|
161 November 07 2009 at 01:53:14 Name: Jim Smith Comments: Thank you, David, for another excellent post. Trebob mentions it in his blog http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html, where he also links to a rebuttal of the incompetents Harris cites regarding the origin of asteroids: ************** http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/11/reading-posts-about-astronomy-made-by.html ************** Needless to say, Harris is giving us a good example of what we can expect Hovind supporters to do in the public schools, if given the opportunity. 162 November 06 2009 at 03:57:16 Name: david Comments: “David, it's greatly disappointing to see that you ignored my detailed response on November 01 2009 at 14:51:37. I believe it did a good job in answering all the allegations that YOU brought against me and my claims.” Regarding the posts of john harris, i did not ignore johns responses. I saw no point in posting my replys given his track record of ignoring everything and refusing to get his facts straight. For the record here is my entire reply to his post on 11/01/2009 “It doesn't apply here. For me to be a liar, I must offer you information to be the OPPOSITE of what I know to be true.” You have been corrected on your flawed understanding of many concepts numerous times since you started posting here and you continue to make claims that are in direct conflict with published research and documented facts. Either you have not researched the ideas you want to speak out against in which case you are lying about having studied them, or you are using information that there is no way you dont know is false by now in which case you are lying about the concepts you want to speak out against. In either case, you are a liar. “A brief explanation of this can be found in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating". I did not ask for an explanation of relative dating. You said “There are many respectful scientists that would simply disagree with your arguments re dating system” and I asked you for “Names, fields of research, credentials, and peer reviewed articles”. So you did not actually address my statement. How surprising. “However, if he or anyone else did, then I assume they would have pointed out the science and evidence introduced in this website, to make some of its points, using geologic column, radiometry dating and sedimentary layers etc., are based on a biased worldview interpretation.” Lie that you have been corrected on. Evolution (both micro and macro) is not a world view but is an observed fact and natural process. You have been given links to some of the places where hovind has been allowed to have the last word on this site. Also your comments regarding dating methods and the geologic column have already been debunked. I see no point in giving references cause i know you will just ignore them in favor of continued deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, also known as lying. “However, saying I "know next to nothing about science" is just harsh and untrue.” Lie that you have been corrected on many, many times since your first post here. “However, my statement was referring to the lies that we all know about, such as Haeckel's Drawings pointed out in my post dated September 14 2009 at 01:28:45” And you were quickly corrected. “and the other fossils pointed out on September 19 2009 at 02:30:19.” Lie you have been corrected on. If you had done your homework you would have know your statements regarding these fossils were false. “Just making a sweeping statement like that doesn't really help me. Letting me know what you consider I said to be fiction would encourage me to put more research in that area.” Considering that jim, tre, and carl have corrected you multiple times and you still dont get it i fail to see what one more time will do. “However, if you feel I am closed minded, please let me know and I would be willing to fix it immediately.” I did. “Please bear in mind that the problem I have with evolutionists is their insistence that there is only one way to interpreting an evidence and offer it as a fact and no one must dare question it” No. The problem comes when people like yourself who have no idea how science works try and question scientifically established concepts. That is why the trio dont want to mess with you anymore. You get the basics wrong and everything else you do fails from there. “Firstly, the geologic column is not credible” Lie you have been corrected on. “The assumptions for radiometric dating” Lie you have been corrected on. “I'm happy to check it out. If it's reasonable and doesn't break any of our known-and-proven scientific laws and doesn't defy basic principles and logic, then sure, it could be right.” Youve already shown you have no comprehension of “our known-and-proven scientific laws” and “basic principles and logic.” “Im ok with the macroevolution if it's simply promoted as a theory” And once more you show you have no grasp of scientific concepts including what a theory is. “The problem happens when it's called a fact” In science a theory is a tested explanation of facts. This has all been explained to you already. “From your response I assume you (and other evolutionists) are offended by my way of thinking.” No. It is simply obvious that you have no grasp of the concepts you are trying to speak out against and that you have been less than honest in your responses so far. Until you decide to get an education on the subjects and start being honest theres no point in discussing anything with you. “I can't force you to debate with me but I would hate to leave this website/guestbook with the wrong impression.” This is the impression I’ve gotten of you by reading all of your posts, the replys to them, and tres blog: You are a willfully ignorant and dishonest incompetent as well as a scientific illiterate. If you want to change this impression you will have to get an education on the subjects you want to speak out against (dating methods for example) and on the scientific method and how it works (your continued misuse of the word theory for example). Btw, just like jim, carl, and tre i will not address you directly again until you decide to do some homework and start being honest. --- Until he can prove hes capable of more i think we should just stop feeding the troll. 163 November 06 2009 at 01:30:37 Name: John H Comments: Interesting! No scientific content in any of your responses. Just insults. That's not how to win a scientific debate! David, it's greatly disappointing to see that you ignored my detailed response on November 01 2009 at 14:51:37. I believe it did a good job in answering all the allegations that YOU brought against me and my claims. In fact one of them was a clear misunderstanding from your part regarding the way of the master video. A simple apology regarding this misunderstanding would have sufficed. I am also surprised to see no response to your disbelief that some scientist consider relative dating more accurate than radiometric dating. Interesting how you are accusing me of lies when the very purpose of my debate is to remove the lies that macroevolutionists have been exercising (and still are) in our text books and museums today. In fact David, why did you trouble yourself in responding at all? Telling me that I have "not researched the ideas you want to speak out against " without evidence of this claim is untrue and counterproductive. Also assuming that by doing such research, one would come to the same conclusion as you (otherwise they must be lying) is not just incorrect but also unscientific. In your mind, there is just one answer. Take a leaf out of 2 times Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauley's book "Science should be the search for truth". In your post dated October 28 2009 at 18:30:51 you asked "What do you think macroevolution is?" and "What would you accept as evidence of macroevolution and that your take on the issue is wrong?". I actually mistakenly thought you cared. It is now obvious that you only care about what your evolutionist friends think of you. In the evolutionist worldview, it's appears that showing any leniency would be a sign of weakness (after all, it is called the survival of the fittest) Regarding Jim's comments:
Jimmy, first of all, as usual, you make me laugh. You must be the comedian of this website. You sit on your high horse dishing out accusations, insults and threats. What is wrong with you mate? lol - I have made my position very clear from the moment I entered this guestbook/website (which appears I have to continue reminding you). I am neither here to defend or attack Kent Hovind, just questioning the content of this website. However, if you really want to know my position in this matter, I must refer you back to my answer I gave David in my last post November 01 2009 at 14:51:37 "...it is important you know that I do not support ANY lie (big or small) and believe that ALL lies should NOT be permitted. I also do not approve of ANY hoaxes that support any worldview, belief or faith". I'll add to that; 'I also do not approve of any crime directly or indirectly, verbally or physically regardless of race, colour or creed'. What is really funny here Jimmy boy; on the surface anyone visiting this website/guestbook would think that you care for the welfare of others. However, if they look closely (by visiting previous posts) they would clearly see that your responses and your general approach and language is far from peaceful, yet you have sooooooo much to say about this subject. What is even funnier is being taught by a devote evolutionist (who believes that life evolves without aim or purpose by means of mutation and natural selection) moral principles. So funny, if not so sad. Unto your next comment:
Ok, let's start with 1. Would you say, your approach to this subject has been so far with an open mind? Give one example, I wait with anticipation! Regarding the inaccuracy and misleading of this website; this was at least demonstrated in the way you referred to radiometric dating, geologic column and sedimentary layers which are at-best based on assumptions or at-worst based on lies (the details of these started with my post dated September 19 2009 at 02:30:19). Finally, regarding the watertight evidence for macroevolution; we all know they don't exist. Your worldview makes you force the evidence into the theory, not the other way round. Therefore, I would say, I was pretty accurate with my 3 points so far. You see, the *until he's ready* bit has already come and gone but I think you are soooo busy preparing for insults, you're missing out on what's really happening. There could have been much more but Carl Marychurch doesn't want to talk to me anymore :(. I can see a very clear trend with your tactics. It is the typical evolutionist style, devised/designed for intimidation. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a liar, or worse still, ignorant! You see, in your mind, 'how could an educated person not believe in evolution, it's just not possible!'. Is this a sign of being open minded? Re Carl's last post:
As you know, I never promoted the Post Modernist view of "all ideas are equal". I don't agree with that. However, I AM saying that the evolution theory is not the ONLY one that fits the evidence (although we must get rid of the known lies and differentiate between facts and hypothesis). The creationist worldview is at least as plausible and certainly as good in fitting with the evidence and therefore should not be dismissed. Surely any respectful scientist would support this approach. Back to Jimmy boy (who loves me really):
Firstly, take it easy on the "outright lunacy". Here is a challenge for you brother Jim; how about you try to describe your thoughts on the next post without using strong negative adjectives. It will do you good to practice :) Ok, so how can a "meteorite also date 4 billion years ago according to thei ratios of those same isotopes". Interesting question. Some have suggested that it could have got contaminated on impact (thus giving similar readings). However, perhaps the better question to ask is (or just as interestingly); where exactly did the meteorite come from in the first place? Ok, so let's explorer a possibility. As you know, I suggested that the global flood could have been one of the causes for giving us inaccurate radiometric readings. In order to understand how this could cause meteorites to give the same reading, we need to understand what exactly is understood to have happened during a global flood. Assuming you won't mind me quoting a creationist's site, have a look at this http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html. Please read through it carefully, including the section on Meteorites Return Home (at the end). Let's see how open minded you are. We'll let the colourful language speak for itself. I anticipate and look forward to your response(s). 164 November 02 2009 at 05:44:57 Name: Carl M Comments: I have asked Carl on numerous occasions "shouldn't we listen and consider the opinions of all scientists regardless of who they are without prejudice?". I have not received a response. False. This issue was terminated with extreme prejudice two weeks ago. See October 15 2009 at 10:56:58 John Harris: I asked: "shouldn't we listen and consider the opinions of all scientists regardless of who they are without prejudice? Carl M: In the big scheme of things - perhaps - but what has this to do with my website about Kent Hovind? I'm detecting a Post Modernist "all ideas are equal" theme creeping in, and sorry to be biased, but such muddled headed thinking never lead to anything good. The very process of "considering" must end with a conclusion; the idea is right or it's wrong. You appear to have forgotten the last step. 165 November 01 2009 at 17:44:18 Name: david Comments: “It doesn't apply here. For me to be a liar, I must offer you information to be the OPPOSITE of what I know to be true.” You have been corrected on your flawed understanding of many concepts numerous times since you started posting here and you continue to make claims that are in direct conflict with published research and documented facts. Either you have not researched the ideas you want to speak out against in which case you are lying about having studied them, or you are using information that there is no way you dont know is false by now in which case you are lying about the concepts you want to speak out against. In either case, you are a liar. And just like jim, carl, and tre i will not address you directly again until you decide to do some homework and start being honest. 166 November 01 2009 at 15:26:10 Name: Jim Smith Comments: REGARDING THE POSTS OF JOHN HARRIS: From Jim Smith, first posted 31 October 2009, revised 1 November 2009 (Substantiation for the following will be presented at the end of the post.) In seven weeks of posting here, John Harris has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant scientific illiterate and serial liar, who has twice indicated that he has a right to make accusations without presenting any substantiation for them *until he’s ready*. Harris has been told of Kent Hovind’s approval of war crimes against Muslims, and has never registered any objection to it. He also cites Hovind (a known liars and incompetent) as a source, without apology. At the same time, Harris insists upon *watertight*, *indisputable” evidence for an old Earth. As an example of what Harris means by those terms, consider what he believes is a reasonable objection to radiometric dating. That is, consider what he believes is a credible explanation of how rocks from a young Earth came to have isotope ratios that indicate those rocks are actually more than 4 billion years old. Harris suggests that those ratios resulted from contamination during the Global Flood. He says this while knowing that meteorites also date to 4 billion years ago, according to their ratios of those same isotopes. His *contamination* scenario is therefore outright lunacy (as is his insistence that Old Earthers must address such scenarios seriously), but it is typical of what we have been hearing from Harris. For the reasons given above, I will not give any reply to his future posts, other than by repeating this one. REFERENCES: Carl Marychurch’s summary: October 28 2009 at 06:26:54 David’s summary: October 31 2009 at 10:51:25 Trebob’s detailed analysis: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html My posts: September 17 2009 at 20:08:21 and October 20 2009 at 18:39:24 John Harris, September 19 2009 at 02:30:19 (A good example of the sort of megalomaniacal drivel Harris has expected us to wade through in this discussion.) 167 November 01 2009 at 14:51:37 Name: John Harris Comments: Hi David Firstly good-form. In all your entire last post October 31 2009 at 10:51:25 there were nearly no direct insults (although "liar" and "hypocrite" were still strong and unnecessary - nevertheless, generally a much better response). I would still have loved to answer your original post of October 28 2009 at 06:53:15 but never mind, if you don't want me to, that's ok with me. Firstly there appears to be a trend of macroevolutionists calling people liars. Seriously, you must check this out. It doesn't apply here. For me to be a liar, I must offer you information to be the OPPOSITE of what I know to be true. In fact, I could be called a liar even when offering the truth if I think it to be a lie. With this understanding, I couldn't even call YOU or any evolutionist a liar (assuming they say what they think to be the truth). Now, "hypocrite" happens to be a new one on me in this guest book. This means "a person who pretends to be what he is not" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypocrite). Do you believe that I am pretending to be what I am not? Regardless, it's only fair I respond to your last post. :
A brief explanation of this can be found in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating".
My comment for the above was on October 29 2009 at 01:42:22 in context of the rest of this statement; I was pointing out that it was "Similar to James Hutton, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, its primary goal (or hidden agenda) is to promote macroevolution". No insult intended, I realise it's a very strong worldview that you would fight tooth and nail over it. Regarding your invitation to Hovind to give his review, my understanding is that he doesn't engage in written debates. However, if he or anyone else did, then I assume they would have pointed out the science and evidence introduced in this website, to make some of its points, using geologic column, radiometry dating and sedimentary layers etc., are based on a biased worldview interpretation.
As you know, this was addressed to Carl in my post on October 29 2009 at 01:42:22. In context it was directly referring to their insults and intimidation not to the evidence they have provided. Check out the previous posts, verbal-abuse, name-calling is the norm. I'm ok with evidence, just leave out the insults. Is that acceptable? Besides, what claims do you want me to validate? I suggested that the principle of radiometric dating systems makes assumptions and doesn't take into account possible contamination (amongst other things). Next thing, I find myself asked to prove the Earth is young. I know this is a summary, but that's where I understand to be at the moment. Not really worthy of the statement "They have asked you repeatedly to validate your claims". Please let me know if I missed something else. As far as I know, I responded to most/all other comments (unless you missed something within my posts - or indeed I have).
Again you misunderstand Dave. When I said I "don't recall using their material before", that's exactly what I meant. I don't recall using it BEFORE the one I used for a laugh. No double standard, no lie. This is a prime example of how misunderstandings can happen. That's why we should be careful on how we use the word "liar".
If their material insults you, then I'm happy to avoid them. However, saying I "know next to nothing about science" is just harsh and untrue. It's not the science that's the problem, it's the interpretation of the evidence. Please bare that in mind.
Ok, I think you responded to quickly to my question without realising the point I was making. Firstly, yes, there is no watertight evidence for macroevolution including \\\"29+ evidences\\\". However, my statement was referring to the lies that we all know about, such as Haeckel's Drawings pointed out in my post dated September 14 2009 at 01:28:45, and the other fossils pointed out on September 19 2009 at 02:30:19. Basically I was referring to all the obvious ones that we all agree on. Wouldn't it be great if we could work together to make this happen in the name of science?
The statement was directly aimed at the previous post that offered nothing more than just an insult. However, if you feel I am closed minded, please let me know and I would be willing to fix it immediately. Please bear in mind that the problem I have with evolutionists is their insistence that there is only one way to interpreting an evidence and offer it as a fact and no one must dare question it (or they'll get it - I certainly felt like I have).
The Earth is "proven" old using radiometric dating and the geologic column. Firstly, the geologic column is not credible (explained and discussed in previous posts). The assumptions for radiometric dating is a sour point for a lot of scientists. Admittedly a lot (and possibly all) of them on the internet are creationists. I have asked Carl on numerous occasions "shouldn't we listen and consider the opinions of all scientists regardless of who they are without prejudice?". I have not received a response. If this is allowed, then please check it out (or I am happy to find them for you). So sorry Dave, until we are sure and can totally rely on this dating system as a fact not a theory, then I won't stake my life on it. Is this kind of thinking that earned me the comment above "you know next to nothing about science yourself ".
I'm happy to check it out. If it's reasonable and doesn't break any of our known-and-proven scientific laws and doesn't defy basic principles and logic, then sure, it could be right. This is a good example of open mindedness (not being funny Dave, but that should be our approach). Included in this open mindedness, we must consider the possibility of another mechanism that could have produced the same result that could carry as much weight. Surely you would consider that reasonable!
The question re lies about text books and museums was covered above. But just in case you don't know, they are still in our text books and museums. Now it is important you know that I do not support ANY lie (big or small) and believe that ALL lies should NOT be permitted. I also do not approve of ANY hoaxes that support any worldview, belief or faith. Having said that, I have noticed that the word lie in this guest book (and other places where the evolution theory is being taught), is sometimes used to refer to a statement that promotes another worldview, or destroys the macroevolutionary worldview. So, what I'm saying is: if the absolute truth is difficult to establish, then let's be fair and call it a theory (or faith, or belief system etc.) and promote as nothing else. Let each individual make up their own mind. The worse that would happen is that people will try harder to find the RIGHT answer. That's called education, anything else is indoctrination.
You may have an amazing explanation behind the story, but that doesn't prove it happened that way (unless you were there of course). That should not cause offence to you or any one. A lawyer can give convincing arguments to acquit a criminal, but that doesn't make the argument true. I'm ok with the macroevolution if it's simply promoted as a theory. The problem happens when it's called a fact. Open mindedness says that there are many possibilities and this is one of them (until of course we have watertight evidence, after which we must then call it a Fact)
From your response I assume you (and other evolutionists) are offended by my way of thinking. I can't force you to debate with me but I would hate to leave this website/guestbook with the wrong impression. 168 October 31 2009 at 21:58:31 Name: Jim Smith Comments: Good post, David. It helped me to write the following, which I’ll use as my boilerplate response to John Harris’s future posts. You, Carl, and trebob are welcome to add your names to it, and to expand or modify it as you wish. REGARDING THE POSTS OF JOHN HARRIS: From Jim Smith, first posted 31 October 2009 (Substantiation for the following will be presented at the end of the post.) In seven weeks of posting here, John Harris has shown himself to be a willfully ignorant scientific illiterate and serial liar, who has twice asserted a right to make accusations without presenting any substantiation for them “until he’s ready”. Harris has been told of Kent Hovind’s approval of war crimes against Muslims, and has never registered any objection to it. He also cites Hovind —a known liars and incompetent as a source, without apology. At the same time, Harris insists upon “watertight”, “indisputable” evidence for an old Earth. As an example of what Harris means by those terms, consider what he believes is a reasonable objection to radiometric dating. That is, consider what he believes is a credible explanation of how rocks from a young Earth came to have isotope ratios that indicate those rocks are actually more than 4 billion years old. Harris suggests that those ratios resulted from contamination during the Global Flood. He says this while knowing that meteorites also date to 4 billion years ago, according to their ratios of those same isotopes. His “contamination” scenario is therefore outright lunacy (as is his insistence that Old Earthers have to address such scenarios seriously), but it’s typical of what we’ve been hearing from Harris. For the reasons given above, I will not give any reply to his future posts, other than by repeating this one. References: Carl Marychurch’s summary: October 28 2009 at 06:26:54 David’s summary: October 31 2009 at 10:51:25 Trebob’s detailed analysis: http://trebobslab.blogspot.com/2009/09/default-response-to-anti-science_14.html My posts: September 17 2009 at 20:08:21 and October 20 2009 at 18:39:24 169 October 31 2009 at 10:58:19 Name: david Comments: Sorry. The video addressing johns nonsense that everything came from nothing (which is actually creationism) is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs 170 October 31 2009 at 10:51:25 Name: david Comments: \\\"If macroevolution is not true, what other explanations are there for the origin of life?\\\" Your question is poorly phrased because evolution does not cover the origins of life. After looking through your posts I see you have been corrected on this several times. How odd that you accuse jim, trebob, and carl of being closed minded but you arent even willing to admit when your claims are wrong and your not willing to do any research to make sure your youre right. But if you want some seriously studied none creationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution see tres post on September 11 2009 at 04:14:16. \\\"You can ask Richard Dawkins if you must, he will agree. I heard him myself on the radio during an interview pointing it out.\\\" Name and approximate date of broadcast. I’d be interested in seeing if youve quotemined dawkins like you have darwin. \\\"“Some scientists consider relative dating more accurate than radiometric dating?\\\" \\\"There are many respectful scientists that would simply disagree with your arguments re dating system.\\\" Names, fields of research, credentials, and peer reviewed articles. \\\"Now regarding this website, it\\\'s one-sided and unfair.\\\" Lie that you have been corrected on. Hovind has many times been asked to give his review of the site and those reviews have been posted in locations throughout the site. This is not what I would consider \\\"one-sided and unfair.\\\" \\\"Sadly so far; Jim, trebob and unfortunately yourself (according to your last post) have proven my point.\\\" Jimbo, tre, and carl have done nothing of the sort. They have asked you repeatedly to validate your claims, a task you appreantly find so difficult and challenging that you must distort the facts in response. How did I come to this conclusion? By reading all the relevant posts from your first one onward as suggested by jim. Now then regarding the way of the master video you posted: \\\"The youtube video was there for a laugh to put a smile in your face\\\" Compare that to \\\"I don\\\'t recall using their material before.\\\" Saying that you dont recall using their material is either a double standard and obvious lie, or you didn’t notice the youtube account it was hosted on. Given your track record so far... \\\"If I did, it would be more convincing than the little joke I put in my last post\\\" Their materials are not convincing at all to anyone who actually understands science and their claims have been debunked, as is pointed out in the videos I posted. Ill also tell you the guy who made those is not an atheist and he is a christian who has expressed concern about the damage creationists are doing to science. Its not surprising that you think their materials would be convincing seeing as how youve shown you know next to nothing about science yourself. \\\"In case you are interested, all I am interested in is removing the lies that support the macroevolution...\\\" Lie you have been corrected on. Macroevolution is an observed and documented fact. You have been given numerous research materials and one of your own links gave \\\"29+ evidences\\\" \\\"... and separate science from fiction.\\\" Fiction being everything youve said so far. \\\"Are you deliberately closed minded or do you have to go to a special school for it?\\\" Everything you have said has been proven false so this is a question you should ask yourself. \\\"It is you who have to prove the Earth is old\\\" Done. \\\"and overcome the assumptions made with radiometric dating.\\\" Lie that you have been corrected on. \\\"explain the lack of a missing link (or any fossil)\\\" Lie that you have been corrected on. \\\"Show how non-life can create information (DNA)\\\" cdk007 on youtube has a great series on this http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/c/0696457CAFD6D7C9 \\\"why you have lies to support your theory (in text books and museums)\\\" Lie that you have been corrected on. (BTW you have no room to talk about using lies to support your ideas considering that creationists still use proven hoaxes such as the paluxy footprints, the ica stones, and known lies such \\\"decay rates are all assumptions\\\") And you wonder why jim, tre, and carl dont wanta deal with you anymore… \\\"During our discussions regarding radiometric dating I pointed out that a lot of assumptions are made to get the dates you\\\'re getting. I then gave a possible reason for contamination.\\\" And you had your lies blown out of the water. \\\"After all you imagined a Big Bang from nothing.\\\" Straw man argument. The Big Bang was not out of nothing. There is also evidence supporting the big bang theory http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html If you would lift a finger to do some research you would know this. \\\"You even think that I\\\'m actually lying.\\\" No. We know you are. \\\"Every time I get to this guest book, I am surprised with unexpected comments which take up all of my time.\\\" Youre surprised that people who know more than you are calling you out on your lies? \\\"Please bear with me; I am really interested in responding to your post.\\\" Dont bother. Thanks to your newest post your willful ignorance is no longer amusing and it is obvious you cant be trusted to give an honest and informed response anyway. Looking at your track record i can see why jim, tre, and carl (the most scientifically minded and intellectually honest people ive seen on this site) see no point in continuing discussions with you. You say your open minded but you wont spend time studying to make sure what you say is true. You accuse others of being closed minded and unwilling to consider that they might be wrong but when your own claims are proven wrong you wont consider that possibility for yourself. Youre not just a liar but also a hypocrite. That or youre just a common internet troll. << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >>
|