[KamperKen]

"No, your charade is weak." a

Charade? You ad hominem attack, like your "arguments" is weak.

[VadeRetro]

Charade? You ad hominem attack, like your "arguments" is weak.

Excuse me, but I explained in some detail how your charade is weak. A real refutation would show in some detail where my analysis fails.

You could do this wonderfully by showing where exactly mainstream defenses of that awful Darwin person's theory are weak. That would not only help you with your free-thinking credentials, but it would move you closer to a financially rewarding Nobel Prize.

Now, I and others have already posted enough of the mainstream science evidence to give you something to chew on, at you and at other open minds of your sort. I'm reasonably sure your thirsty mind has somehow failed to absorb any of it, though, so I'll lay some at your feet here.

What is weak about this?

[VadeRetro]

Since you like the Cambrian explosion talking point, what about primitive bilaterans turning up 580-600 million years ago? "Deep roots and tiny prototypes."

Makes the explosion rather less explosive, right? What's weak there?

[Stultis]

You ad hominem attack, like your "arguments" is weak.

Ad hominem? You mean like coyly comparing those doing or teaching mainstream science to Stalin and Mao, as you did here?

Is this an indication of your "open mindedness" to "both sides" of the debate? Or have we just failed to notice that you maintain balance by comparing the antievolution side to Hitler and Genghis Khan?