Refuting Evolution

[The Valkyrie]

I proved the creator in the other thread

No, you most assuredly did not. What you did demonstrate, was that with regard to the mathematics you referenced in your 'proof', you don't know your ass from your asymptote. First, you asserted (twice) that if a function had a limit of a certain value as it approaches a point (toward the limit of), that it then necessarily would have either that value at that point, or be zero (which itself is a value). It does not necessarily have a value (i.e. 'is defined') at the limit even if the limit was defined. This is a freshman level calculus / numerical integration misunderstanding, and if I were still back in college grading math papers for a prof, I'd have been covering your paper with red ink at the time. What you had was an open interval in which the limit at one excluded end-point was defined, but the function itself was not. This was explained to you, but you ignored the notice like a half-comatose grandpa, obliviously mowing down speed bumps, and not stopping. I ignored your ignorant dismissal of the mathematical point because it's obvious, in terms of the mathematics that your proof requires, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Secondarily, if you can't explicitly link designer + creator, your demonstrating there was 'a designer' is irrelevant to a discussion about a creator god, offers no support for the existence of, or other arguments for, that creator god, and is thus exceedingly guilty of the fallacious, ignoratio elenchi just referenced. For all you know, the 'designer' was an alien in a different 'brane' (think parallel dimension), and that designer's existence says absolutely dick squat about the 'creator' of this brane (this set of temporal + spatial dimensions).

Whenever someone states that they can refute evolution I always have to wonder why they haven't managed to write a science paper, get it peer-reviewed, and then published.

Such refutation for what is a fundamental science, and a science that has given birth to other scientific disciplines would be a guarantee for a Nobel Prize.

Of course, they always make the claim that such research and science exists but there's an international conspiracy among scientists to keep that evidence suppressed.

Of course, this is nonsense since science is a cut throat field and many scientists would jump at the chance for the fame and funding such a revelation would get.