Debating anti-evolutionists is normally a waste of time. They are incapable of critical thinking, rely on emotional arguments are fond of pseudo science and have a penchant for selective dismissal of evidence.
You must like wasting time then since you doing so by your own definition.
I constantly get claims and indirect accusations but there is no substance behind them.
By all means, let lurkers decide what they want to see. If you ask me what I see, our science really isn't that different. I think neo-Darwinism is a theory that suits atheists. Any other alternative leaves just a little bit of room for a designer to come in and do a least a little bit of tinkering if not, more than just some tinkering.
I doubt Roman Catholics would like being referred to as atheists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, Secular Jews, Hindus, Modern Muslims. It is such a stupid argument to link evolution with atheism, specially since Charles Darwin was a devout Christian and almost headed a parish
Corinthian please, do I get the impression you are trying to equivocate my messages or do you just not understand what I am attempting to convey? I know that religious people are believers in evolution such as Kenneth Miller. I am not totally sure how they still reconcile both of these things. I know that evolution is supposed to explain the how and religion is supposed to explain the why.
Do you realize that unless you are in absolute zero, there is energy in the system?
Here is my point of view: A lot of things that I see such as as plants and trees and animals and things that I know exist such as galaxies don't exist without energy playing a part in their designs. So why isn't energy part of the equation when it comes to neo-Darwinsim?
With people like you, closed minded to the facts it doesn't really matter what idiotic ideas you have. There are plenty of transitional fossils showing a change to the flatfish form
it ignornace like yours that lead to the 1000 years of the dark ages.
BTW if you cared to do any actual research you would find fossil evidence of transitional flatfish.
I never said that they didn't. You obviously didn't pay very much attention to my post. Also, I have read that flatfish are a bad design right out of a book on evolution.
Welcome back Corinthian. No shots below the belt please.