Replies

I note your abandonment of the Velikovsky fantasies you were pushing.

Because you seem to frame everything you disagree with as ignorance and foolishnness, I already said we'd never reach agreement.

Changing the subject is a sign of weakness.

Again, no. It is, however, instructive as to the nature of scientific suppositions. In more personal terms, you'll kindly recall that you stated "[t]he researchers found NOTHING resembling raw meat." In fact, according to the journal Science, they did.

"...the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells)..."

The point I'm bringing home is that science and famous FReeper scientists are full of contradictions, hubris and error and as I said before, no different than any other human agency. Before this T-Rex deal is played out, I have no doubt that even more fabulous tales and explanations are to be in the offing.

"Because you seem to frame everything you disagree with as ignorance and foolishnness, I already said we'd never reach agreement."

But you have done nothing to counter my arguments. Velikovsky's claims have not in any way be validated. He was a nut.

"Again, no."

Yes, it is. You changed the subject because you couldn't answer what I said.

"It is, however, instructive as to the nature of scientific suppositions. In more personal terms, you'll kindly recall that you stated "[t]he researchers found NOTHING resembling raw meat." In fact, according to the journal Science, they did."

No, they didn't. You are quoting answersingenesis, not Science. The journal Science did not say that the researchers found anything like raw meat. AIG lied. As usual.

"The point I'm bringing home is that science and famous FReeper scientists are full of contradictions, hubris and error and as I said before, no different than any other human agency."

And the point I made is that you are dead wrong.