I am challenging the quality of your evidence.
You do a post with a series of quotes, so I check one and find that the real quote does not say what you claim it does. It has been altered to change its meaning.
tacticalogic checks another quote and finds the same thing.
Why should we trust the material you are posting if we check the original quotes and consistently find they either have been altered or quote mined to change the original meanings?
And when we present you with the evidence, you just shrug it off and claim, "Well, the other quotes are accurate!"
You can only get away with that kind of "research" in apologetics. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession for such behavior.
that’s a lie- the words stand for themselves- IF he didn’t say “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists” Then you have an arguemnt- Fact is, He did state that and THEN lied about it under oath and waffled on the issue.
[tacticalogic checks another quote and finds the same thing.]
He did? Again- when you feel like being honest- come on back and we’ll talk- until then all you’re presenting are lies and symantics trying to claim the statements weren’t made and ALL you’re attempting to do is dismiss all the evidences provided by pointing out a NON issue- I NEVER claimed that everyone present at the major scientific meetings dissagreed with evolution, did I coyote? You’re attempting to make an argument out of nothign and to malign me over a NON ISSUE that is entirely made up by yourself.
[Why should we trust the material you are posting if we check the original quotes and consistently find they either have been altered or quote mined to change the original meanings?]
The meaning was altered? Is it, or is it not true that he said a growing number of evolutionists “argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all”
This isn’t even relevent to the intentions of my posts to Stultis-= but apparently you are feebly trying to make it so by arguing symantics AND not telling the truth about those symantics that you are arguing, so I’ll ask you the same- why should we trust anything yuou say when you blatantly state falsehoods?
[You can only get away with that kind of “research” in apologetics. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession for such behavior.]
But aPPARENTLY, lying and outright falsehoods are the staple of the sciences? When you prove he didn’t state those things, or that the remainder of what he said ‘altered’ the FACT that he said a growing number of evolutionists’ let me know- because quite frankly- your predictable accusations and non issue arguments are getting quite tiresome. You can pat yourself on the back and pretend you’re sanctimoniously above the ‘poor deluded masses who dissagree with you’ but you are infact telling outright lies.
[And when we present you with the evidence, you just shrug it off and claim, “Well, the other quotes are accurate!”]
Another LIE!!! I’ve not dismissed anythign he’s said! In fact I’ve fully confronted your untruths about the situation! I don’t run from problems by trying to play symantics games and stating falsehoods coyote, but apparently you do. So please- keep accusing me falsely- it’s quite amusing to witness the tactics you consistently use. Nowhere id I state that all scientists voiced problems, but I did state that all who did can’t be dismissed simply because you point out that one does infact beleive in the model of evolution. You can only get away with your petty dishonest argumetns in lesser forums that care nothing about integrity and honesty coyote (Which I’m assuming you think all ‘real’ scientists hang out lol)-
If you’d like to revise your comments to more accurately portray what has taken place- I’ll accept it as an apology- otherwise I/’ll simply assume you’re simply not interested in telling the truth.