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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> >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?).
> 
> I cite new scientist, If they use a creationist for writing their
> articles I would be surprised... I did error on the 75%.. I belive it
> 60%..still that makes people plants eh?

Your own reference (http://old.smh.com.au/news/0107/27/national/national22.html)
specifically stated the following:
"...and up to 30 per cent of ours could be similar to those in the
bendy yellow food."

Now where are you getting 60% out of this?  The wording makes it
crystal clear that **UP TO** 30% **COULD BE SIMILAR**.  Nowhere does
it say that 75% or even 60% *are definitely the same**.  The fact is
that you are a liar.  You have been caught out in this lie using your
**own reference**.  You have been shown this repeatedly and you
*still* do not have the honesty and decency to admit that you screwed
up royally.

Secondly, you, who hypocritically accuse others of not updating their
knowledge, who hypocritically accuse others of not offering
peer-reviewed references, who hypocritically accuse others of being
uneducated in various topics, have convincingly proven that you are
failing in all three areas.  You will not learn despite the repeated
attempts of a multitude to educate you.  You reapeatedly ahve
demosntrated comprehensive cluelessness as to what a peer-reviewed
reference actually is, despite the repeated attempts of a multitude to
educate you.  You have remained uneducated int his p[atoicular topic,
despite the repeated attempts of a multitude to educate you.

Suppose I wrote a letter to Scientific American offering no evidence
and no support whatsoever, but insisting that you are a crass idiot,
and they published the letter?  By your own standards, you would have
to accept that you are a crass idiot as a scientific truth simply
because I got my letter published.  If you disagree with this, then
how can you continue the lie that a creationist letter published **AS
A COURTESY** in New Scietist somehow demosntrates a colossal hole in
the Theory of evolution?

The letter did not even use the term "colossal hole" as far as I can
see, so even by your wacky standards, it does not count in making the
case you are supposed to be making, which is your claim of "colossal
holes".  You lose.  Deal with it Loser.

This persistent dishonesty calls every single thing you have posted on
this topic into question.  Every "reference" you have failed to give
or have given so badly we cannot track it, or have referenced
something which is not possible to readily access is now suspect,
especially when we have tracked such references and found them not to
be peer-reviewed articles as you have lied, but creationist letters. 
Get it now?  You lose.  Deal with it Loser.
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> not at all, I establish some facts about this by scientist who
> supports evolution... ni lie here.

No, because you lied aboutt he percentage and about the solidity of
the percentage.  That's actually two lies.  All you have establihsed
is that there is a proven colossal hole in your competence!

And about the scientific method.  You insisted that I was wrong in my
claims, but all I was wrong about was the specific reference in the
present thread.  I was **not wrong** in my claimt hat you have
insisted on it in other threads.  Here is proof:
>From "Atheism wins another one!!" posted in sci.bio.paleontology
"a fact must past the scientific method." (posted by you, July 1,
2002).

>From "true religion was : Atheism wins another one!!" posted in
misc.education.science
"does evolution pass the scientific method.. nobody yet has answered."
(posted by you, July 30, 2002).

>From "Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III" posted in
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn
""man evolved"does not pass the scientific method." (posted by you,
September 7th, 2003).

So, as I said and have now proven, you are the one insisting on
addressing the scientific method.  Once again, you are proven a liar. 
How many times am I going to have to do this before you accept that
you are a liar and you don't even know what you are talking about to
begin with?

Now that I have dealt adequately with all your arm-flapping and straw
men, can we get back to the original topic, which is your complete
inability to supply **A LIST** of these "colossal holes" you insist
exist but have failed to even list, let alone demonstrate?

Budikka