Not at all. I tried to have a dialog. The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said. Paul seems to have problems with other posters as well (not you; you are more lucky, I gather).
Have a good day.
False. You ranted about expertise, and our modern understanding being superior and could not put up. You were countered, and ran away.
The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said.
Says you. More proof you are incapable of confronting adverse empirical evidence to your thesis. The response was point-blank debunking the revisionism extant in the "modern" movement who you pinning all your hopes on.
If you claim to be "more scientific" then the empirical evidence would support you. But It DOESN'T, does it? So you run away, and call names. OH, that's so persuasive!
You think your performance here will persuade the CCCP in Bejing? LOL!
You don't really want a dialogue. You want a one-way street. Not going to happen at Free Republic. You see, we really do believe in FREEDOM here, unlike your stripe.
"Not at all. I tried to have a dialog. The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said."
Once again Paul Ross beat me to the punch (Post 623). I agree with everything he said. He hits you with a solid logic and irrefutable fact barrage so large you don't know what to do with it.