I challenge a Creationist to debate

[javajo]

I can see where both sides can observe something and get different answers, that's for sure. I looked at the chimp video for a sec., despite the odds or whatnot, I can't make that leap that we came from apes or whatever. But that's not a scientific thing, its just me, so I can't say anything here about it. Thanks for your help, guys.

 

[evolved yet?]

I can see where both sides can observe something and get different answers, that's for sure. I looked at the chimp video for a sec., despite the odds or whatnot, I can't make that leap that we came from apes or whatever. But that's not a scientific thing, its just me, so I can't say anything here about it. Thanks for your help, guys.

What chimps? You just looked at the first 40 seconds! Look farther through it!

 

[Danmac]

Intelligent Design - Machines
Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
Intelligent Design - Life
Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life, scientists have developed the theory of evolution in an effort to explain the origin of life via spontaneous generation. This "scientific" theory is very distinctive. Commonly, scientists observe data, interpret the data, and then formulate conclusions based upon that data. Yet, evolutionists have formulated their "scientific" conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary.
Intelligent Design - Education
Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. Since the reemergence of evolutionary thought in the last two hundred years (popularized by Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859), evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory. Nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation. And yet, curiously, evolutionary thought prevails in the mainstream. Thus, evolutionary "scientists" have disposed of true science, and replaced it with philosophy and imagination. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138). Since the beginning of the modern evolutionary movement, quite a few fraudulent evidences in favor of evolution have been submitted and remain in the textbooks, despite their exposure as blatant deceptions. Ernst Haeckel's work is an appropriate example. Haeckel, a German embryologist, altered drawings of various animal and human embryos, making them nearly identical. He presented his altered pictures as evidence for evolution between species, and used them as a platform to successfully promote evolution. In 1874, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as frauds by renowned embryologist Wilhelm His. Shortly thereafter, Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university. Yet his fallacious drawings of nearly identical embryos are still in science textbooks over 100 years later as evidence for evolution! Those drawings are being taught to kids in school today as evidence for evolution. Why? Why not present real evidence? Because there is none! David M. Raup, an evolutionist, freely admits, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." ("Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, pg. 289). It seems that "pure fantasy" is the politically correct term for "calculated lies."
Intelligent Design - DNA
An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.



Intelligent Design

 

[evolved yet?]

Intelligent Design - Machines
Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level. And yet, because of the philosophical and religious implications of life resulting from Intelligent Design, a surprisingly large portion of the intelligentsia seek to find a mechanism by which life may arise naturally by random chance. Evolutionists admit the inconsistency. George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).
Intelligent Design - Life
Ignoring the obvious Intelligent Design that permeates life, scientists have developed the theory of evolution in an effort to explain the origin of life via spontaneous generation. This "scientific" theory is very distinctive. Commonly, scientists observe data, interpret the data, and then formulate conclusions based upon that data. Yet, evolutionists have formulated their "scientific" conclusion without resorting to any data at all. In fact, evolutionists have steadfastly maintained their conclusion despite data to the contrary.

Machines can not reproduce, can not mutate, and are not subject to natural selection, please define information, how we can measure information theory, how we can falsify it, and the empirical evidence for it. Evolution is not random despite what you might have heard on AIG. George Wald was a theistic evolutionist, most of which believe god created life but let it evolve, so he is not a good person to quote on the topic. There is an alternative to the other two, it is called abiogenesis, evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, which is the topic of discussion. Why are you babbling on about abiogenesis!

Intelligent Design - Education
Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. Since the reemergence of evolutionary thought in the last two hundred years (popularized by Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859), evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory. Nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation. And yet, curiously, evolutionary thought prevails in the mainstream. Thus, evolutionary "scientists" have disposed of true science, and replaced it with philosophy and imagination. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138). Since the beginning of the modern evolutionary movement, quite a few fraudulent evidences in favor of evolution have been submitted and remain in the textbooks, despite their exposure as blatant deceptions. Ernst Haeckel's work is an appropriate example. Haeckel, a German embryologist, altered drawings of various animal and human embryos, making them nearly identical. He presented his altered pictures as evidence for evolution between species, and used them as a platform to successfully promote evolution. In 1874, Haeckel's drawings were exposed as frauds by renowned embryologist Wilhelm His. Shortly thereafter, Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university. Yet his fallacious drawings of nearly identical embryos are still in science textbooks over 100 years later as evidence for evolution! Those drawings are being taught to kids in school today as evidence for evolution. Why? Why not present real evidence? Because there is none! David M. Raup, an evolutionist, freely admits, "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." ("Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, pg. 289). It seems that "pure fantasy" is the politically correct term for "calculated lies."

Please show the evidence, don't just talk about it, give an example! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming as shown in this [youtube]TUxLR9hdorI[/youtube]
video. Give me one text book used in school books today that has Haeckel's drawings. You are really good at quoting Kent Hovind about David Raup, what Raup is referring to is Darwin's mistaken idea that evolution must occur in broad based incremental linear steps. It must be remembered that Darwin was not aware of genetics and how they operate within populations. Raup is arguing that the evolutionary pathways are complex, with many branching histories.

Intelligent Design - DNA
An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.



Intelligent Design

[/QUOTE]
On DNA:
[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Again with the random chance please stop:
[youtube]U2sahT7Kd9I[/youtube]
YouTube - Top 10 List Why Anti Evolutionists are WRONG

 

[RomCat]

I believe the "Big Bang" is creationism.
Something coming into existence from nothing.

 

[evolved yet?]

There is equal amounts of Anti-matter and matter so there was no net increase in matter/energy, we don't know what happened before the big bang, there might have already been matter.

 

[Danmac]

It is utterly amazing to me how many self proclaimed Christians believe that it is perfectly fine to lie for Jesus.

Lying shouldn't surprise you coming from anyone. Actually it should seem quite normal.

 

[tomato1236]

[youtube]mORD8x8MYk8]
YouTube - Atheism destroyed with one question

If you get any takers, don't be surprised if they're all like this.

You poor athiests who all just got destroyed by this. Ouch.

 

[evolved yet?]

You poor athiests who all just got destroyed by this. Ouch.

That is abiogenesis, not evolution, and the answer is they came from early multicellular organisms which had no egg stage.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

This thread was intended as a One on One debate between the creator of the thread and any ONE random Creationist. Posts by non-Creationists have been and will be deleted.
​

 

[tomato1236]

2 Ne. 9: 28-29
28 O that cunning aplan of the evil one! O the bvainness, and the frailties, and the cfoolishness of men! When they are dlearned they think they are ewise, and they fhearken not unto the gcounsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their hwisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be alearned is good if they bhearken unto the ccounsels of God.

 

[Danmac]

That is abiogenesis, not evolution, and the answer is they came from early multicellular organisms which had no egg stage.

Evidence for this. Not hypothesis or theory, evidence. Copy paste evidence.

 

[evolved yet?]

Homology
Why would a creator make it so that all animals have things in common? How come some species look almost exactly the same? This according to the theory of evolution is because they are closely related, if you look at the limbs of a pterosaur, bird, whale, human, bat, or anything else they are just a change in the shape of this bone and a lengthening of that finger away from being exactly the same as any of the other animal limbs:

The Fossil Record
The fossil record is unfortunately very poor, but there is still signs of evolution. We have found Fossilized Transitional Fossils between most major lineages including Reptile to Bird which includes:
Archaeopteryx
Micro-raptor
Sinosauropteryx
These are just a few of the fossils in this area. There is a lot of other fossils for other intermediate chains including the fish to tetrapod transition:
Acanthostega
Tiktaalik
Ichythostega
There is others too for other transitions and intermediates that can be found in more detail at the intermediate forms list at talk.origins.
The Fact that fossils actually exist is evidence for evolution because a young earth wouldn't have enough time for fossils to form.
Unity of life and Nested Hierarchies
Why would a creator make anything look alike? How come no bats have feathers? A creator could have done that, but why can we classify things, the evolutionary perspective can say it is because if they have recent ancestors they share more traits. Why didn't an all mighty creator put a octopussycat somewhere or a mermaid or a hippocampus( greek legendary fish-horse hybrid), the reason if you accept evolution is because that couldn't evolve with functional intermediate steps.
Ontogeny
Though few humans have a tail at birth all humans have a tail during development. Another example is we go through a three kidneys in development the first is a jawless fish-like kidney and a Reptile-like kidney.
Imperfection, Unintelligent Design and Sub-optimality
Perfection is the mark of a creator, imperfection is the mark of evolution. Some examples include Blind spots, the respiratory system crossing the gastrointestinal system( causing choking) and other problems such as the laryngeal nerve.
Gene Homology
Gene comparisons compare different genes to see how they're similar and if evolution is correct, things probably more closely related will have genomes with less differences in the genes.
Pseudogenes or Junk DNA
99% of the human genome is made of DNA that has no use this is called Junk DNA or Pseudogenes, why would a creator put so much useless stuff in there, that will just use up energy to replicate all the extra DNA, including a gene that is used to produce artificial vitamin C that is no longer functional in humans.

Evidence for evolution, now give us evidence for your belief now.

 

[Danmac]

Evidence for evolution, now give us evidence for your belief now.

Evolution and the Fossil Record

And one last thought on evolution and the fossil record:

• In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.1

So, what would Darwin say today?

• Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

• The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

Thanks for indulging that little side bar. Now, back to our 21st century understanding of micro-biology, genetics and design theory…



Next Page! 1 David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, vol. 213, July 1981, 289. The reality of the "human fossil record" of the past century:

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Neandertal man was traditionally depicted as a stooped ape-man. It is now accepted that the alleged posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

2 Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, 9.



Evolved yet....

It appears that the evidence for evolution is of a temporary nature, at least until enough time passes to prove otherwise, which appears to be the routine.

 

[evolved yet?]

Evolution and the Fossil Record

And one last thought on evolution and the fossil record:

• In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.1

So, what would Darwin say today?

• Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.

More misquoting? And plagiarism

• The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

And even more

Ramapithecus was widely recognized as a direct ancestor of humans. It is now established that he was merely an extinct type of orangutan.

I will grant you that.

Piltdown man was hyped as the missing link in publications for over 40 years. He was a fraud based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw.

Please you forgot to mention that the scientists corrected themselves, we did not tell you it was real and know it was false.

Nebraska man was a fraud based on a single tooth of a rare type of pig.

You tend to forget many of creationisms biggest mistakes, like Palauxy Man Tracks also see this.

Java man was based on sketchy evidence of a femur, skull cap and three teeth found within a wide area over a one year period. It turns out the bones were found in an area of human remains, and now the femur is considered human and the skull cap from a large ape.

Actually it still considered a Homo erectus.

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.

Please cite one of these studies.

Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

It's brain range was nothing near today's humans! They did not coexist with us, we are never found in the same strata.

Homo habilis is now generally considered to be comprised of pieces of various other types of creatures, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and is not generally viewed as a valid classification.

Not true.

2 Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, 9.
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Does he cite any thing? Any scientific peer reviewed papers

Evolved yet....

It appears that the evidence for evolution is of a temporary nature, at least until enough time passes to prove otherwise, which appears to be the routine.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Danmac....

Please cite your evidence, stop attacking mine!

 

[Danmac]

More misquoting? And plagiarism

And even more

I will grant you that.

Please you forgot to mention that the scientists corrected themselves, we did not tell you it was real and know it was false.

You tend to forget many of creationisms biggest mistakes, like Palauxy Man Tracks also see this.

Actually it still considered a Homo erectus.


Please cite one of these studies.

It's brain range was nothing near today's humans! They did not coexist with us, we are never found in the same strata.

Not true.

Does he cite any thing? Any scientific peer reviewed papers

Danmac....

Please cite your evidence, stop attacking mine!

This is just a copy paste. I listed the site. btw. If your evidence is really evidence it should stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Please note this thread is posted in the One-on-One Debates forum. Since this is now a debate between Danmac and evolved yet? , posts by any other members will be removed.

If you would like to comment on this debate, please do so in this forum: One-on-One Debate Discussion
​

 

[Danmac]

Although some Christians have attacked evolution as “just a theory,” that would be raising Darwin’s idea to a level it doesn’t deserve.
A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.
Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a “theory.” In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that it’s accurate.
Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.
Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.
Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.
Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.


Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis

 

[Danmac]

More misquoting? And plagiarism

I pasted and listed my source.

Please cite one of these studies.

What is your take on lucy?

First published:
Creation 12(3):32
June 1990
‘Lucy’ is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found in 1974 in Ethiopia by American anthropologist Donald Johanson. To many people, Lucy is regarded as a certain link between ape-like creatures and man—thus supposedly proving evolution. But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?
According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature ‘in between’ ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

‘The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been’.2
​

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? ‘The australopithecines are unique.’3
Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of ‘missing link’ status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp

 

[evolved yet?]

This is just a copy paste. I listed the site. btw. If your evidence is really evidence it should stand up to scrutiny.

Stop Copy and Pasting, if I were copy and pasting this debate would have been long over. And on the other point I showed that your scrutiny didn't stand up to evidence!