: Floyd, dear chap,: Your agree-with-me-or-you-are-ignorant stance is almost as astonishing as your belief in evolutionism.
Projection noted.
: The Farintitian races-to-species through isolation is utter nonsense and you should know better. Physical isolation narrows the gene pool.
Through the "founder effect," and in so doing, allows isolated populations of a species to accumulate unique mutations that are not shared with other populations.
:Given your theory, the single-celled life form should have a far broader gene pool than the the human.
Which, of course, they do.
:Simple to complex would be impossible.
Your failure to offer a mechanism to prevent "simple to complex" is noted.
:Moreover, if it takes such extreme physical isolation (to Mars) in order to have a chance at progress, How did the Habilis, Erectus, Neanderthalus, et. al. "progress"?
First, as I've repeatedly told you, "progress" is not an aspect of evolutionary theory, so your question is irrelevant. Now, to answer the question that you thought you were asking, these species evolved by environmental isolation. At the time, there were no airplanes, high-streets, long distance train travel, etc. so isolation was much more common than it is today. Today, isolation of human populations on this planet is impossible.
:Perhaps Habilius was shot to the moon for several hundered thousands of years, brought back and then he sacked the whole lot of Ramapithicenes, heh?
The fact that you resort to ridiculous straw men, rather than present an argument is noted.
: You dig a deeper grave for Darwinism each time, Floyd.
Unsuported assertion is noted.
: As for this isolation theory in action, history bears out a tragic consequense. This was actually attempted in Germany where camps were established for Aryan-looking couples to have children. The object was to speciate through isolation (exactly as you hypothesise here) to a super race.
Straw man comparisson to the Nazis, which has already been refuted several times, is noted.
: As for assertions, the only religious agenda I have is that I am a sinner, found by Christ Jesus, and in His grace am made whole. Nothing more.
Yes, I've heard that bearing false witness is considered a sin.
: Your abuse of religion is perhaps a result of your activist political anarchist role.
Your assertion that I "abuse" religion is noted. Your lack of supporting evidence is also noted.
:I've pointed out, and shown clearly, that those types of activities are futile because they seek an apparent and illusive worldly gain (more often a loss).
Your claim to have demonstrated the futility of some un-named activities is noted. Your refusal to name the activities, or to clarify why you think they are futile is noted. Your implication that I am only seeking material wealth is noted. Your persistent refusal to povide supporting evidence is noted.
:Is it not clear that ski-masked anarchists hurling bricks through windows are the new face of fascism?
No, it most certainly is not clear. Your ad hominim assertion that I am a brick thrower, despite my patient attempts to explain to you that this is not the case, is noted.
:Of course, you admit to being used by them in connivance with the "state-media".
Your repeated false assertion that I count myself among the terrorists is noted.
: No false assertions here. All based on historical fact and your own testimony. Perhaps you'd do well to listen instead of issuing agree-with-me-or-you-are-ignorant ultimatums.
failure to provide supporting evidence is noted. Ready availability of conflicting evidence is noted as well. Ad hominim attack is also noted.
: Another thing here is, you are at a terrible advantage.
Yes, I know what the hell I'm talking about and you don't.
:You have the advantage of billions of pounds in state funds, commercially popular and funded science, state libraries, who by in large only accept the Darwinistic view and deliberately exclude Creation.
Yeah. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the undisputed fact that every piece of evidence supports evolution, and none supports creation? Or perhaps it's related to the fact that evolution has been observed and creation has not? Maybe it's related to the fact that evolution has an integrated theory that describes the mechanisms by which it works, whereas creationism has no theory and suggests no mechanisms by which it could occur? Maybe it might possibly be related to the fact that evolution is a science and creation is a religious dogma? Maybe it's a result of the fact that the creationist faith had 2000 years of social dominance and produced nothing, whereas the science of evolution has only existed for 140 years but has managed to revolutionise health care and agriculture?
:But one thing is certain, most people deep in their hearts (if they want ot admit it or not) do not believe that they came from an ape.
Absence of supporting evidence noted. Straw man argument noted. Psychological projection noted.
: I can understand your frustration here. Even with a stacked deck you still fail to convince.
Yes, even with the preponderance of evidence and the logic of the arguments, I fail to convince someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "I'm not listening" at me. Yes, you frustrate me for the same reason three-year-olds do. Yes, your arguments are just as valid as theirs.
: God Bless.
: Robert
Seeing as how you have once again lied, twisted information, avoided looking at evidence, and basically acted like a slow witted adolescent, I will no longer be responding to you. You disregard even your own twisted, backward, cartoon version of christianity. If I were a christian, I'd be embarrassed of you, Robert. You are a liar and you are impolite. You revel in the fact that you know nothing, you even brag about it and call it a virtue. Fine. Get lost.
