[jennyp]

I'm feeling generous tonight, so I'll give you a chance to explain, in detail, where I attempted to debate blood clotting. When you are unable to do so (because I never have), I hope you'll put an end to this pathetic thread.

You really want it in detail? OK, here goes...

You had claimed that mutation & natural selection could not generate an increase in information. I pointed to peptide & RNA growth on mineral surfaces, which you ridiculed, and then I backed up with a cite, which you ignored.

Fine. Ignoring the other person in a debate is standard face-saving procedure when you're losing an argument. But the pattern continued in the same post, when I also cited Miller's description of Doolittle's proof that vertebrate blood clotting evolved from simpler forms via gene duplication & other mutations. Which you likewise riduculed, along with claiming I didn't know what I was talking about, which prodded me into showing you in excruciating detail that you had no appreciation for how badly Behe actually performed in his debate with Miller. Which you also ignored.

Your complete arsenal in that exchange consisted of ad-hominems against Kenneth Miller & myself. My arsenal consisted of peer-reviewed studies, books, & web-published papers. I guess you're right, we never did actually debate blood clotting, as there never was an actual exchange of ideas. Point conceded.

You seem to want to debate something that is totally off the subject of the thread. Again, for any honest person, they can click the link you gave where you prattle on about Behe, click the "to" link to jump back, and follow the discussion back. It will quickly become evident to anyone and everyone that you completely changed the subject from what I had been talking about, to Ken Miller and Behe's argument. Jenny, you're pathetic, and debating you makes me feel really sorry for you. Just give it a rest, because I don't think anyone here really cares.

LOL! OK, OK, I'll let it be! But my point in bringing the whole thing up is to try to get you to defend your threads instead of simply flitting over to post several brand new ones. You want to change people's minds on FR? Then engage those who critique the articles you post! I know I've put you on the spot, & you're obviously in a very defensive mood, so I'll just suggest that you consider that & stick around next time you post some article that you think is going to shame the other side into submission. We've all had to defend the articles we post. Sometimes we even fail. But defending the articles you post builds character. Nobody here respects a hit-&-run thread poster.

[Exnihilo]

Jenny, I told you I wasn't going to bother with you any more. You proved my point. You didn't (because you couldn't) cite an instance of me arguing about blood clotting. That was your previous claim, which you've now shifted slightly, although you were incredibly long winded about it. Please Jenny, for the love of Darwin, go bother someone else. I don't care about convincing you of anything. It is apparent to everyone who has read this what is going on. You continue to change the subject, and avoid pointed questions.

The reason I ridiculed your claim:

"Amino acids & nucleic acids spontaneously link & form longer & longer chains on the surfaces of minerals, even up to lengths where functional proteins & RNA start to be found.

is because it makes so starkly clear what I've been saying all along. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! You don't understand specified complexity, and you obviously don't see the major building block of your 'example': the mineral surface. Go do a little more reading, learn why the mineral surface is involved, why what occurs does in fact occur, then come back to me and try to defend your claim of original information generation. Jenny, every single time you respond you make yourself look more and more foolish. You seem to think that if you supply me with an overly scientistic response full of big words and phrases, I'll simply be over whelmed. It isn't going to happen. The fact that you cite people like Miller who have been critiqued more times than every ID'er combined is further proof that your bias blinds your intellect to grasping anything that conflicts with what you want to believe. So, what next Jenny? I'm getting a kick out of this myself. Every few hours I come over to the computer to find yet another one of your ill-informed rants. I'll be waiting for the next one. Until then, all the best.