Posted on 05/21/2003 4:53:28 PM PDT by blam
They have had these traits for 100 million years for heaven's sake, how can you say that this is makes the reporter's statement that '"because since the reign of the dinosaurs, about 100 million years ago, army ants in essence have not changed a bit"."
Could I have that question again in a way that makes sense, please?
If you meant to write, "how can I say that this makes the reporter's statement *inaccurate*", it's because there's a vast difference between, "three particular traits have persisted" for 100 million years, as compared to, "the ants have not changed A BIT" over the same period.
Example for the dim: While it's accurate to say that I still have a nose, fingers, and knees (three particular traits) after the 40+ years of life since my birth, it's *not* accurate to say that my body "hasn't changed a bit" over the same period.
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or what????
No, not at all -- which is why I can recognize and point out the great difference between what the study said, and what the press release said.
I find it amazing that you *can't*. Or that you pretend you can't. Neither option inspires confidence.
Of course not, silly -- the information *AT* the link is evidence. There now, was that so hard to figure out? Hmm, apparently it was.
Unnamed skulls are not evidence.
They wouldn't be "unnamed" if you'd actually follow the link, son.
If you have evidence, post it here. If you cannot bother cutting and pasting it so that we all can see it and discuss it then it is not worth anyone's bother.
It absolutely astounds me how often creationists try this lame excuse. "Oh, dear, I can't be bothered to click a link, my poor finger is so terribly overworked, woe is me, the information must not be worth anything if I have to go through all the trouble of pressing one button to see it -- so I'll write a whole paragraph bitching about it and giving my excuses..."
Are you folks *trying* to become a parody of yourselves?
The evolutionists are always 'linking' because they hope no one will look at the nonsense they are linking to and believe that their claims.
Oh, sure, we're always providing pointers to evidence because we don't *want* people to see it. Riiiiiighhhttt.... After all, we know that no one can ever muster the energy to click on a link, or figure out how to do it, you betcha, our dirty secrets are safe now...
Has *anyone* ever fallen for that one?
Put your evidence here for all to see.
We do. That's why we provide links, HERE, for all to see. If you don't want to look at it, or want to refuse to deal with it, fine, but spare us your silly excuses about how a link to information somehow makes the information itself inferior.
As for actually cutting-and-pasting everything directly into the thread, there are several good reasons for not doing so, including copyright concerns, bandwidth concerns for people with slow modems, reformating errors, broken local links within the text, and so on.
Quick, complete this sentence: "There are none so blind..."
A total lie. Show ONE (1) of my arguments on this thread that have been put in the dumpster.
Your argument in post #42 was very correctly trashcanned by the response in post #76. The fact that you refuse to accept it doesn't change that fact.
If you want to play that sort of ridiculous exaggerated ad-hominem game, and apparently you do, your God rips apart children for teasing an old man about his baldness, so there.
The weakness of your position is made obvious by the irrelevant depths you will stoop to to try to insult the opposition (without actually addressing their points).
Even if Darwin were, say, a cannibal, that in no way refutes any part of the ideas he had in the realm of science.
Nice try.
And this supports your own theory about where life came from how, exactly? Oh, right, it doesn't. Heck, it doesn't even refute anything I've written, either.
I think the lurkers can draw their own conclusions as to what that might say about which side has the better evidence and argments.
Speaking of which, are there even any lurkers left at this point? If so, please Freepmail me to let me know you're out there, so I'll know to keep providing more educational material. If not -- if all we have left in this thread are evolutionists trying to correct wild claims, and creationists masturbating with their Photoshop application and small cache of recycled insults, then I'll move on to something more productive and leave them to their delusions of cogency.
Why should we be happy that you have almost single-handedly (almost -- you had enthusiastic help) turned this thread into an embarrassingly childish Romper Room with hundreds of the likes of your post #1868?
What, exactly, do you fantasize such spewings of yours add to the conversation? Give me one reason why we should not raise the issue of your conduct with the owners of this site, and ask them to consider your permanent banishment as an obvious disruptor?
FreeRepublic is a discussion site. You quite obviously attempt to undermine discussion by disrupting it with your obsessive-compulsive behavior. I think the case against you is crystal clear. What do you have to say in your own defense, if anything? Think long and hard before you answer.
In a way, the way that littering ruins a landscape. I can't imagine anyone thinks ALS is analyzing the state of modern, mainstream science.
On the bright side, he can't be doing anything but harm to the image of creationists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.