We're not talking about proofreading here. We are talking about repeated basic grammatical error.
For example you confuse "your" with "you're" with such reliability that I can only conclude that your unaware of the difference. Also observed is repeated use of singular words in the plural sense, confusion of "they're" with "their", amongst many other howlers. Such errors are not what I expect from someone with higher education, and that, combined with your manifest ignorance of science (including the relationship between hypothesis, fact, theory, evidence, and proof), causes me to doubt your claim to be a trained scientist, your company title notwithstanding.
Further, I haven't discounted anything you've said based on you're grammatical errors. Nor have I seen anyone else do so. Your arguments, such as they are, stand or fall on their own merits. Mostly they've been falling flat because you don't know what you are talking about. Someone who claims a scientific education and then talks about objects being carbon-dated at 400,000 years old (thereby revealing ignorance of absolutely basic atomic physics that anyone with college science education would know) cannot expect to be taken seriously.
your manifest ignorance of science (including the relationship between hypothesis, fact, theory, evidence, and proof), causes me to doubt your claim to be a trained scientist, your company title notwithstanding.
Last time I checked and went to school, granted that was back when they actually taught the basics, both in the science of math and physics the terms Hypothesis, Fact, Theory, Evidence, and Proof are used extensively. They are not just for the scientist of evolution and Astronomy, as you seem to be implying. ….. from my perspective. BTW, Proof means evidence that establishes the truth. I have yet to see where evolution is established truth, meaning it’s therefore acceptable to use the word proof in describing evolution. There is evidence that supports the theory, from your perspective, but not mine.
You wrote:
Further, I haven't discounted anything you've said based on you're grammatical errors.
From my perspective, that is exactly what you have been doing. Your comments, just using the example above from my first response, ignorance of science, are intended to do what you claim they do not. …. Again, from my point of view.
Your wrote:
Nor have I seen anyone else do so.
Perhaps you should re-read the post back to me again and try looking at them from the receivers view.
You wrote:
Your arguments, such as they are, stand or fall on their own merits.
This one is an interesting one to me. I’ve asked several times for the proof of evolution and people have responded back with document references with things like new species of salamanders and flowers. In response I sent a link to a paper on the web where it talks about Evolution and the beginning of life. A poster wrote back and said, I’ll try and quote as close as I can, “… see this proves the point….” I believe he was basically saying evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life just where the species came from. As a fellow poster said, I believe that is the new and modern definition of evolution but fine, I’ll use it for the purposes of this discussion. If salamanders and flowers can create new species of salamanders and flowers respectively, how was the species of salamander created? How was the species of flowers created? Once you’ve answered that question, go back one more species. After that, go back one more. Can you see my point? How can you separate Evolution with the origin of life? From my perspective and many how cannot accept evolution in fact or theory, it cannot be done for the very reason just listed.
No one, not one of you has addresses this issue. Instead you try to seperate the issues which I feel are invalid.
So you say my arguments fall on their own merits yet no one has stated where to find the facts showing the origin of these species. In my opinion, probably proving to you once again my “scientific ignorance”, different bred of dogs matting to create a new bred of dog is not the proof of evolution, just like a white man marring a Chinese woman producing a child is not a new species of man (no doubt I’ll be tarred and feathered over that one). Dog’s still produce dogs, flowers still produced flowers and man still produces man. It’s only sciensist that have come up with new names for the bred that labels them a new species. They are still basically a dog.
Didn’t they mate a lion with a tiger to get a liger? Wasn’t it sterile? I admit I’m not an authority on Liger’s so perhaps you’ll provide sources if there are now packs (is that the right word for a group of Liger’s) of Liger’s are now producing more Liger’s. I might actually consider that one a possible proof of evolution. There is only one problem with it, it was man made, meaning engineered by man (they probably thought they were scientist but let’s not open that can of worms again)
Your wrote:
Mostly they've been falling flat because you don't know what you are talking about. Someone who claims a scientific education and then talks about objects being carbon-dated at 400,000 years old (thereby revealing ignorance of absolutely basic atomic physics that anyone with college science education would know) cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Sorry, that was in the article I read, or should I say, as I remember reading it. Please accept my apologies for using an incorrect reference. It was a long time ago so perhaps Carbon dating accuracy has been updated since it came out. At one time, I believe scientist thought that carbon dating was the cat's meow of finding the age of fossils (that was until more modern methods were created by us technologist). Isn’t it interesting however, how you attack my credibility rather than ask where I got the source? I guess it’s much easier to belittle and make fun of someone, rather than address the issue.