Replies

Evo is junk science. no argument here.

Let's see you attempt to substantiate this assertion. This should be freaking hilarious.

Go for it, son. Show all of us that an anti-evolutionist actually has the first clue what in the hell he's talking about -- for once.

Be sure to explain what, exactly, is wrong with *all* the vast amounts of evidence which overwhelmingly establishes the validity of evolutionary biology. After all, you couldn't possibly arrive at a conclusion like "Evo is junk science" without being aware of the flaws in all of its foundations -- at least not if you weren't a complete liar, that is. So I'm sure that you have carefully examined this field of science and can personally explain where all of its links to the evidence have been shown to be actually "junk science", so go ahead and lay it all out for us, including for example why the inherent phylogenies in the pattern of endogenous retroviruses is flawed, and why the fact that coherent cladograms keep arising from DNA and morphological studies isn't actually the support for evolution it appears, but are really "junk science" instead.

We'll wait. Go for it. Impress the lurkers. Now's your chance! Don't let it slip by.

Let's see you attempt to substantiate this assertion. This should be freaking hilarious.
Go for it, son. Show all of us that an anti-evolutionist actually has the first clue what in the hell he's talking about -- for once.
Be sure to explain what, exactly, is wrong with *all* the vast amounts of evidence which overwhelmingly establishes the validity of evolutionary biology. After all, you couldn't possibly arrive at a conclusion like "Evo is junk science" without being aware of the flaws in all of its foundations -- at least not if you weren't a complete liar, that is. So I'm sure that you have carefully examined this field of science and can personally explain where all of its links to the evidence have been shown to be actually "junk science", so go ahead and lay it all out for us, including for example why the inherent phylogenies in the pattern of endogenous retroviruses is flawed, and why the fact that coherent cladograms keep arising from DNA and morphological studies isn't actually the support for evolution it appears, but are really "junk science" instead.
We'll wait. Go for it. Impress the lurkers. Now's your chance! Don't let it slip by.

hmmmm

Angry are we not?
I never said "evo is junk science".
Having looked all those people you said were, what was it, stupid or ignorant, can not remember but I read all their bios and they are all in the scientific field. Yet, they disagree with you, huh ... goes back to my original statement, anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, ignorant, an idiot or whatever word you use on any given post.
You see I am very confident in what I believe, you can agree with me or not, no skin off my nose, the chose is yours.
You on the other hand are trying way to hard to convince me you are right, usually done by people who are not that sure in what they are espousing.