Twice now you have said your post got no response, yet the last post of mine on the subject of a debate was ‘present the data and i will engage it’.
My setting up of the ground rule that the debate was to be about Scientific interpretation not conspiracy theory was in no way backing out, unless it is your admission that conspiracy theory was all your “pedigreed” Scientist was going to engage in. There is no point in debating the Scientific evidence with someones whose a priori position is that those who conducted the study are engaged in fraud.
How can I debate or apologize to someone who is not now and has never been on FR, the site where this debate was supposed to take place?
Did you suppose I was supposed to inform Dr. Deuesburg what FR was and get him signed on? Did your work in “setting up” the debate consist only of forwarding your e-mail from Dr. Duesburg of him asking ‘what is this FR thing?’ and posting to me the snail mail address of some Creationist in Australia?
That was you “setting up a debate”? Sending me a Australian postal address and forwarding the excerpt of an e-mail from Dr. Duesburg asking ‘what is this FR thing?’. Wow. So much work you did!
Maybe I should apologize for not finding Dr. Duesburg’s e-mail or writing to the Creationist in Australia, answering their questions about FR, getting them signed on and debating them. Oh wait, but that would be ME setting up the debates.
You never set up a debate. I never backed out of one. Your lies to the contrary notwithstanding.
==You are ridiculous and a repeated liar.
Next time, look in the mirror and say that, and suddenly your attack will make sense.
==Twice now you have said your post got no response, yet the last post of mine on the subject of a debate was ‘present the data and i will engage it’.
Here is my last reply to you. It immediately follows your lame attempt to weasel out of the debate (”I am not interested in debating a conspiracy theorist”).
To: allmendream
I offered a debate between you and one of the thousands of scientists who officially question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The debate was going to be focused on the science of AIDS alone. You accepted the debate and then backed out. Furthermore, I cited paper after paper, written by your fellow evos, every one of which stated that there are indeed codes upon codes. Your issue is with them, not me. And in this connection, I also floated a debate between you and a creation scientist. As per usual, you failed to rise to the challenge. Thus, it is you who are running away, not me.
And finally, I must take exception to your misrepresentation of my views re: raw food, the free market, coffee enemas, etc. I do not advocated raw food, I am not anti-corporation, nor do I advocate coffee enemas. All your deliberate misrepresentations really underscore is your dishonest nature and your desperate attempt to distract attention away from the science that refutes your materialist fantasies.
In short, put up or shut up. But if it is your intention to cling to your world of fantasy, perhaps shutting up would be the better option.
164 posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:03:52 AM by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=164#164
Notice that I “remind” you that the debate was ALWAYS supposed to be about the science. Also notice that the two lines of my reply challenges you to “PUT UP OR SHUT UP.” Seeing how YOU DECIDED NOT TO REPLY, it is obvious you chose the latter option. Just admit that you lost your nerve, and we can be done with this stupid tail-chasing exercise.
Of course you’re free to believe that “For myself I do not suppose that when God commanded the Oceans the (sic) bring forth life that God was limited to supernatural means to accomplish this task.”
However, I trust you understand that this is a statement of FAITH, and not of science in the observable, repeatable, verifiable sense.
Let’s call evolutionists what they are: people of extraordinary faith.