[quote]Well, we got into an interesting discussion, but my android phone doesn't show all the thread in the right order...[/quote]...and that's one of the reasons why I like Mac.[quote]I am sure I have missed a reply or two of yours.[/quote]Indeed.[quote]So far everything you've said has been an apologetic argument...[/quote]Duh.[quote]...[that] I have heard before, [which] has had no impact on our understanding of evolution.[/quote]How disappointing.[quote]The original copied and pasted article did nothing to change our...[/quote]Who's "our?"[quote]...understanding of evolution when it was published, and I wonder why you think it might now.[/quote]The same reason why someone refused to believe in God 2,000 years ago.[quote]It was not seen as a legitimate challenge to the mountains of data in support of evolution. Why do you think this is?[/quote]The evidence: A DNA difference between the chromosome count of monkeys to humans have only proven that no duh humans are not monkeys, the unsubstantial amount of cosmic dust in an acclaimed four-and-half-billion year-old galaxy, an impressive collection of animal fossils in the fossil record without a high number of at least 100 transitional forms for not even one existing or non-existing species, and a lot of speculated theories regarding the origins of organic life from non-organic material, the origins of intelligence, and the origins of complexity. Yup, you can say, "I don't know why."

Nearly everything you wrote there was just a waste of time except your last paragraph which wasn't even an answer to the question I asked. I asked why his paper wasn't taken seriously, and you gave me more refuted arguments against evolution. I will await an answer, even though it didn't seem to be forthcoming.

"The same reason why people didn't believe in God 2,000 years ago" was not a satisfying answer?

No it certainly wasn't. You didn't even provide an answer, you gave a cryptic reply so I would have to ask a further question in order to get a real answer. It's almost as if you just want to waste as much of my time as possible.

Hello?

Point proven I guess. Anyone reading this should know that you aren't attempting a proper discourse. You should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately wasting my time.

Sorry, wasting your time is not my intention. I thought you were going to provide an answer as to why the OP apparently didn't make any sense to you, and to some, it did. My most bias response would be "Because you're stubborn," but I don't want to be bias, so I wanted to know what was your opinion to the question. That is why I said, "I don't know." The most natural response would be an answer.

I don't know. Why do you think this is?

If you don't want to answer my question just say so. I believe honesty is one of the central tenets of your faith, so how about you practice what you preach?

I just said that I don't know. Should I explain why I do not know? But I'll try to address your statement as best as I can. *heading back up*

If you don't know then I can only reason that it is because you haven't done your homework. There are many refutations of the arguments in this post that are available for you to read at your leisure. Surely you may have read them? I'm sure you wouldn't just jump on the first article you read and assume it's veracity. If you have read them, what is it you are having trouble understanding? The watchmaker argument has also been rubbished countless times, and yet you have chosen it as a top comment. Have you chosen it as a top comment despite knowing it is a terrible analogy or because you don't care?