Building on Previous Lies and Stawmen
-
This is in response to Kevin the coward McCarthy, aka ogre mkv's bullshit lying spewage.
All in one post Kevin uses equivocation, misrepresentation and lies- and absolutely no evidence just pure bluff.
1- Darwin's strawman
2- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution and baraminology, the Creation model of biological evolution, is OK with natural selection, ie evolution. They just understand its observed limits.
3- There isn't any peer-reviwed articles that demonstrate a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote. Endosymbiosis for the origin of mitochondria is hypothetical only.
4- Kevin is in denial, ie he lies to himself, by saying that the theory of evolution is NOT the blind watchmaker thesis AND that ID is anti-evolution. Yet the ONLY way ID could be anti-evolution is if the theory of evolution were the blind watchmaker thesis!
5- Kevin cannot produce ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can construct new, useful multi-protein configurations requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
6- Kevin finishes off his garbage by misrepresenting Dr Wells, who set out to destroy Darwinism, not evolution. Evolution can be true with Darwinism being false.
So to recap, Kevin is spewing from his ass, as usual.
Thumbs high, little guy...
This is in response to Kevin the coward McCarthy, aka ogre mkv's bullshit lying spewage.
All in one post Kevin uses equivocation, misrepresentation and lies- and absolutely no evidence just pure bluff.
1- Darwin's strawman
2- Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution and baraminology, the Creation model of biological evolution, is OK with natural selection, ie evolution. They just understand its observed limits.
3- There isn't any peer-reviwed articles that demonstrate a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote. Endosymbiosis for the origin of mitochondria is hypothetical only.
4- Kevin is in denial, ie he lies to himself, by saying that the theory of evolution is NOT the blind watchmaker thesis AND that ID is anti-evolution. Yet the ONLY way ID could be anti-evolution is if the theory of evolution were the blind watchmaker thesis!
5- Kevin cannot produce ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can construct new, useful multi-protein configurations requiring more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
6- Kevin finishes off his garbage by misrepresenting Dr Wells, who set out to destroy Darwinism, not evolution. Evolution can be true with Darwinism being false.
So to recap, Kevin is spewing from his ass, as usual.
Thumbs high, little guy...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home