And our challenge to you, a challenge you have consistently ignored, is to
demonstrate that this test really invalidates evolution.
>Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge (because nature
>can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium conditions).
Again, where is your evidence that that is true?
>Instead of any Evolutionist admitting that they have no answer, they start
>trying to pick apart the challenge -- no matter how stupid they must act to
>do it, such as demanding to know what simple words like "indefinite" mean
>(it means that snowflakes don't count).
Funny, that's not what my dictionary says. It defines "indefinite" as
"unclear; vague; lacking precise limits; uncertain". So that means you want
an empirical example of a vague, unclear, uncertain increase in complexity
anywhere in nature. Since "empirical" means "verifiable or provable", your
challenge is an oxymoron; no wonder no one can give you an example.
Evolution does not demand an increase in complexity (as you yourself have
admitted), but even if it did it would be a clear and certain increase in
complexity, not a vague increase.
Oh, and by the way, a "vague, unclear, uncertain" increase in complexity
would not rule out snowflakes, except of course that snowflakes are not
"vague, unclear, uncertain" increases in complexity.
Now, are you finally ready to define "indefinite" and explain how it applies
>I may have missed some replied, but
>only one of them seemed like an honest response, the guy who referred to
>evolution itself (but, that doesn't count because evolution is an
>not an observed fact).
I'ld tell you to read the scientific literature, but of course you would
simply ignore me. So, prove that evolution is not a fact.
>The wording of my original challenge was to close
>loopholes which allow Evolutionists to provide answers that miss the point
>that Evolution is foreign to nature.
So, you will accept no answer to your challenge except an admission that it
cannot be answered; how honest a debate is that?
>I used ad hominim replies to underscore the fact that they didn't try to
>provide honest replies to my messages. BTW, as long as we're talking about
>ad hominim, note their hypocrisy when they dish out ad hominim attacks
>accusing me of ad hominim attacks.
It's spelled "hominem". We would be hypocritical only if you truly never
made an ad hominem attack; since you admit that you do, we are not being
hypocritical. However, what you call ad hominem attacks on our part is
simply our recognition of your ignorance, arrogance and ill-temper. It is
not an ad hominem attack to tell the truth.
>> been corrected on this list
>> by [name deleted], and Kevin O'Brien..I think by Pim too. I am most
>> grateful to have my errors corrected.
>You've identified a couple of Evolutionist Crusaders. It is in the nature
>of an Evolutionist Crusader to provide help when they sense weakness that
>can be exploited. They'll happily feed either the sympathetic (you) or the
>naive newbie with friendly propaganda and basic corrections.
Is that why you feel the need to be so mean and nasty all the time, even to
those who approach you kindly, even to your fellow creationists?
Kevin L. O'Brien