Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
329 online now:
dwise1, jar, nwr (3 members, 326 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   dinosaur and human co-existence
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 31 of 271 (559344)
05-08-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
05-07-2010 9:22 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
Of course, Buz, you know from the previous discussion that your idea is nonsense, The most important fact being that snakes existed alongside dinosaurs, as proven by the fossil record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2010 9:22 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 6:56 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 51 of 271 (559406)
05-09-2010 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
05-08-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Dino Serpents
quote:

Thanks, Paul; thanks much () for citing this, further evidence of the veracity of the Genesis record and the Buzsaw Hypothesis

It doesn't support either. Indeed, the "Buzsaw Hypothesis" does not support the veracity of Genesis. Genesis describes the serpent as a single individual, and it is that individual that is punished. Not a massive array of species.

quote:

My position right here on this thread, as well as in archived threads has always been that they co-existed for many centuries, in that the offspringegg hatched short legged reptiles became the altered members of the reptillians.

Well you'll be glad to know that it refutes THAT version too.

This fossil snake is dated as 92 million years old. So nakes and dinosaurs co-existed for more than 25 MILLION years.

This fossil snake was found eating a newly hatched dinosaur, so obviously dinosaurs were still breeding true while snakes were around.

And let me point out yet again that dinosaurs are NOT closely related to snakes. Saying that they are both "reptiles" is NOT evidence for the Buzsaw "hypothesis".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2010 6:56 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 67 of 271 (559437)
05-09-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

As I went on to explain, the Genesis record depicting the curse is not in itself the evidence. It is the premise from which the Buzsaw thesis extrapolates interpretation of the cited observable evidence.

So your evidence is: Dinosaurs and snakes are distantly related and dinosaurs all died out along with a lot of other species at the end of the Cretaceous. That's not exactly great evidence that dinosaurs all turned into snakes, even before we consider the fossil evidence refuting the idea.

quote:

Though I'm not up to date on responses, as yet, so far as I'm aware, none of you, my evolutionist friends have effectively refuted the co-existant/survival problem of yours, a problem which mine has a practical solution for.

What problem would that be ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 1:56 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 82 of 271 (559516)
05-10-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-09-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

The curse is part of the premise which is in the Genesis record. That record states that at some point the long legged reptile type would cease to exist and the descendents of it would be belly crawling (implicating short legged) types of reptiles.

In fact the curse is placed on a single individual reptile and the only implication is that it has legs long enough that it should not be considered belly crawling. Thus it a) sounds like one of Kipling's "Just-So" stories and b) could easily refer to a lizard - and lizards are more closely related to snakes than either is to dinosaurs. Thus the text neither justifies the assumption that the story represents literal truth nor does it imply that the "type" would cease to exist (since only one individual is definitely affected the type might continue to exist).

Also, according to the story that this is part of the animals were only created after humans, and thus the story implies that we should NOT find fossil evidence supporting the story at all. The vast majority of fossil "serpents" we find should either be of lines unaffected by the curse at all or of cursed serpents.

Even if we take a dubious reading of the story and assume that animals existed long before humans the "curse" is the result of an interaction with humans. And since the evidence indicates that appearance of snakes and the later mass extinction which removed the dinosaurs both occurred tens of millions of years before there were any humans the evidence clearly indicates that the story is false. Indeed the only way to say that the evidence is not against it is to assume that the "serpent" was not a dinosaur at all.

quote:

The evidence cited by me depicts two examples of extinct long legged type reptiles, i.e. the prototypes and the respective belly crawling reptile types that did not become extinct; that survived and thrived abundantly and which are observable today. The Buzsaw premise and thesis is based on the fact that indeed evidence of this has been observed as the premise predicted.

To divide extinct "reptiles" into a mere two types seems absurd. Surely the pterodactyls and marine reptiles should be considered separately, for a start. Especially as the story gives no reason at all for assuming that a very, very broad class should be affected. This argument relies on taking both a superficial view of the evidence and on assuming things that the story does not say.

quote:

The above lends evidentual support to the prediction in the Genesis record and renders a reasonable explanation for the disappearance of the dinosaur type reptiles.

Of course neither claim is true. It doesn't take a deep look at the evidence to find serious problems. The fact that snakes appear more than 20 million years before the dinosaurs died out is a major problem, especially as that is even longer before humans appeared. The fact that we find fossils where adult snakes are eating hatchling dinosaurs is another. The fact that snakes are NOT closely related to dinosaurs is a third. The fact that dinosaurs died in a mass extinction affecting the great majority of species on earth - which the Buzsaw hypothesis does not explain at all - is a fifth.

quote:

This is just another example of why it becomes so difficult for bonafide Biblical creationists to debate anything in the science fora here at EvC. I don't know what the solution is. I have tried to keep it as scientific as possible, but as you know, anything implying ID directly or indirectly implies an intelligent creator/manager.

Yes, the fact that your opponents - unlike you - take a serious look at the evidence rather than shouting "Buzsaw made it up ! it must be true !" is a major problem for anyone arguing as you do. If you are serious then you might actually take the time to take a decent look at the evidence and rationally examine it instead of jumping to whatever conclusion you happen to like. Your problems are of your own making.

quote:

If the data which I've cited, (all I have at this time) is considered moot as evidence by you and perhaps others on your staff, just say the word and I'll be done with this topic.

I would not consider anything so superficial to be meaningful as evidence. Taking a deeper look could easily show problems - and in fact even a shallow look at the evidence is enough to show serious problems that simply are not adequately addressed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:30 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 87 of 271 (559564)
05-10-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 9:30 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

1) The context clearly implicates curses on all descendents of the three which were cursed in what is known as the fall or the original sin. First, the serpent/reptile was cursed to become a belly crawler. We observe that the surviving reptiles are relative belly crawlers having either short legs or no legs. 2ndly, the woman was cursed to have painful births. We observe that this applies to all womem. 3rdly, the man was cursed to making his living by the sweat of his brow. As an aside the ground was cursed to bring forth thorns and briers, etc. So again, the clear implication that the curse was not exclusive singularly.

As I pointed out, we observe that NOT all reptiles are belly-crawlers. The komodo dragon for instance has legs quite long enough for it to walk without dragging its belly in the dust.
In addition the curse on the serpent included a transformation of the actual individual, so your argument requires that only part of the curse is widely extended although the Bible does not imply that the curse is extended to ANY other individual. (And as we have seen the evidence clearly shows that there were dinosaurs which produced infants with legs, even after the appearance of snakes, so the evidence firmly contradicts the idea that even that part of the curse was extended to all dinosaurs).

The curse on the ground is explicitly stated, unlike your presumed extension of the curse on the serpent (especially as you wish to only extend part of that curse, without any textual justification for splitting the effects). Thus there is no parallel.

quote:

2) Snakes are reptiles which have no legs whatsoever. Thus it can be concluded that before the curse, snake prototypes had legs, according to the Genesis record which is my premise. We know that no snakes have legs, thus the curse did not apply singularly.

Of course we 'know" no such thing. The hypothesis that we have something on the lines of a "Just-So Story" explains this perfectly well, thus there is no need for the story to actually match what we see in reality. An honest appraisal must concede that you are stretching the interpretation of the story to make it fit with the observed reality, and acknowledge this as a point against the truth of the Biblical story.

Moreover it could in principle be explained even under YEC assumptions by treating all snakes as a "kind" descended from the original (individual) serpent - providing we presume that it already had descendants by the time of the curse, since descendants ARE explicitly included. (Indeed modern snakes would be descended from the representatives of the snake kind or kinds on Noah's Ark in that view, so there is clearly no problem for a YEC !). But we certainly cannot assume that the curse was to be applied so widely as to affect all dinosaurs simply from the fact that there are numerous snake species. That goes well beyond even the stretching necessary to make the story fit the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:30 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 11:00 AM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 91 of 271 (559571)
05-10-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 11:00 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

Now you're getting picky-uny. Relative to most animals, they are close to the ground and likely more time than most passes on the belly.

The point remains that there are lizards with legs easily long enough to fit what little is implied in the story, and since lizards are more closely related to snakes they fit the story better than any dinosaur.

quote:

Now, you're treading water and consuming my valuable time. I've covered this repeatedly, that other aspects of physiology would become necessary adaptations for a different environ.

No, you're simply ignoring the point that you are responding to. The POINT is that the curse included a transformation of the affected creature. Thus if the full curse was extended we should NOT expect to see any significant coexistence of dinosaurs and snakes. That is why you have to make up the idea that only part of the curse was extended, stretching the story even further.

And of course what you say is merely a wild guess unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Why should the environment require snakes to be more like lizards than dinosaurs or crocodiles ?

quote:

How about your source for this? Show and tell time.

Of course Buz, I already did that. It's in Re: Dino Serpents (Message 51) And I will add that it was quite widely reported at the time, so I can find plenty more sources for that story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 11:00 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 107 of 271 (559672)
05-11-2010 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Buzsaw
05-10-2010 9:12 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

Thanks, Bluejay for explaining this. However the problem for the evolutionist explanation remains, why was the catastrophy exclusive to the dinosaurs while the co-existing belly crawling and short legged reptiles survived and thrived?

Some dinosaurs survived (birds). Many "belly-crawling" reptile species died.

quote:

The Genesis explanation for that remains the only sensible explanation for that so far as I'm aware.

By "Genesis explanation" you mean "the Unbiblical rubbish Buzsaw made up" and by "sensible" you mean "Buzsaw likes it even though it is obvious nonsense".

In reality it has been shown that the "crazy Buzsaw explanation" has no sound basis in the Bible and that the evidence not only fails to support it but in fact refutes it.

This is just one more example where the differences is NOT interpretation of the evidence - the evidence to refute the claim is there. The creationist just ignores it, even though it has been brought to his attention.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2010 9:12 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 1:21 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 123 of 271 (559775)
05-11-2010 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 1:21 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

Repeat after me; by and large. Bird from dino, though popular, is debatable.

"Bird from dino", although not conclusively proved is very strongly supported by the evidence. Which is rather better than your speculations which are strongly contradicted by the evidence.

Besides, it IS a fact that some dinosaurs are more like birds than they are like some other dinosaurs. So you've got no good explanation for why the curse was partially extended to all dinosaurs and not to the birds.

quote:

I mean the literal stuff that you metamephorize or wave off as fable; you know, what it actually says or clearly implies.

No, you don't mean that. You mean the stuff that you've made up. For instance the whole idea of only PART off the curse being extended to a huge number of species. That isn't in the text or implied by the text. You made it up.

Besides, since your typical dinosaur was no more capable of human speech than your typical snake, there is some pretty good evidence that we are dealing with a myth here.

quote:

No. The evidence which better satisfies the co-existing dino/shortie problem you have yet to explain, as to just the dinos (I say dinosaurs themselves-not their descendents) at large, became extinct exclusively and relatively suddenly.

The dinosaurs around AT THE END OF THE CRETACEOUS were wiped out as part of a mass extinction. Many other species had lived and died over many millions of years from the Triassic through the Jurassic periods. The problem of why NO dinosaurs other than birds survived is a minor one compared to the mass of evidence contradicting your "hypothesis" - which lacks any significant evidential support at all. It's just crazy Bible-twisting nonsense, In fact it's even sillier than the standard YEC view ! Which is really quite impressively silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 1:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 137 of 271 (559905)
05-12-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
05-11-2010 10:17 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

That would have to fall back on flood evidence which would be another topic to explain, in that it would involved discussion of reliability of radiometric dates relative to the possibility of a flood.

In other words it would require dealing with a subject you have repeatedly run away from discussing. Suffice to say that anything you could offer there would be more nonsense.

quote:

Now we're back to square one which again goes into how the observed evidence of the by and large extinction of dinos and the survival of the others is interpreted. I have no other direct evidence. If my understanding is correct, you have no direct evidence that an asteroid wiped out the dinos or whatever event you attribute their extinction to.

We DO have direct evidence of a major meteorite impact at about the right time. More importantly we DO have firm evidence of a mass extinction affecting far more than just the dinosaurs. The only "problem" you could possibly be offering an answer to is why ALL of the dinosaur species at that time (except birds) went extinct while other groups left SOME survivors. But you don't even have a good explanation for THAT. "God decided to curse ALL the dinosaurs" is no better than "they all died in the mass extinction" - you don't offer any reason WHY God would include all dinosaurs in the curse - and it is neither mentioned nor implied in the story. In fact your answer is WORSE because we HAVE solid evidence for the mass extinction, but no significant evidence for your speculations - and a very large amount of evidence AGAINST them. Your "hypothesis" is founded on nothing more than ignorance and the dogma of Biblical literalism.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2010 10:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 147 of 271 (560005)
05-12-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
05-12-2010 10:59 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

The most significant of this I've repeatedly repeated already, such as the fact that both are reptillian, similarities of visible appearance such as the two examples of the respective types.

In other words you have NO significant evidence that snakes are dinosaur descendants. Your evidence is only evidence of some sort of relationship and most creationists would reject even that (it's far weaker than the evidence that birds are dinosaur descendants, for a start). So it's quite clear that your reason for picking out snakes is not any empirical evidence at all - it is the Genesis story.

So, in fact it turns out that your "hypothesis" is nothing more than an attempt to fit the Genesis story to your cursory knowledge of the facts. You made NO serious attempt to investigate the evidence or even consider what the evidence should look like if your idea was true. All you have is armchair speculation, and you haven't even done a good job of that./


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2010 10:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 187 of 271 (560520)
05-15-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 6:04 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

Theodoric, you're demonstrating what I've been saying relative to Biblical ID evidence due to the fact that the acknowledgement of one itty bit of it would destroy their twin towers of the BB and ToE. Secularists wouldn't acknowledge it if they were wading knee deep in it

Buz, you haven't GOT any significant evidence and if you are capable of rational thought at all you must know that you haven't got any significant evidence.

Vague similarities in appearance are not significant evidence of direct ancestry. Any sensible person, whether they support evolution or creation would agree. In fact Creationists pretty much HAVE to agree if they have any integrity at all. You would reject this "evidence" out of hand if it didn't happen to support your silly idea. THAT is real bias.

Nor is the fact that snakes and dinosaurs are classified as being distantly related (as I pointed out, even Feduccia accepts that birds are more closely related to dinosaurs - and crocodiles are also more closely related to dinosaurs than snakes are).

The "disappearance" of "all" the dinosaurs isn't even evidence for your view at all. The only reason why your "hypothesis" includes all the dinosaurs is BECAUSE they aren't around any more. It's purely ad hoc.

And that is all you've got. That, and ignoring or rejecting all the contrary evidence.

The bias is all on your side.

At least the impact theory has solid evidence that the impact ocurred. That's more than you have. You've got no solid evidence that snakes and dinosaurs are anything more than distant relations. The impact theory wins.

The impact may have happened about 300,000 years before the mass extinction ? Never mind, snakes have been found close on 30,000,000 years before the mass extinction. The impact theory wins again - by two orders of magnitude.

It is quite clear that you care nothing for evidence - that you haven't even bothered to take a real look at the evidence. It's been absolutely obvious all through this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 6:04 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 201 of 271 (560571)
05-16-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
05-15-2010 11:58 PM


Re: FOUL BALL!
quote:

Hey, kiddo, I wasn't born 5 years ago, so stop treating me as if I was. Nice try at obfuscating my position, applying my flood catastrophic non-uniform position to ToE dating methodology, which assumes relative uniformity.

Of course we realise that you don't accept the figure of 300,000 years that Kellher produced. We know that you consider it a much smaller figure, likely no more than a few years. Indeed all the rocks in that period might be laid down as a result of that catastrophic impact!

So obviously, in your view the impact theory cannot be hurt by Kellher's evidence since your views on dating completely negate the problem. Nobody should suggest that you accept Kellhers date, based as it is on what you call "ToE dating methodology, which assumes relative uniformity." We must all agree that you believe that the impact took place so close to the K/T event that the evidence for the impact theory clearly stands.

So let us all not rudely assume that Buz is a childish idiot who cannot think of these obvious points. Obviously Buz has considered these simple issues, and as an honest man he concedes that the evidence for the impact theory clearly outweighs that for his hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2010 11:58 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 220 of 271 (560700)
05-17-2010 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Buzsaw
05-16-2010 10:16 PM


Re: Fantastic Claims
quote:

That makes me very scientific like, Hyro. That's the science thing, i.e. fantastic claims that we repeatedly debate here at EvC.

But in fact you are very unscientific. The "fantastic claims" of science are solidly based on evidence. You do no more than pay lip service to the concept of evidence, merely asserting that you have evidence when it is plain that you have nothing of significance, that you refuse to investigate the evidence to any depth, that you ignore contradictory evidence, that you accuse others of "bias" merely because they DO use evidence.

All this can be readily seen in this very thread.

Being opinionated, ignorant and arrogant does not make you right. It just keeps you from seeing that you are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Buzsaw, posted 05-16-2010 10:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 240 of 271 (560888)
05-18-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Buzsaw
05-17-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

The flood hypothesis assumes a non-uniform catastrophic event. The implication of this is that the carbon and other element makeup of the planet and atmosphere previous to 4350 years ago would be unknown and likely much different than post flood.

Why would you expect Percy's audience to believe this ? Are you assuming that they will be so biased against the scientific view that they will swallow any old rubbish ?

Making up crazy speculations as an excuse for throwing out evidence you don't like isn't providing evidence for your views. It says a lot about you, but nothing about whether dinosaurs and humans co-existed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Buzsaw, posted 05-17-2010 9:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 241 of 271 (560897)
05-18-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Buzsaw
05-18-2010 12:01 AM


Re: Reptiles and Dinosaurs
quote:

Percy, throughout the years here at EvC, I've presented corroborating evidence such as fulfilled prophecy and other data which convinces me that the Biblical record is a reliable premise for my world view.

If there is any truth in that, it is because you know in your heart that your pre-conceived "world-view" is wrong and are desperately trying to convince yourself - and leaving honest inquiry far behind. It is quite obvious that your arguments are made to prop up an existing belief, because of the strong bias required to believe them. As has been seen they fall apart when exposed to any sort of critical examination.

At best your examples of "fulfilled" prophecy involve taking small parts of a prophecy out of context, ignoring the part which don't fit your "fulfillment". At worst they read things into the text that are not there and still come up as nonsense. Oh wait a minute, that's not the worst. The worst example is Ezekiel 35 which you want to count as fulfilled not because your twisted reading has actually occurred but because you are in love with the idea of God massacring Palestinian Arabs.

quote:

I've shown why I believe the data could (I say could) accomodate the Genesis record.

Yes, you ignore much of the evidence and make up crazy excuses to try to force fit the evidence that you DO accept into your assumptions. Instead of accepting that you don't know what you are talking about or listening to those who know better you just insist that you are right and attack anyone who points out the truth.

quote:

As I've contended, no secularist non-ID minded person will ever admit to any evidence that I've ever cited

Let us be honest. No rational, honest or even open-minded person would accept your arguments, which frequently rely on misrepresenting the facts - by omission if by nothing else. Yet you seem to expect that people should accept anything you make up, no matter how crazy it seems to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the facts (a knowledge you cannot be bothered to acquire).

quote:

Obviously nobody here buys anthing I've said.

That is because you have lost the argument - completely. You never had any significant evidence. You never even took a serious look at the evidence. You never adequately dealt with the opposing evidence - and there WAS significant evidence against your "hypothesis" (including one piece which outright refuted it).

quote:

I've aired all I have and am ready to move on to something else.

In other words, you will run away in defeat, as happens almost every time. Without admitting the obvious fact you never had a case worth making.

If you want people to believe you Buz, learn the evidence, learn the science, learn to critically examine your own arguments - and drop them when they fail. Forget about making up bullshit excuses to try to evade the evidence, forget about repeating assertions after they have been thoroughly debunked - and forget about running away whining about your opponents' "bias" when you lose fair and square.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2010 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021