Replies

I've already done that, several times. The ONLY thing I was talking about in post 203 of the other thread was albedo and ir flux data and you specifically claimed to have refuted that a year prior.

Not true.

Please read this post, a certifiable copy of one posted a year earlier.

Actually, punctuated equilibrium, IMHO, has a lot in common with another favorite whipping boy found in the talk.origins types: Immanuel Velikovsky's theories of catastrophism.
Velikovsky had more going for him than Gould or Eldredge do.
As I see it, it's more than most people could do to try to completely run to ground more than a handful of the lines of evidences involved in the Velikovsky controversies and see where they lead, particularly for people who still have to work for a living and have limited resources for hobbies.
Nonetheless, I have made the effort to do that in a few cases and, in every instance in which I have, the raw evidence unequivocably supports Velikovsky and damns Sagan and pretty much all of Velikovsky's later-day critics.
One such case is the question of thermal balance on Venus and the various infrared flux meters andmeasurements of Albedo . . . [diving never to return into the albedo of Venus].

You clearly claim your albedo data as proof of a sweeping, silly, and impossible theory.

Your charge is baseless, a distraction. I misrepresented nothing, not a year ago, not a week ago, and not today.

. . . a certifiable copy of one posted a year earlier . . .

I should have checked this. I forgot to allow for your combinatorial pasting, the evolution of your spam posts. The older text is longer, but it's still same stuff, same context. You were again presenting and defending Velikovskianism. I then as now rejected the silliness of defending such a theory with such a myopic approach.