Replies

Temper tantrum?....anybody reading this thread who saw your memory lane post can easily see how inane it was.

You said that scientists should consider "everything". Those were your words, not mine. I merely provided an example that is, without question, a subset of "everything" to demonstrate that your claim was absurd. Rather than acknowledge that you spoke hastily, you attacked me even though I was simply satisfying the criteria that you set forth.

The only temper tantrum being throw is by crypto-liberals who are losing their war on Christmas,

Non-sequitur. I can see that you're losing this discussion if you have to bring in a completely irrelevant subject like this.

seeing people rebelling against lowering the age of consent,

And this. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my original statement.

and most of all, the rejection of your Holy Grail, Evolution.

You're the one branching off into inane non-sequiturs and challenging my mental competence when I demonstrate that one of your previous claims is absurd, and I'm the one throwing a temper tantrum here?

I'll ask again.....what have you done for anyone?

Another non-sequitur, all because you are too much of a coward to acknowledge that you made a poorly thought-out statement.

When you can either defend your claim that scientists should consider everything while simultaneously explaining why they should not consider "everything" or admit that your initial statement about considering everything was in error, let me know. Until then you're wasting your time spewing nonsense about subjects that I did not address, all in a vain effort to distract from the fact that you were mistaken.

And people yell at me when I call creationists dishonest.