Wombat Pouch

Thread copied here from the Wombat Pouch thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Robert,As in your messages in other threads, this is just a collection of unsupported assertions. Your inability or unwillingness to support them will gradually turn this thread from discussion of the topic into cajoling you to support them and/or mockery of you, which we're not going to do again. Please post no messages to this thread that ignore any requests that you support what you claim.Any and all viewpoints are welcome at EvC Forum, but stating your position is the beginning, not the end. Those who can do nothing more than state and restate their position over and over again while making up more and more should find something else to do.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Robert,Your approach in thread after thread has been to invent reasons for ignoring evidence, for example, inventing new definitions of geology and biology. Here today we see this new reason for ignoring evidence: Even you don't believe that the criteria for evidence should be that it have a direct eyewitness. I'm quite sure that when you check the mileage on your car before loaning it out to one of your kids for a short trip that when it comes back with hundreds of additional miles you'll conclude they didn't just go to the library, and you won't feel that you have to have actually witnessed them doing it.If you would like to discuss the proposition that all evidence of events must have a direct eyewitness then please submit a thread proposal over at Proposed New Topics, but leave such ideas out of other threads.Edited by Admin, : Typo.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director