU should be able to answer as well? I will not *officially* pose these questions for you to answer, simply because this board is about evolution and not creation, but IF the tables were turned, would one be valid in asking these questions:

Using known research and known sources, including the Bible:
1. The first chemical reactions God used to create flesh and organs from dirt
2. The first few processes God used to create plants/animals from nothing (you must take the conservation of energy law into account)
Unless these two basic "where do things come from" questions are answered, we have less answers about the origin of things than ToE, even though IT is not complete.

You tell me, which is more practical?

You guys are confused again

In regard to your comment:

"First of all, even if Brian or someone else were to answer AS a hypothesis, you would very well jump down their throat for the research papers to back it up, etc etc. I certainly wouldn't oppose that request, but the simple fact is that there are no papers for these specific questions yet, so answering from a hypothetical nature serves this debate none."

1. So, you don't think that we should be able to closely examine each process to assess if its genetically possible/probable with what we know today?

2. No, the simple fact is that the evolutionary premise being a reasonable explanation for novel and more complex traits to appear is utter nonsense.

3. The definition of a debate is to discuss or examine a question by presenting and considering arguments on both sides. So, if you can't answer THE very question of how evolution actually works, there is no real debate (as we are seeing here).

In regard to your comment:

"Secondly, you are assuming that because these answers are not currently known that they CANNOT be known and that they will NEVER be known. That, unfortunately for you, is a false conclusion. You are speaking like the Greeks or Romans with respect to lightning bolts - "we don't know how that works! we'll never know how that works! the gods did it!". You belittle the human race by saying "it can't be discovered"."

1. Since you admit that no one knows yet how evolution works, then explain to all of us why evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students into believing such nonsense as absolute fact?
(See http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_indoctrination_in_education.html)

2. No, unfortunately for evolutionists, the complete lack of evidence will be their downfall.

3. How interesting that it always come back to God.

In regard to your comment:

"Thirdly, you are asking for detail that is simply impossible at this point. Are you asking for the numbers and positions of the changes in a DNA strand that would cause these effects? Do you realize how unrealistic that question is given today's technology? Are you going to be OK with the answer when it DOES come within your lifetime (assuming you've got 20-30 years left or so [my personal estimation])?"

1. First, you claim that asking for detailed explanations of how evolution might possibly occur is unrealistic.

2. Then, you ask if we are ready to receive them when they come? Interesting argument ...

In regard to your comment:

"Thirdly, supposing that evolution doesn't work this way, and we are instead to study creation, could I pose simpler, even more dramatic questions to you that YOU should be able to answer as well? I will not *officially* pose these questions for you to answer, simply because this board is about evolution and not creation, but IF the tables were turned, would one be valid in asking these questions:

Using known research and known sources, including the Bible:
1. The first chemical reactions God used to create flesh and organs from dirt
2. The first few processes God used to create plants/animals from nothing (you must take the conservation of energy law into account)
Unless these two basic "where do things come from" questions are answered, we have less answers about the origin of things than ToE, even though IT is not complete.

You tell me, which is more practical?"

1. Did you know that science didn't and doesn't need an evolutionary foundation in order to understand its mechanisms? I personally think both evolution and creation should be covered under the subject of philosophy, not science.

2. Did you know that research produces more accurate outcomes without a false underlying presupposition?
See "What has the Presupposition of Evolutionary Science Done for Research on ERVS?" on
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html

3. Do you believe that all supernatural phenomena must be ignored and only "practical" theories, even those without any evidence, should replace them and be elevated as fact?

Example:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/Sonoluminescence/page2.html

Because sonoluminescence cannot be explained, the logic in the above would dictate that you MUST come up with a "practical" explanation.
Think one up and then we'll teach it as fact.

This is the very philosophy behind the theory of evolution.

Re: You guys are confused again

>1. So, you don't think that we should be able to closely examine each process
>to assess if its genetically possible/probable with what we know today?

No, I believe scientists should and ARE doing exactly that. It takes a lot of time and work, and they are up to it right now.

>2. No, the simple fact is that the evolutionary premise being a reasonable
>explanation for novel and more complex traits to appear is utter nonsense.

But you don't have any evidence to support this conclusion. In fact, it's false. Scientists have evidence that it DOES happen that way.

>3. So, if you can't answer THE very question of how evolution actually
>works, there is no real debate (as we are seeing here).

You did not ask THE very question of how evolution works. You are asking a question about the details of a particular process that haven't been discovered yet. That is not only NOT the question at hand, but the current lack of an answer does not inhibit the understanding of how evolution works AT ALL.

>1. Since you admit that no one knows yet how evolution works,

Nobody has done any such thing. Nobody knows yet the specific genes that changed to make changes in the auditory system over time, as you are requesting. This is one example of an evolutionary process, but it is not the only one. The lack of particular knowledge about that process, like I said, does NOT preclude the understanding of how evolution works in general.

>3. How interesting that it always come back to God

How interesting that you or John always bring it back there, when the answer could STILL be purely naturalistic.

Can you prove that the process you describe can NOT be a natural process? No, you can't. All we know is that we don't know how THAT PARTICULAR change occurred, in what order, and which specific genes changed - which is what you're asking for.

>1. First, you claim that asking for detailed explanations of how
>evolution might possibly occur is unrealistic.

For the particular process you outline, that is absolutely true.

>2. Then, you ask if we are ready to receive them when they come?

Simply because you cannot prove that they are NOT naturalistic. We can propose that they are, for reasons and mechanisms we have all outlined multiple times to you.

>1. Did you know that science didn't and doesn't need an evolutionary
>foundation in order to understand its mechanisms?

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

So sorry, you're wrong.

>3. Do you believe that all supernatural phenomena must be ignored and only
> "practical" theories, even those without any evidence, should replace them
>and be elevated as fact?

Yes, all supernatural explanations must be excluded in the field of science.
Any "practical" theory without evidence would not be a theory at all, it would at best be a hypothesis.

Re: Re: You guys are confused again

In regard to your comment:

"No, I believe scientists should and ARE doing exactly that. It takes a lot of time and work, and they are up to it right now."

1. Yes we know they're scrambling for evidence.

2. Please tell us other areas of science that are taught as fact, but have no evidence behind them.

In regard to your comment:

"But you don't have any evidence to support this conclusion. In fact, it's false. Scientists have evidence that it DOES happen that way."

1. You are confused again. The lack of evidence is what supports my conclusion so my conclusion is true.

2. Why don't you share with us the evidence of mutations building a novel and more complex trait. Be specific and we'll go through it with you.

In regard to your comment:

"You did not ask THE very question of how evolution works. You are asking a question about the details of a particular process that haven't been discovered yet. That is not only NOT the question at hand, but the current lack of an answer does not inhibit the understanding of how evolution works AT ALL."

1. How silly of us to ask you for the details of how mutations build novel and more complex traits. Are we to assume that, if you claim they do, they just do and that's it?

2. Since you believe evolutionists understand how evolution works, then why are you guys having an impossible time at articulating it?

In regard to your comment:

"Nobody has done any such thing. Nobody knows yet the specific genes that changed to make changes in the auditory system over time, as you are requesting. This is one example of an evolutionary process, but it is not the only one. The lack of particular knowledge about that process, like I said, does NOT preclude the understanding of how evolution works in general."

1. When you guys figure it out, why don't you then teach it as fact. Until then, it's your religion and should not be confused as fact.

2. The "lack of particular knowledge about that process" means that you don't know how or IF it works the way you assume it to work (evolution), thus a generality cannot be assertained.

In regard to your comment:

"How interesting that you or John always bring it back there, when the answer could STILL be purely naturalistic:

1. Let us know if that time comes.

2. Until then, we will keep praying that God will open your eyes.

In regard to your comment:

"Can you prove that the process you describe can NOT be a natural process? No, you can't. All we know is that we don't know how THAT PARTICULAR change occurred, in what order, and which specific genes changed - which is what you're asking for."
and
"Simply because you cannot prove that they are NOT naturalistic. We can propose that they are, for reasons and mechanisms we have all outlined multiple times to you."

1. Again, the burden of proof is on evolutionists as they are the ones that claim it and teach it as fact.

2. If evolutionists don't know how it occurs, why did they devise a process and teach it as legitimate science?

In regard to your quote:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

1. Yes, that's why most research on 'junk DNA' was sidelined. What an utter display of arrogance and stupidity on the part of evolutionists!

2. His famous flies are still flies. Why do you suppose that is?

In regard to your comment:

"Yes, all supernatural explanations must be excluded in the field of science.
Any "practical" theory without evidence would not be a theory at all, it would at best be a hypothesis."

1. Wonderful! Why don't you contact everyone and have all curriculum reclassify evolution to 'a hypothesis, at best.'

2. You conveniently forgot the rest of my comment:

WIYC:
Example:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/Sonoluminescence/page2.html

Because sonoluminescence cannot be explained, the logic in the above would dictate that you MUST come up with a "practical" explanation.
Think one up and then we'll teach it as fact.

This is the very philosophy behind the theory of evolution."



Have you made on up yet?

Your rebuttal is weakening

>1. Yes we know they're scrambling for evidence.

Oh yes, why not ignore the fact that they HAVE evidence while at the same time implying that they're "scrambling". Very good debate tactic. Unfortunately it means nothing.

>2. Please tell us other areas of science that are taught as fact, but have
>no evidence behind them.

Excellent implying that evolution has no evidence. Nice try.
In fact, I know of no "areas" of science that are taught "as fact" at all. Concepts and theories are taught, supported BY facts.
Facts = observances of the natural world
Theories = sets of abstract rules that explain the facts that are seen

>1. You are confused again. The lack of evidence is what supports my
>conclusion so my conclusion is true.

Wow. "You're confused". Great rebuttal.
I'm sorry, but the "lack of evidence" you speak of is simply not true. The evidence is there, you simply choose to ignore it or discard it so you can believe in a Biblical precept.
If you're simply going to say "it's not there, it's not there", then debating with you is pointless.

>2. Why don't you share with us the evidence of mutations building a
>novel and more complex trait. Be specific and we'll go through it with you.

I personally am not qualified to share the details of mutations. What I can do is point you to research that has been done, but I'm imagining you've looked at most of it and made your own alternate conclusion. I've seen the long threads on ambulocetus and others. Even those are over my head in terms of the details. That's a pointless challenge, I'm not going to waste my time, because it's been demonstrated to you time and time again.

>1. How silly of us to ask you for the details of how mutations build novel and
>more complex traits. Are we to assume that, if you claim they do, they just
>do and that's it?

Asking the question is no problem at all, in fact it's an excellent question. The field of "evolutionary development" is the field that will answer this question for you.

Simply because I CLAIM that they do doesn't mean they do. My conclusions are based on the ToE, and I fully expect the questions you pose to be answered in sufficient detail by the ToE. They will NEVER be answered in sufficient detail by "goddidit". Sorry.

>2. Since you believe evolutionists understand how evolution works, then why
>are you guys having an impossible time at articulating it?

You are actively ignoring everything except this particular example you have given. Your example is not the only example of how evolution works. There are many examples that show how it works and works well - you simply choose to ignore them. "Willfully ignorant", one might say?.

>1. When you guys figure it out, why don't you then teach it as fact. Until then,
>it's your religion and should not be confused as fact.

When the details of the evolution of the auditory system become clear, then it will be taught as part of the theory. I know of no textbook that is currently answering the details of the question you pose. What it IS teaching is the theory explaining the concept of *how it happened*. The details will be forthcoming from the evo-devo field. It's simple.

Simply because it can't be explained in the detail you expect does by NO means throw the whole ToE out the window.

>2. The "lack of particular knowledge about that process" means that you don't >know how or IF it works the way you assume it to work (evolution), thus a
>generality cannot be assertained.

You're moving the goalposts. You asked for details about which genes changed. That is not known. The METHOD by which the auditory system evolved IS known.

The "generality" you speak of has been "ascertained" by other examples. One doesn't need to be so specific to understand the process.

>"How interesting that you or John always bring it back there, when the answer >could STILL be purely naturalistic:
>1. Let us know if that time comes.

I'm sure that you'll find out as soon as we do, and you'll either ignore it or attempt to refute it so you can keep believing the "goddidit" theory so you can be comfortable in your existence.

>2. Until then, we will keep praying that God will open your eyes.

Oh, he already has, my dear. He already has.

>1. Again, the burden of proof is on evolutionists as they are the ones that
>claim it and teach it as fact.

Stop twisting terms. Facts are taught as facts. Theories are taught as theories. Certainly the burden of proof is on working scientists, and I'm telling you, they're working on these very things you speak of. When they discover the details you seek, I'll bet dollar-for-dollar you'll have to ignore it.

>2. If evolutionists don't know how it occurs, why did they devise a process
>and teach it as legitimate science?

Because the process explains how things can develop and change over time. It's a fantastically elegant process. Not knowing all the specific details about the evolution of every biological system does not mean that that's not how it happened.

Here's the ting: theories are not made based on the gathering of every iota of evidence possible. Theories make PREDICTIONS, that is their power. What was seen in nature prompted Darwin to come up with the concept that explained what he saw. Darwin was not required to know every detail about every system in order to publish his theory. What was found was that his theory PREDICTED many of the things seen in nature since then, especially in genetics, that he COULDN'T have known. It's funny that the changes seen in genetics are explained very well by the theory.

Teaching the THEORY is the power. Teaching the details is like, well, like the old proverb: "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever." Facts are the details. The THEORY is where the power is to see the facts for what they are and what they MEAN, which is the important thing.

>2. His famous flies are still flies. Why do you suppose that is?

Because the ToE doesn't predict that an animal would change an ORDER. They will change SPECIES.

Nobody expects an animal of order Diptera to change to another order. That's silly.

Let me guess, a fly would be a Biblical "kind", too?

>1. Wonderful! Why don't you contact everyone and have all curriculum
>reclassify evolution to 'a hypothesis, at best.'

Because evolution can and has been tested over the past 150 years, it has lots of evidence that supports it, and requires no "supernatural" explanation. That's why.

>2. You conveniently forgot the rest of my comment:

Because it was silly. But to humor you, here you go:

>Because sonoluminescence cannot be explained, the logic in the above would
>dictate that you MUST come up with a "practical" explanation. Think one up
>and then we'll teach it as fact.

That's why the research program exists, silly! They're there to figure it out! It looks like a fascinatingly cool field.

Again, you misunderstand the terms.
The FACT is that sound can change to light in the right circumstances. There currently is no THEORY to explain it. That's what they're working on. Demonstrate the fact, sure - because it happens in nature. The research is there to discover the *explanation* - the *theory* - behind why it happens. It's pretty simple.

>This is the very philosophy behind the theory of evolution.

No it's not.
The ToE exists. It explains what is seen in nature.
There is no "theory of sonoluminescence".

QED

Would you like someone to help you out?

In regard to your comment:

"I personally am not qualified to share the details of mutations. What I can do is point you to research that has been done, but I'm imagining you've looked at most of it and made your own alternate conclusion. I've seen the long threads on ambulocetus and others. Even those are over my head in terms of the details. That's a pointless challenge, I'm not going to waste my time, because it's been demonstrated to you time and time again."

1. Since you concede that you are not qualified, we suggest that you summon a ‘professional’ who might help you. Here are some sites that make the same claims that you guys do. Why don’t you post a 'help needed' warrant?

http://forum.darwincentral.org/
(Notice the statement on the top of the page: “Corrupting the World’s Youth Since 1859”) At least they admit it!)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

2. As far the whale transition, do you have some new information? You couldn’t quite get the poor guys into the water and we invite everyone to see the folly of the ‘walking whales.’ It is no doubt the most ridiculous yarn that evolutionists have come up with yet.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/710081/23
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/709476/25
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/709377/26

Apparently I need no help

Wow. I write 1200+ words rebutting your positions and all you can come up with is how unqualified I am to share details about specific mutations? I'll go you one further - I'm not even a professional scientist!

Sorry, but it looks like I need no help. I rebutted 15 points of yours, and all except one to no response.

I wouldn't waste P.Z. Meyers' time asking for his "help". He's got more important things to do. Fortunately, this site is but a blip on the radar, and nobody seems to care about it except for Brian and myself.

Sorry, I believe those ambulocetus posts speak for themselves. I need not add anything further.

What did we miss?

Please review your 'rebuttal.'

1. No where in your 1200+ word 'rebuttal' did you offer any evidence that would make your case.

2. The "Let's See How Evolution Works" forum is for evolutionists to attempt to make their case by offering 'factual' information backed up with empirical evidence.

3. From here on, unless you provide something more than just more rhetoric, I will be deleting you posts.