|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Glenn
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Looks like Rudolph too |
 |
|
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rolf
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
"Glenn" <GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1181465772.305234.63440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
[snip] |
And so what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
AC
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 10, 1:28 pm, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 4:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:56 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Perhaps if any scientist is an illogical idiot.
So what are you saying?
That scientists rely on authority?
That scientists deny evidence when it contradicts their theories?
That scientists refuse to modify their theories even when the evidence
shows it to be wrong?
That scientists never argue over the interpretation of evidence?
Your response does not seem to bear any relationship to my post.
Your response certainly bears a relationship to my claim.
|
What claim, Glenn? Remember, you're the brave Soldier for Christ who is
too much the coward to ever show his hand.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@gmail.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bodega
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 10, 1:56 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/nyu-med032307.php
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
|
So you are pointing out that scientists' ideas change as new evidence
is discovered. Couldn't agree more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
|
Tell me what?
That science argue over the interpretation of the evidence?
That they discard or modify their theories when that is what the
evidence demands?
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 2:23 am, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 10, 6:09 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:44 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
Then you ought to reread your own post. Seems like acceptance of
hyotheses WAS the subject. I don't think most scientists would
disagree with my statements. Since no one can be an authority on all
things, we have to *provisionally* accept hypotheses in fields that
are not ours.
Ah, back to the old incoherence thing. Look, if you've got something
to say, then say it straight out. If you don't have the balls or the
intellect to compose a logical argument then get another hobby.
Learn to read before you blabber away and mimic other's stupidity.
"So this demonstrates that 1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis
of authority..."
"Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing
on the basis of authority..."
|
The fact that scientists do not accept Leakey's reconstruction of the
skull on the basis of his authority.
| Quote: |
"Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject."
"As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that."
"Ah. Well, tell Richard."
"Then you ought to reread your own post."
|
So where in this snippet is there any indication that any scientist
accepted anything on the basis of the authority of another scientist?
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 12:21 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
Tell me what?
That science argue over the interpretation of the evidence?
That they discard or modify their theories when that is what the
evidence demands?
That you think you are literally a true scotsman. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 8:45 am, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 12:21 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
Tell me what?
That science argue over the interpretation of the evidence?
That they discard or modify their theories when that is what the
evidence demands?
That you think you are literally a true scotsman.
|
So what are you trying to say?
That scientists *don't* argue over the interpretation of evidence? The
snipped you posted shows that they do.
That scientists "don't* discard or modify their theories if that is
what the evidence demands? The snipped you posted shows that they do.
Or did you post the snipped thinking that it presented a problem for
science, and are such an intellectual coward that when pressed to
identify the problem it presents you resort to meaningless responses?
As I have stated many times, one of my reasons for posting here is to
expose the moral and intellectual vaccuum of creationism. Thank you
for your help.
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 12:54 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 8:45 am, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:21 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
Tell me what?
That science argue over the interpretation of the evidence?
That they discard or modify their theories when that is what the
evidence demands?
That you think you are literally a true scotsman.
So what are you trying to say?
That scientists *don't* argue over the interpretation of evidence? The
snipped you posted shows that they do.
That scientists "don't* discard or modify their theories if that is
what the evidence demands? The snipped you posted shows that they do.
Or did you post the snipped thinking that it presented a problem for
science, and are such an intellectual coward that when pressed to
identify the problem it presents you resort to meaningless responses?
As I have stated many times, one of my reasons for posting here is to
expose the moral and intellectual vaccuum of creationism. Thank you
for your help.
Are you the victim of "the snipped" bot, Forrest? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Looks like Rudolph too |
|
|
On Jun 11, 9:17 am, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 11, 12:54 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 8:45 am, sheldo...@msn.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:21 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:44 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:37 pm, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:51 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 6:01 am, rich...@cbrp.co.uk wrote:
So this demonstrates that
1) Scientists accept nothing on the basis of authority
2) Scientists do not stick dogmatically to their theories when the
evidence shows that they are wrong
3) Scientists modify or discard their theories as the evidence
demands.
4) Scientists argue over the interpretation of evidence.
Any scientist could have told you that.
Why bother to post this?
RF
Also, (1a) Scientists _especially accept nothing on the basis of
inherited authority. Richard Leakey is the son of two even-more-famous
scientists, and that doesn't buy him any breaks.
Goody. Now how does this demonstrate that scientists accept nothing on
the basis of authority:
"Dr. Bromage"s findings call into question the extent to which H.
rudolfensis differed from earlier, more apelike hominid species.
Specifically, he is the first scientist to produce a reconstruction of
the skull that questions renowned paleontologist and archeologist
Richard Leakey"s depiction of modern man"s earliest direct ancestor as
having a vertical facial profile and a relatively large brain - an
interpretation widely accepted until now."
Is it just that scientists accept nothing? Do you accept anything that
Dr. Bromage claims? Did scientists accept "an interpretation widely
accepted"? Yes, I know, we aren't accepting what he and others claims
simply because they could be considered authorities, right? Even so,
how does this demonstrate that?
I just don't see in the science news article something along the lines
of "showing that scientists don't accept anything on the basis of
authority". Did I miss that?
As usual this just reinforces the fact that you know nothing at all
about how science actually works. Leakey's reconstruction was accepted
*provisionally* because it was the only one at the time. Note that his
dating was NOT accepted and was changed by scientists with better
evidence. Now another scientist comes along and provides a different
reconstruction based on apparently better evidence. His interpretation
will be accepted by most *provisionally* until one supported by even
better evidence comes along. All hypotheses that are accepted are
always accepted *provisionally* until a better one comes along. All
scientists -- and anybody who knows anything about science -- know
this, but it apparently has escaped your notice.
Goody. Still waiting for you to address the subject.
As for accepting claims on authority: of course we do that. I would be
much more likely to accept -- or at least seriously consider -- a
reconstruction with Bromage's qualifications than one, say, from you.
Nevertheless, it is still a *provisional* acceptance.
Ah. Well, tell Richard.
Tell me what?
That science argue over the interpretation of the evidence?
That they discard or modify their theories when that is what the
evidence demands?
That you think you are literally a true scotsman.
So what are you trying to say?
That scientists *don't* argue over the interpretation of evidence? The
snipped you posted shows that they do.
That scientists "don't* discard or modify their theories if that is
what the evidence demands? The snipped you posted shows that they do.
Or did you post the snipped thinking that it presented a problem for
science, and are such an intellectual coward that when pressed to
identify the problem it presents you resort to meaningless responses?
As I have stated many times, one of my reasons for posting here is to
expose the moral and intellectual vaccuum of creationism. Thank you
for your help.
Are you the victim of "the snipped" bot, Forrest?
|
I meant "the snippet", of course.
You know, the bit of text you posted for reasons which you refuse to
explain.
I'm sorry if a minor typing error made it too hard for you to
understand. Or perhaps the word "snippet" is one you have not
encountered previously. I suggest that you look it up in a dictionary
if you don't know its meaning.
Now that we have cleared that up, are you going to explain why you
posted it in the first place, or are you simply going to be silly and
evasive.
As far as I'm concerned, the latter is preferable. After all, it
demonstrates yet again that creationists have nothing to support their
arguments. Are you so self-absorbed that you don't realise how stupid
and dishonest this makes you look?
RF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
