Re: TOBS: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > Regardless of whether you posted that reference, you have been
> > blathering about the scientific method, so deal with it.
> 
> uh I did not pos that particular reference, you made a error, a mistake..
> deal with it.

So I made a mistake.  That's one I have made compared with several
thousand you have made (or are you actually going to come up with
evidence to support your assinine claim that humans share 75% of our
DNA with bananas?  Or are you going to admit that you claim of
peer-reviewed material in New Scientist disputing evolution was in
fact a letter *written by a creationist* that was courteously
published in New Scientist?).

But the **FACT REMAINS** that you are lying if you try to pretend you
have not been blathering about the scientific method and that
evolution is not scientific.  So, now I have dealt with my mistake,
how about you starting to deal with all of yours honestly instead of
throwing out straw men as desperately fast as you can invent them to
avoid dealing with the difficulties you have made for yourself with
your endless lies and inane blather?

> > Now let's
> > look, once again at the material you were forced to snip because of
> > your complete incompetence in addressing it:
> 
> I sniped it, because it was your usless arrogant banter.. but now that are
> a bit behaved lets address it.

It was either useless or it was something that needed to be addressed
but which you have avoided.  So which is it?  From where I stand, it
was overwhelmingly material revolving around your dishonesty, and
around difficult issues which you have desperately tried to avoid.  I
have demonstrated this by drawing your attention back to it many
times.  You have carefully avoided dealing with all of it.

I have found reams of material where I have asked you - repeatedly -
difficult questions and presented you with challenges, and you have
consistently avoided all of it.  Are you ready to deal with it?  Good.
 Let's go back to the start:

Several weeks ago, I asked you for a list of these "colossal holes"
that you claim are in the Theory of Evolution.  I did not ask you to
start a posting series in a newsgroup I do not frequent, using a
misspelled version of my name, that you only belatedly told me about
and which, despite my responses in those threads in that news group,
you have quietly abandoned.

What I *DID* ask you for, weeks ago, and have consistently asked you
for since, is a **LIST** of these "colossal holes" you have been
pretending (without any support whatsoever) exist.  I am not asking
you to define them, explain them, or support them.  All I am asking
for right now is a **LIST**.  Can you list them or not?

> > First, I gave some references and explanations as to what evolution
> > is, and the hypocritical imbecile who accuses me of not updating my
> > knowledge snipped them without comment.
> 
> my, my I don't know who may  that be..

Your evasion of yet another challenge has been noted world-wide.

>  >From this point on, I will
> > give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume this means that you
> > are now educated as to what evolution is, and will not make any more
> > colossal blunders in your posts on the topic.
> >
> > The second thing I posted was these references in response to your
> > request that I demonstrate that evolution has been demonstrated in the
> > lab and observed in the wild:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

> not peered reviewed.. us educated people need real reference, not reference
> that proceed from a biased news group with an agenda.

This from the guy either too dishonest to admit, or too stupid to
grasp, that a creationist letter published in New Scientist is not the
same as a peer-reviewed paper published in a refereed science journal
and as such is not even a valid argument against evolution, let alone
a "colossal hole", especially given that it was nothing but argument
from incredulity which the writer made no attempt to support.

You have posted not a shred of peer-reviewed material, so you are a
simple hypocrite to even ask for it.  **AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY MADE
CLEAR, THE MATERIAL IN TALK ORIGINS IS WRITTEN BY QUALIFIED
SCIENTISTS.  IT IS INFORMALLY PEER-REVIEWED BY OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO
POST TO THE TALK.ORIGINS NEWS GROUP.  THE MATERIAL, BOTH IN THE
SPECIATION FAQS AND THE TRANSITIONALS FAQS IN EACH CASE REFERENCES
OVER 70 ARTICLES, MANY OF WHCH ARE PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS PUBLISHED IN
PROFESSIONAL REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS**  You lose.

> > So now you have read this and made no attempt whatsoever to dispute or
> > refute it, I will assume that your next response will be an admission
> > that evolution has been observed and that you will withdraw your lies
> > about it.
> 
> uh.. uhh uhhh .. no...
> 
> short snip goes here...

Once again it gets too hot for Jabriol so he turns and runs, thereby
proving evolution: Jabriol has been repeatedly observed evolving from
a chicken to a jackass and back again.

Budikka