Chuck77 writes:
Percy writes:
Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know.
For instance?
I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. You seem to be letting ignorance be your guide. As others keep noting, your messages are remarkably free of meaningful content.
Instead of replying on this meta-topic, why not just respond meaningfully to what Dwise1 was saying about the geologic column in
Message 170 and before.
We have a theory too.
Yes, we know you think you have a theory, we haven't forgotten, you don't need to keep reminding us. But theories are based upon evidence, something we keep trying to engage you in but also something you seem remarkably reluctant to talk about, almost as if you only know what you believe scientifically but not why you believe it.
--Percy