Replies

Hint- Taunts do nothing to increase your reputation- they just shed light on the fact that you apparently are incapable of discussing hte subject on the level Dan and others are-

You don't understand. I'm not here to "debate" science. "Debating" science in a "discussion forum" is useless. Science is far too technical in this day and age to made or broken on a "political discussion forum". You have a major discovery? Go submit it for peer review. Ever wonder why the number of peer-reviewed science journals over at least the last half century supporting young-earth creationism is exactly

It's because it is junk science and apologetics that can't hold muster under scientific scrutiny. If you're really not afraid of debate, you would submit these great "discoveries" that supposedly "demolish" mainstream science for peer review - instead you hang them out like fishing lines in a forum where the full body of evidence isn't available to utterly annihilate your ideas, which it already has done over and over and over and over again in the various sciences, were all the technical details to be used against you, which can't possibly be done in a forum like this.

Hint- Taunts do nothing to increase your reputation- they just shed light on the fact that you apparently are incapable of discussing hte subject on the level Dan and others are-

The level Dan is? You're defending someone who claims general relativity disproves a helicentric solar system, yet when pressed, can't even answer a basic layperson's question about the theory? Smilies What, young-earth-creationism isn't stupid enough, you want to join the geocentrism club, too?

Take it for what it’s worth (which no doubt you’ll fail to see and continue on with hte kiddie insults)

Ad hominem is appropriate when confonted by a sufficient level of ridiculousness. I'm satisfied to expose the lack of scientific knowledge shown by people who defend archaic ideas. You don't look like you need much help with that, though. I don't insult others personally, only the stupidity of defending ideas that have been LONG discredited, and the stubbornness of those who defend them. Kiddie insults are appropriate for kiddie science.

Another brilliant rebuttle- Wow- you are truly amazing! You’ve rebuttled Dan’s questions brilliantly!

The "rebuttle"[sic] is out there in thousands in science books. I even gave a good "hint" as to where to start looking. Do your own research, and stop pretending you know something until you do.

[[Go submit it for peer review. Ever wonder why the number of peer-reviewed science journals over at least the last half century supporting young-earth creationism is exactly
]]

That is a flat out lie- are you a liar ok-now?

[[If you’re really not afraid of debate, you would submit these great “discoveries” that supposedly “demolish” mainstream science for peer review]]

Oh I’ve submitted articles here many many times refutting the nonsense proposed by Christian haters- but alas- the articles submitted are completely ignored, and the folks simply devolve into petty childish insulting such as yopu’ve done repeatedly.

[[Ad hominem is appropriate when confonted by a sufficient level of ridiculousness]]

Gee- a weally big word for childish behavior! I’m impressed

[[The “rebuttle”[sic] is out there in thousands in science books. I even gave a good “hint” as to where to start looking.]]

The debate is still ongoing and both sides have points- the fact that you prefere one point doesn’t solidify the point as concrete. In your mind it might- but oh well, that’s your close-minded biased problem. Formulations that work on paper yet lack experiential factual data are fien and dandy but far from actual fact.