[tacticalogic]

If all you're after is agreement that there might be a scientist somewhere who disagrees with it, I'll give you that and a gold star for pedantry.

I was under the impression you were presenting evidence sufficient to have a substantial impact on the debate. My mistake.

[CottShop]

[I was under the impression you were presenting evidence sufficient to have a substantial impact on the debate. My mistake.]

Debate? You mean the evolution/creation debate? Nope- see that’s what I mean- you don’t follow a conversation well. Had you not been intent on misassigning sentiments and intentions to my posts, claiming I was saying one thing when I clearly was not, then you’d have understood that. On a different topic, the one of evolution/creation, I need not present much as the evo model breaks down all on it’s own right from the very beginnings all the way through molecular biology, fossil records and such.- but that’s a whole nother can of worms with no backbones.

[CottShop]

[My mistake.]

Indeed, but then again that is the expected result when ‘debates’ are invented out of htin air and ignore the original intent of posts responding to subjects who presented statements with totally different issues than ones you invented simply for the sake of being difficult and unreasonable. IU give you an A+ for derailing topics