Replies

Prove every one of them conclusively. show me the exact moment each one of them came to this realization. I want all of their resumes, professors histories and credentials and a summary of all of their papers. That is the standard you want for Evolution supporters isn't it? HMMMMMMMM? This is a bunch of BS and you know it. The list of match-book masters degrees and dime-store doctorates means nothing. I can get you a list of 700 scientist named Steve who support evolution. No serious scientist with real credentials in the life sciences doubts the general truth of evolution. If one of them argues with another about the mechanism, you put them both on your list.

Wow for someone who stands behind "scientific" claims, you sure have an unscientific way of proving things. You stated that basically all scientists worth their salt agree with evolution. I gave you a fairly long list of scientists who don't.

You disparage and denounce everyone of those, and yet you offer no proof to the contrary. You make broad generalizations about everyone of them. You expect me to prove things about them, and yet you yourself have given me baseless claims. I at least gave you some basis to my claim. And then you shoot down my side with generalizations that a democrat would use, without viable proof of your statement. (Are you a democrat?)

You don't agree with my view point and thats fine. But you made a pompous statement, and someone with an opposing view called you on it. I backed my view up with facts. And in your pompousness disregarded those facts because they didn't agree with your view, all the while never presenting any facts to discredit my facts, other than your bloviating imperious opinion.

You bore me with this nonsense

My preliminary check of your list shows not one "Steve," "Stephen," "Steven," "Stephanie," or "Stephan." Muir really does have 700 "Steves." Most of us know what he's talking about.

Wow for someone who stands behind "scientific" claims, you sure have an unscientific way of proving things.

I find this characterization to be the rule rather than the exception.