I can't keep up with the sheer volume of mistakes and misconceptions that you post. You sure can type a lot. Unfortunately while you excel in quantity, you suck at quality. I am not going to try to correct every idiocy that comes from your keyboard, but for the sake of others who are reading this, I will comment on a few select turds:

rupert_c says:

There are lifeforms that have been around for 200 million years without evolving one bit. Sure, there is variation and natural selection, but there is no progression from a simpler form to a more complex one.

This is a standard creationist misconception about evolution. Nowhere in evolutionary theory does it state that organisms must become more complex. It states only that organisms evolve to survive their environmental (and other) conditions. That's why we still have amoebas and orangutans, and apparently, you.

Scientists are pretty good at expelling and ostracizing people too - JUST LIKE RELIGIOUS NUTS

Science is evidence-based. Religion is not. In science, if you can't accept or attempt to explain the evidence with a naturalistic methodology, then you are not doing science, and don't belong in position teaching science.

Variations and mutations are due to errors and the replication of the dna codings - that is entropy, not evolution

No, evolution is the selection and rejection of errors. DNA errors have nothing to do with entropy, just like your ample misspellings in your posts have nothing to do with entropy.

Yeah, count on those bees to evolve to deal with cellphones

Where do you get your science news? The National Enquirer?

Well we can see to its edge and that is 13.7 billion light years away and that is how long that light took to get here so that is how old the universe is.

You really are an imbecile. The visible universe is closer to 90 billion light years in diameter. How far we can see does not correlate to the age of the universe because space-time is expanding faster than lightspeed. You can look this up if you don't believe me. It's not hard to find. There is this thing called "Google" that might help you.

Show me one new novel structure that has taken a life form upwards on the road of complexity that has taken place in human history through natural selection, not breeding or genetic engineering.

Straw man argument. Already explained that evolution does not pursue "complexity."

I saw evolutionists demonstrate that gills evolved into wings on a pbs show. A whole lot of very specific mutation errors have to go at it for a long time to get a wing that will work and be beneficial, but evolution is patient, and who cares if a bug has to grow and drag around proto wings for hundreds of thousands of generations before they hit the right screw up that will make that bug fly?

Insects can benefit from partial wings. A half a wing is better than no wing if it allows an insect a survival edge. And a half a brain seems to work for you.

Speaking of surface, I suppose you regard skin color as evolution as opposed to variation selected by the amount of sunlight recieved. So which skin color is more evolved and advanced? Tan, Brown, Dark Brown, Yellowish Tan, Reddish Tan, Pinkish tan or Pink?

Straw man argument. Evolution does not pursue complexity or advancement, only survival.

You appendix is an evolutionary adaption or a devolutionary screw up? Is it a new and novel structure or is it a structure which no longer works?

Recent scientific study has indicated that the appendix is used to reseed beneficial gut bacterial after an illness.

What are the odds of finding the fossilized remains of a mammal or person 100 million years old?

100 million year fossil of a person? Zero.

No i am not a troll, trolls do not respond to argument or question and hardly think at all. Being a troll, they have to believe in evolution so it gives them something to look forward to but really they are just part of devolution.

I agree you are not a troll. More like a planaria.

Bradleys were once thought to be almost as impregnable as M1 Abrams tanks, which were thought to be entirely unassailable.

This is simply not an true statement as a quick visit to the history of the Bradley shows (try the Wikipedia article). The history of the Bradley has been one of adding more and more armor in an attempt to make it more survivable. It's always been, and always will be, vulnerable to a whole host of weapons.

This is important because inaccurate or untrue statements question or destroy the credibility of the article, no matter how accurate in other matters it may be.