I think you don't fully comprehend what he's saying at times.

Sometimes I think the same yall...

From the looks of things, he's calmly and intelligently argued all your points.

Once again, I don't know. I'm not sure if biologists know this yet or not. We know the process by which codons are translated into amino acids, however I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution (note, that the evolution of the process of coding amino acids from DNA and biological evolution are not the same thing).

I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant.

Quite right. You said that it most likely would not make a word.

Predetermination does not require the intervention of God. For instance, the oscillation of a perfect pendulum can easily be modeled by the following equation:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/0...91772a2629.png

From this you can derive equations for the pendulums position given you know the initial conditions of the pendulum. The motion of the pendulum is predetermined. It follows physical laws. The predetermination of the pendulum's position at any time has nothing to do with God.

The same thing that dictates a pendulums motion. Physical and chemical laws. How can a pendulum possibly understand that it wants to settle into equilibrium if its just a random collection of inorganic matter? If you answer that question, you will find it is the same as the answer to your question Though a pendulum is mathematically far simpler to model than a biological system, they both follow the same principles of our natural world.

If a tree gets struck by lightning and ignites, that does not mean that a tree means the production of fire. Even if every tree on a particular planet got struck by lightning and ignited, it does not mean that a tree "stands for" fire. It simply means that a tree will ignite when its hit by lightning -- a chemical process. Again, the chemical reactions in a biological system are more difficult to model, but they follow the same principles. Codons don't actually translate into amino acids any more than a tree translates into fire on that particular planet.

Science is not responsible for answering questions of ethics. It only answers questions that pertain to fact.

I thought this was supposed to be a video on the theory of evolution? Colloquially, this has always implied biological evolution. Presenting facts on anything else is a misrepresentation of the term. The formation of the earth has nothing to do with biological evolution.

They could have called it orgasm X for all it matters, that doesn't mean the started started by an orgasm. It's simply a name.

Matter did not explode outwards and fill an empty universe. The universe was never empty.

What the hell did you search? I searched Bombadier Beetle and the first three links google popped back at me rebuked your (*laughs*) "doctor," as did the first four links when I typed in "bombadier beetle evolution."

[

Okay. You fucking say this over and over again like a retarded broken record. I say a retarded record because it's a record that keeps repeating something THAT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE. I've presented the evidence. You refuse to acknowledge it. Since you insist on doing this, I would like you to either rebuke these each point by point, not by simply saying "DURR DURR ITS NOT TRUE DURRR" but by backing it up with information, and evidence where necessary, or acknowledging that they are valid examples of evidence for evolution. Any point that you fail to rebuke, I will then take as you saying that it is not possible for you to rebuke them and we will therefore agree that they are valid examples.

Remember. Respond to each of these excerpts individually, or I will take that as you acknowledging them as a valid example:

That is the evidence simply from the first four pages of this thread. Either give me a rebuttal on each point individually, or it will be taken as a concession that you admit it is valid evidence. Claiming that fossils are fake is not a valid rebuttal without some presentation of proof that fossils are fake. Claiming that transitional animals are not transitional by decree is not sufficient. You must provide evidence, or at least a valid explanation as to why they are not changing.

Is the pot also responsible for any blemishes on its paint?

So what you're saying is if a thug enters my house while my parents are homd and shoots me, it is my parents fault that I'm dead?

I'm not blaming God for the deaths of the children, I'm blaming God for being a passive bystander while having the power to end the torture.

Note, that I'm referring to God as I would refer to any literary character. I am in no way acknowledging his existence.

That statement was not meant as a matter of fact, it was meant to convey my incredulity at God's apparent lack of logic.

If Hitler believed in evolution, then yes, he was right. I'm sure he was right far more than twice.

Again, an example.

Most people want that technology just in case. We have many thousand nukes in our arsenal. I doubt we actually plan on using all of them at any time.

The only way to effectively answer this in a post is:

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.gif

Read, if you actually want to know where he got his ideologies.

And you're an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry. I thought we were playing the "state the obvious" game.

Just because a black mouse mates with a black mouse doesn't mean that its offspring will also be black. It's offspring could be black, brown, or white. I'm moving to mice instead of dogs because mathematically this is far simpler to model, yet it effectively demonstrates the pertinent principles of genetics that I think you're failing to grasp.

Somatic mice cells are all dihaploid indicating that they have two alleles for each characteristic. In the case of mice coats, the black allele is completely dominant to the brown coat. This means a mouse will have a black coat whether it has two alleles for a black coat or one allele for a black coat and one for a brown coat. Two parent hybrids will be black, but if they have four offspring, one should be brown. But there's a twist. There's an additional gene which codes whether or not the mice get any pigment or not. The recessive allele does nothing, while the dominant allele gives them pigment. Again, the dominant allele is completely dominant to the recessive allele. Now what happens? If the parents were dihybrids and had sixteen children, they should have nine black children, three brown children, and four WHITE children, even if they've never had a white mouse anywhere along their ancestral tree, although this would be highly unlikely.

Similarly, just because two dogs look like toy poodles does not mean that their children will also be toy poodles, or be smaller than the parents. Size is not only dependent on genes, but on environment as well. Size is a quantitative trait, meaning it lies along a continuum rather than being
fixed by genes.

Of course, none of this is an example of an increase in information. Mutations, however, do account for increases in information. For instance, searching "gene duplication" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi gives over 5000 examples of an increase in genetic information. If that doesn't suffice, I'm sure that searching point mutations or recombination would give similar results.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, because I have no idea what it means. You seem to be giving contradictory accounts of the same situation. Brush up on your terminology. Remember, you already admitted to agreeing that a new species can start from evolution in this thread probably because you didn't know meaning of the word "speciation."

That wasn't the point of my statement, I was correcting your terminology. It's really confusing when you misuse words in this type of discussion.

And of course our ancestors were humans. I never claimed they weren't. I simply claimed that at one point they were also microorganisms.

MJ seems to be taking this debate rather seriously. I must ask you the ultimate quest ...what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Most likely.

Obviously... for the first "chicken" must have come from an egg.

Unless God created the chicken as is, of course.

Well of course he did! Ever heard of this quaint little thing called "The Garden of Eden" in which every single animal in the world lived, fully formed as we know them today? :rolleyes:

You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution ..." So you believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory. A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your faith of evolution. The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain. That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.

also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact.... you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....

therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....

again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics... basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position... a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will. So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum... it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...

No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...

the tree being struck causes the energy of the lightining to transfer to the tree and begin the burning process.... what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...

so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?

again, you must have one to have the other... if the big bang did not happen then life could not have happened on its own... basicly, if one does not exist the other does not either....

so where did the matter come from? It could not have created itself? Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?

I searched bombadier beetle evolution and found the first three links...

>Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of DesignThe scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. ...
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

>CB310: Bombardier beetle evolutionThe bombardier beetle myth exploded. Creation/Evolution 2(1): 1-5. Angier, N., 1985. Drafting the bombardier beetle. Time (Feb. 25), 70. ...
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.talkorigins.org ]

>Beetles And EvolutionThe inference which people have drawn from this appears to be that the bombardier beetle’s defence mechanism is a problem for evolution, and thus serves as ...
jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/852.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

the last two are inconclusive about the beetle and the top one supports evolution, but thats just the top three....

The geologic column...

as you can tell from the first picture humans and dinosaurs seemed to be pretty close...
http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/images/column001.jpg

the second picture tells what human remains were found in the different rock layers...
http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/images/column002.jpg

Now tell me how this could be possible if humans and dinosaurs never existed together....

I am and will....

I never said fossils are fake... i just said that the fossils on record do not point to evolution, they are fossilized creatures that either still exist or that particular species is dead....

The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...

No, then its the thug's fault for your death.... if the parents knew it was going to happen or(it happened slow enough) they or even you could have stopped the thug....



So, you are saying that people should not be held accountable for their actions?

So was he right when he killed the jews?

Yes, but without those nukes other countries would willingly attack us without fear of being blown off the map....

Yes, aslong as those genes were passed down to those mice by their parents... but if the mice have no background of different colors then you could not hope the mice would have offspring with white fur... the gene has to be passed down inorder for the mice to have it...

Yes, that would be extremly unlikely... where would the white color come from? Unless the child is albino the colors black or brown would still show up...

So a chuaua would grow in size if it had a large environment? I don't think so... size is a trait just like hair color... if you have a history of tall people in your family you chance of being tall is great, but if there are short people in your family then you could be tall, short or in between....

1: Ji J, Lu J, Ye W, Hu X, Wang D. Related Articles
[Study on the mitochondrial DNA variation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi. 2007 Apr;24(2):167-72. Chinese.
PMID: 17407074 [PubMed - in process]

2: Gasser RB, Hu M, Chilton NB, Campbell BE, Jex AJ, Otranto D, Cafarchia C, Beveridge I, Zhu X. Related Articles
Single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) for the analysis of genetic variation.
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(6):3121-8.
PMID: 17406575 [PubMed - in process]

I found these two by searching point mutations, these are the first two in the search...
both of these talk about mutations that are harmful... they do not say anything about benifits except for their research...

I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution....
I said that the dogs would have to have the the height gene inorder to be taller than their parents... i also said that the varying gene that each dog could have would be the height gene making the dogs different heights....

Right.....

any way... I want you to tell me one piece of FACT that supports evolution... and dont say fossils because there is more evidence for creation in those than for evolution as I stated 16 quotes up.... I want hard evidence for evolution....

The evolution of ribosomes is not known piece by piece. Refer to the detective analogy. This is a similar case.

Not in the context of science. In the context of science the term 'theory' is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. There is no level of uncertainty implied in that term. Of course, any scientific theory will never be 100% certain, however we are far more certain that the theory of evolution is correct overall when compared to the current theory of gravity.

No.

In fact, you knowingly acknowledged that there is an ample amount of evidence for evolution by not replying to the evidence that I re-re-cited for you.

Such as what? What is your evidence for design that can not be explained by evolution? Remember, we are in the realm of biological evolution here. Prebiotic organic molecules are not in the realm of this discussion.

Name one missing link. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory's validity.

Biological evolution is evolution, you moron. That's all we're talking about. We're talking about biological evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, creation of the universe, or anything else for that matter, make another thread.

Furthermore, you have it backwards. Proof of biological evolution does not prove that the stars and planets somehow followed a similar process. They did, but proving biological evolution wouldn't prove that. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

Biological evolution does not require life starting spontaneously. God could have just as well done it. It wouldn't matter. However, if God did it, it still could not match the Biblical account. He would have had to have started life as a microbe billions of years before humans came around.

Okay. I think we can agree on the fact that there is an 85% chance that drawing two random letters would be meaningless in the English language.

As is the ribosome.

Negative. A pendulum never stops unless it means some sort of air resistance.

An organism is still bound to the laws of Physics. Free will is likely an illusion. I could argue this from a Christian and scientific standpoint. Notice how those two terms are distinct and unrelated.

So ribosomal interaction with DNA can be treated as the pendulum, since it is nonliving matter?

Living organisms can't actually defy the laws of physics. And living organisms also require external energy to do anything.

Notice how I said the ignition of the tree. If you want to pick at semantics, that's fine, just make sure I'm semantically incorrect first.

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?

In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined? What the fuck does that mean.

You're saying the elementary combinations that compose elements don't stand for anything? You're saying two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen atom doesn't stand for water? You're saying that the combination of Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar? You're saying that Nitrogen:Hydrogen in a 3:1 ratio doesn't stand for ammonia?

Before you pick apart my semantics, you should at least clearly convey what you're talking about.

Again, you know nothing about science. Get your terminology straight.

We don't know. And it's not relevant for showing that biological evolution did indeed happen.

The evidence indicates the universe started that way. Nothing actually pulled it there.

Right. And we're not Gods, so we can not be held accountable by the standards of Gods.

Notice how you failed to reply to the relevant stuff.

1:3 ratio

NH(subscript)3

Good point.

so that means that you believe that evolution can happen even though you don't have the evidence... I see....

Science deals with the search for fact using tests and data do determine how things work... evolution does not fit into this, you cannot test evolution to see if it is true... evolution is technically a religion; a faith based system...

that was not evidence... you said,"I don't know the evolution of this process. We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution..."

so how does that count for evidence? your beliefs are now considered as evidence?

My evidence for design.... well just look at the picture...

http://www.hissheep.org/evolution/images/column001.jpg

now how can evolution explain that?

I can't name one missing link... it does not exist....
the reason people use this in their argument is because the 'missing link' would help to prove that all animals came from a common ancestor....

You said,"I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant."

So how does spontanious generation not fit into evolution?

Yes it does, biological evolution feeds of life starting spontaniously... if not then saying God did it would contradict the bible, because the bible says that all life was created in 6 days(he rested on the seventh)...

so again... how is it that evolution does not require spontanious life? woulden't that point to a creator?

This was only put out there to prove to you that a random generation of something could not mean anything.... it would be as usless as a CD to a disk drive... the disk drive would not know how to read the CD...

Actually the ribosome is also governed by the cell it is in...

I was talking about knowing the position of the pendulum... not about outside forces... but if you want to talk about outside forces... the air resistance would cause it to slow, then eventually stop; gravity will then determine the resting position of the pendulum...

hope that makes things more clear for you....

All organisms are bound by the laws of physics, the only difference is that you or I don't need an outside force to move which seperates us from inanimate objects like the pendulum... basically, if you want to move you move...

I mean that the ribosome could not form on its own from non living matter unless something outside knew what to do with the collection of matter and how to put it together.... so the ribosome could never form on its own and the DNA would never be read and translated....

I never said that living organisms could defy the laws of physics....
You create the force to do something, when you move there is no one around you making you move, you do it all by yourself....



When I said,"In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined"... i was talking about the representation of that something...
I'll use one of your examples... Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar, it is sugar... to represent sugar we normally use
sucrose....

You should look up evolution... it is a widely known THEROY... you should also look up theroy while your at it....

So how are you going to prove that evolution actually caused life to begin... or are you just placing your faith into the whole thing?

So then where did the matter come from and how did it get so compact? there had to have been an outside energy source to build the pressure and heat up... right?

No, unlike the pot we live and think independantly... everything you do comes straight from you and you only... you fit into the group of people who do not want to take responsibility for your own actions, you just want to do anything you want and not have to have any consequences... but when someone who is doing the same thing you are doing and it affects your life... you are the first to point out that person is doing wrong.... like if you went home one day and found all your stuff gone you would call the poliece and try to put them in jail...
they were living a live without consequences untill you called them out on it....

Dear Draco,

Please quit raping me.

Love,
The English language

P.S. Anyways, it looks like I've won since you've acknowledged that the 6 pieces of hard evidence I've presented indeed point to the validity of evolution by not responding to any single one of them, yet continuing with your inane tirade.

GG, nub.

Until you give me a rebuttle

Evolutionists: 1 Creationists: 0

ZING!

Furthermore, don't edit your posts after I've already replied to the whole thing. Make a new one so I can see the new crap you've posted.

Another thing:

ZING!

Evolutionists: 2 Creationists: 0

Sorry mate, you'll need to provide better evidence than this cretaceous rock:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hand.htm

Tsk tsk. Lenny rocks are infallable for all rocks were made by dwarves!

An interesting fact I just read which reminded me of this.

On average, the Earth gets 84 terrawatts of power from the sun. The average daily consumption worldwide is 12 terrawatts.

Im guessing the consumption by all living things? Or are you saying by humans?

If it weren't for "outside forces" we would not exist or be able to function in the form we do today. The sun, gravity, the atomosphere. I think you underestimate the importance of "outside forces" on humans (and any other organisational body). If you don't eat, you die. How is your food created? Heat and light are the source of all life on the earth and the chain extends far beyond your immediate experience. To ignore this is pure folly.

Just after reading the last few posts in this thread, something came to my mind so I'm going to post it here. I don't know if it's relevant or if anyone cares, it's just a thought I was having recently.

It's amazing how complex yet how simple and how perfect systems on earth work. I was watching Planet Earth, and they were talking about how if bees stopped pollenating our plants, we would either have to starve or intervene ourselves and pollenate plants ourselves. The estimated cost of doing this would be hundreds of billions of dollars. It currently costs us nothing because bees do it for us. It's just amazing how simple that is.

Planet Earth? Is in the one made by the Beeb and narrated by David Attenborough?

Never thought they'd show that in America, to be honest. :p Which episode was it? In fact, which series? I'd guess it's the first one.

It's a new thing that the Discovery channel is doing. It's like a super documentary of our planet, there's all sorts of rare footage shot with super awesome cameras and shit.

This, yeah?

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...ide/guide.html

If so, then it's the same one I'm on about. :p It's an amazing series. I got the DVDs of both series for Christmas (as well as having watched them on TV) and I have to say, on a HDTV it looks stunning.

I don't know how far into the whole thing you are, but have you seen the episode on Caves? That one has to be my favourite. :p

EDIT: Looks like they've changed the narrator for you folks. We had David Attenborough. I wonder if the episodes are the same, or different.

Let's see, I've seen deserts, ice worlds, shallow ocean, future. I think that's it. If there's a "deep ocean" I'm looking forward to it.

By the way, who loves cuttlefish?

Dolphins do. And sharks, I think.

The episode names are definitely the same.

Deep Sea was the first night.

That's stupid then, because I should have it On Demand. Screw comcast IMO.

You can probably find all of the original English versions online and watch them.

well... if were going by your rules.... you not posting about each indvidual thing in my post which makes me think you agree with everything I posted....

O.K... again.... common descent is NOT EVOLUTION, common decent is like a rose and a rose polinating and its offspring being a rose.... evolution is more like the roses offspring being a tree than a rose.... get it straight....

also... common decent has been observed... evolution hasn't...

rescore:
Evolutionists: 0 Creationists: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Nah nah nah.

The theory of common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, or ancestral gene pool. Thus common descent is evolution - all organisms on Earth are descended from single celled organisms.

Re-rescore:

Evolutionists: 2 - 0 :Creationists

Well, there's only so much I can do. I mean, I suppose I could reply to each letter you post individually, but a letter on its own is generally meaningless. I could reply to each word, but without a sentence to put it in context, it again is for all practical purposes meaningless. I could reply sentence to sentence, but its much easier to follow when I reply to a paragraph or a set of connected ideas expressed in multiple sentences together, as often sentences on their own are fairly meaningless as well.

I agree, I haven't replied to EVERY single thing, however what is important is that I replied to the relevant information. You can't seem to do that.

Actually, lets compare what I haven't replied to that was directed at me, and what you haven't replied to. I have bolded what is relevant to this thread:

What I haven't replied to (in quotes)

There was no way to really respond to that. There were no positive or negative assertions. You were simply rambling.

Though I did not quote this part of your response particularly in my response, it was certainly responded to. It was not relevant to quote, however, since your assertion stated previous to this statement is what I was concerned with.

Again, this was not quoted in my response, but it was a blind assertion at the end of a paragraph which dealt with something entirely different. Also, this was responded to in great length in my next post with the section that dealt with transitional organisms.

This was not quoted because your assertion previous to this is what I needed to respond to, as these were all examples to support your assertion. I felt the rebuttal to your assertion was sufficient enough to elucidate your flawed logic.

This may have been relevant. I'm not sure. It sounds relevant. The reason I didn't respond to this is because it was illegible to me.

This is simply a pestering remark at the end of your post. The last seven pages clearly have ample evidence, therefore I felt this remark was not worth responding to.

Your comment on animals is a well known fact, and needed no comment. The bacteria scenario has been covered at length in multiple other posts.

If you knew what the Oro experiments were, then it would be worth talking about, otherwise it's not. The other comment is entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about here, and deserved no comment.

Again, a simple comment about what you're planning on doing. Didn't reply based on relevance.

You simply restated what I said. No comments needed.

You exceeded my expectations, however irrelevant and does not need commenting.

I am not including post 250 in our discussion since you edited and added a lot of stuff an hour after I had already replied to it. I am not including any posts after that either, since you have not answered to the evidence I asked you to respond to.

Here's the information you have not responded to:

Info draco hasn't responded to (in quotes)

This, I feel is important to acknowledge so you get an idea of what biological evolution is. You apparently don't grasp the concept.

The second paragraph is important to understand.

Wanted a response here.

Didn't expect response here.

(Flowchart of religion vs science, though I didn't expect a response, that was just a jab)

(Images of churches)

You ACKNOWLEDGED the validity of evolution. You did quote this, but you didn't reply to it. You went off on a completely different tangent.

The example here is not as important as the assertion made previously, which you did reply to, however by ignoring these particular examples altogether you were able to take my assertion out of context and reply to it with trivial CCB.

You responded to these four, but inadequately.

These two words were very significant, and you skipped them entirely.

<Relisted evidence presented in other posts that you refused to respond to>

I was kind of looking forward to you posting there.

You quoted this, but replied to something entirely different.

You quoted this, but didn't really reply to it. You replied to something related to this, but not actually to this.

You still have not provided counter-evidence for anything I have presented here.

Representing the evidence from the first four pages

I'm not including any posts after 250.

Okay Draco, we have the "each individual" thing I'm not posting about by your definition compared to all the details you missed in one post. You tell me who won that one.

ZING! Evolutionists: 3 Creationists: 0

Oh, and sorry everyone for the enormous post, however I felt it necessary to demonstrate the enormous amount of content that Draco was missing compared to what he claims I'm missing.

And you got owned by Lenny!

ZING

Evolutionists: 4 Creationists: 0

It seems that wherever I go, it's always a bad thing to be owned by me. Can't think why... :rolleyes:

Heh, didn't say it was a bad thing, just said he got owned by you.

If Draco's next post in this thread isn't a submission that Mjordan is right, or at least some sort of effort to respond to all of those things Mjordan just said he hasn't responded to, this debate will be over with Mjordan being the winner and Draco will go away for a very long time because he's bugging the shit out of me.

Hey you have got to give me some time.... I will try to get back to the post ASAP(which may be a while)...

Edited by King_Amazon

This is a note from me. I said the next post had to be a submission to Mjordan or an effort to respond to everything you haven't responded to yet. Since you are at least saying you will though, you've got all the time you want. But do it soon. I'm serious. You better go back and respond to the things you've been dodging. If you don't, you're out of here. The only other way this will end is if you give in to Mjordan. Those are your choices.

So it's been nearly a month. Can I say I win now?

GG No re?

Yep, he hasn't even visited back to reply.

For now, unless you mysteriously comes back, you're the winner.