Replies

See, now you are twisting my words in an effort to not admit an error on your part. In other words, you are like every other creationist on these threads -- afraid to admit an error because you fear that means your position in general would be in peril. Evolutionists never seem to have a problem admitting errors because we know that in general our position is correct and not likely to be threatened by any personal errors on our parts.

What I said was the empirical evidence does not support the claim of the extinction of 100 species per day:

And the empirical evidence for this is? The "100 species go extinct per day" claim was an off-the-cuff comment by some environmentalist whacko back in the '70s that has been taken as gospel by an credulous media ever since. Truth be told, there is no way to determine the number of species that may go extinct at any given time, and the 100-per-day claim means that 36,500 species go extinct each year (36,600 each leap year). There are between 1 million and 4 million species extent on the Earth right now. If the claims of the whackos were correct, in the last 30 years (since the claim was first made) somewhere between 25 percent to 100 percent of all species on the planet would now be extinct -- this is something not supported by the empirical evidence.[68]

To which you replied:

Well, "Howdy Doody", I guess that means that speciation is not happening to replenish the losses. Darwin would be unhappy about that empirical evidence.[70]

Note that I had said nothing about speciation or even evolution at this point. I simply stated the empirical evidence did not support the 100-species-per-day claim -- which I immediately pointed out to you:

You are a master at reading that which is not there. Speciation, as has been stated before on these threads (though I don't expect you'd admit to seeing such) does not occur overnight -- and would therefore be incapable of keeping up with the supposed level of extinction referred to by Miss Barbara.[72]

You came back with:

Please enlighten us on the empirical evidence, i.e. the numbers to establish the facts one way or the other. Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.[75]

Your reply 76 was a non-sequitur and just this side of an ad hominem, but as it bears little relevance for the discussion here, we'll overlook it. However, I pointed out in 78 that:

Which is exactly what I said in response to Miss Barbara's claim that 100 species go extinct daily. Are you having problems following the discussion, or do you like to argue with evolutionists for the sake of arguing with them?

In other words, I had never said species go extinct overnight. Neither had I said species evolve overnight. That was something you came up with completely on your own. The sad fact is, you're slipping to the level of a Mr. Saturn or HWWNBN. I often wondered why you and VadeRetro went at it tooth and nail and pretty much ignored most of your exchanges. Now I understand just how infuriating it can be to discuss anything with you -- you obfuscate, prevaricate and generally twist words in an effort to get in little jabs. I am seriously considering relegating you to the status of persona non grata as I have done to HWWNBN because of your tactics.

Your reply 76 was a non-sequitur and just this side of an ad hominem,

This is truly hilarious. As if, You are a master at reading that which is not there. is not an Ad Hominem! And talk about twisting words. I mention overnight in response to your mention of the word and the use is to deny overnight. You make this out to mean that I said you said things happen overnight. Balderdash!

Well, "Howdy Doody", I guess that means that speciation is not happening to replenish the losses. Darwin would be unhappy about that empirical evidence.

Please enlighten us on the empirical evidence, i.e. the numbers to establish the facts one way or the other. Extinction, except in rare cases, does not occur overnight either.

I find that rather ironic considering the source, a Darwinian - who are champions of the just so stories.

No it isn't. You made no claim other than that empirical evidence, whatever you mean by that, does not support 100 species per day loss. I do not put any particular credence to that number as it is unsubstantiated and thus to be considered in the same light as many Darwinians claims. However, the fact is that " overnight" and "100 losses per day" are not the same. In light of the definitions used by Darwinians to justify speciation, it is not difficult to imagine the production of the required numbers hourly.

Now those are all of my words in this exchange. Point out where I have twisted your words. I made a comment on the fact that species were said to disappear without the mention of the appearance of new species. Not only would dear Charles be disappointed, but the danger of total extinction of life is evident in that situation. If that is twisting your words, you need to debate elsewhere or remain frustrated. At two points of the four responses you have had opportunity to provide numbers and substance to your claims, you have not done so. My third response was in answer to an Ad Hominem(a real one). My last response was to tell you that I did not see you mention overnight in your initial answer to Miss B. You mention Ad Hominem and then finish with a flourish of Ad Hominem in your response. Now who is it that starts Ad Hominem? Look at your first word in your initial response to me, post 72.

See, now you are twisting my words in an effort to not admit an error on your part.

He did no such thing. He just asked you to back up your claim that there is evidence that 100 species do not die every day. That's all. That you answer him with an ad hominem rant shows that he was right to question your statement. You had no such evidence, had never seen any such evidence, you just plain made it up. If you were able to back up what you said you would not have to degrade this discussion by insulting someone that disagrees with you.