No, it really isn't. You just deny the truth on basically everything. Evolution, religion, the holocaust... take your pick. You take a position, then stick to it regardless. Really mindless way to live.
Wants evidence but provides non and doesn't answer the questions but wants answers So the guy you said a bit a go was an evolutionist is now creationist bollox and romer was a creationist too? I read them somewhere he says whilst frantically googling. All you do is provide Google and wikki links in most of your attempts at debates "I'm a scientists font you know" . **** off
Yeah it really isn't Using sheikh Google and grandmaster wikki as a way to appear an intellectual is sad as **** I doubt you have a single thought that you haven't frantically googled at any given time, all the time avoiding questions and incessantly questioning to buy time Youre a Tedious **** but it passes time and watching you squirm is fun
You're not providing any evidence. You're naming things that you've read on some creationist site that aren't actually issues. It's clear because as soon as I say they're not a problem, that's it. There's no explanation as to what problem they cause. You pointed to Gould and I pointed out that he was what you'd call an evolutionist. You then said that he created some issue for the basic claims of the theory, which I asked you to expand upon. Silence. Romer's gap's the same. It's not a problem. Why do you think it is? Silence.
And the toys go straight out the pram, again! You're just a bit thick, Fan. Indoctrinated and angry. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Evidence for what? You asked a question I gave examples, you said it was creationist bollox I asked if these guys were creationists I said there are gaps in the fossil record, romer agrees. Where is the creationist bit? Gould was quite openly against basic presumptions around evolution I backed my claims no creationist in sight Anything else you have added, disingenuous much?
Gould doesn't offer any issues for evolution. You claim that he does. What are they? You're simply saying that he was against the basic presumptions of evolution, despite agreeing that he believed it was true. That can't be accurate, can it? Romer's Gap is a common misrepresentation by creationists. It's not a problem for evolution. It's also being filled at the moment, with several interesting discoveries in the past few years. Alfred Romer, who it's named after, didn't see an issue with it and that was before his death in 1973. You're presenting very old and very tired creationist arguments without understanding what they actually are.
I found the "ignore" feature very useful in this case. Only the second time I've used it (the other was because of a religion spammer too).
In ref to the second part of your statement . I would imagine , if alien life exists , they have looked at the human race and thought " **** that lot " when they destroy themselves , we will give it a couple of thousand years , and take another look . See if we fancy a chat ...
ForedeckDave (RIP), he was a regular on the Liverpool board was at one point a poster i enjoyed conversing with but then gradually changed into a religious thread-crapper and everything became about pushing religion down the throat so I got tired of it and put him on the ignore list rather than argue the same tired arguments with.
That wasn't the discussion, you said some of what I pointed out was creationist bollocks, I said are these guys creationist? You then went on a rant and incessant questioning Gould differed to Dawkins and said the fossil gap made a mockery of gradual evolution and was more of a punctuated equilibrium guy Point being evolutionists disagree on certain points so nothing is a given or creationist bollocks
The book seems to have been fairly widely condemned as lacking any sound scientific validity by the academic community though. It seems to reference archaeological case studies, but doesn't really present any valid scientific theory itself, other than a creationist view of the world. For a 900 page book that sounds like an awful lot of waffle.
