[Right Wing Professor]

Is this what you so eloquently refer to as "quote mining"?

No. Quote mining is when you take one phrase out of context and try to use it to pretend the author said something he didn't intend to say - in fact, often the exact opposite of what he was trying to say.

So are you telling me there are no grammatical errors or are you telling me you don't see any?

I'm telling you what I told you. I see typos, but no grammatical errors. If you disagree, feel free to identify same.

[darbymcgill]

Let's digress shall we?

A poster asked you a question earlier that you misunderstood. You made what he perceived was an incorrect response. Instead of saying, oops I misunderstood, let me find you a better example, you ripped him for his grammar. I thought it was a bit overboard but I stayed out of it.

I must admit I have seen you unnecessarily lord over many a poster in these threads. But when you again felt the need to put one of the unwashed in their place with a paragraph full of errors, I felt compelled to tease you.

At which point you dismissed me. Noting from my previous postings you assumed I was, what you scientists call a secular evolutionist skeptic (cool, is that genus?) or some such . Therefore I had no standing to comment or even dare speak to the almighty know-it-alls.

Now you should have some sense of why those of us actually interested in filling high-level holes in this theory from a skeptical perspective are rarely converted by elitist egg-heads. Our ears are not closed by your ideas, but by your arrogant reluctance to admit mistakes and your condescension towards those who may not agree.

I would suggest you smart people get you stories straight so those of us interested don't have to keep pointing out the contradictions. It doesn't take a PhD in Chemistry or Logic to see the non-converging arguments presented by Evolutionists in this thread.