Wow! It seems you are the one lacking any perspective as to the points made.
Again, you proceed from many false assumptions
Examining your words closely is very telling:
.""your lack of comprehension is obvious. If you’’ve got someone else helping""
You betray yourself. Any college educated person knows the value of questioning an Author or submitting questions related to the field of interest within a debate. Your comments show that you are either not college educated, or ignorant and closed minded to the value of intercourse. I have proved by this example that I have more than a passing interest and willing to go to the source. Your claim of standing on your own arguments is betraying the work and progress of others in the arena of Ideas, and really impossible.
However, it seems you have invented some sort of closed, self sufficient world where you and you alone can postulate and argue without the benefit of anyone else. Bravo! Do you sell tickets to the event? Outrageous? Yes it is, but so is your claim.
""""By the fact you post outdated bollocks and very bad arguments. You don’’t know what you’’re talking about, and it shows in your argument."""""
The fact is the information was taken from a current College Based Group that is academically active and recognized in this field. The only outdated information that really is obvious is your ever changing Facts related to this most interesting field of "Working Theories" as one Stanch Evolutionist exclaimed.
What is very telling is that you have provided nothing (except a web site, double standards?) of substance, except your "pronouncements" of wright or wrong. Using your own requirements, you are a fraud.
I have demmonstrated that even your Icons are more intellectually honest than you. An example:
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
Your and Realist’s reply? Insults, and intellectually dishonest tactics and fallacies based on a hidden agenda.
"Which do you think is more sensible to believe in? The theory that can show some evidence that such things can happen in such a way, or the theory that has no evidence?"
Here is a good example of only offering a false choice. Your question itself begs the question: How much is "some evidence" compared to all the evidence? Is there one current theory or many? I provided recent and past quotes from Stanch Evolutionists pondering, basically the same questions. Which you and Realist reject out of hand. You two are either the Eienstein’s of the new millennium, or are closed minded, irreverent fools (sorry, but I am betting on the latter).
I do know this as a fact, from a purely mathematically based perspective, if life does not qualify as a miracle, I do not know what does.