Your out-of-context quotes have been posted time-and-again. With you evos, the proof is always somewhere else where no one can see it. All you slimers can do is lie about people you can never discuss the facts. Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me. I do not cut anything off from the quotes and I almost always post a link to the whole article. You are just a sliming liar. You cannot refute my evidence so all you can do is attack the messenger.
With you evos, the proof is always somewhere else where no one can see it. All you slimers can do is lie about people you can never discuss the facts. Let's see you show an 'out of context quote' from me. I do not cut anything off from the quotes and I almost always post a link to the whole article. You are just a sliming liar. You cannot refute my evidence so all you can do is attack the messenger. You want proof? Fine. For all the world to see:
283 posted on 4/5/02 12:06 PM Eastern by Junior:
The basic problems of Saturnism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons. Such things include the current, nearly circular orbits of the planets, the improbability of rocky planetary formation in any system where a gas giant is as close to the Sun as the proposed proto-Saturn, the fact that the proposed proto-Saturn would exist outside the habitable zone of the Sun and would be (and still is) a major radiation source, thus rendering a nascent Earth an irradiated snowball.
472 posted on 4/6/02 1:26 AM Eastern by gore3000:
Where did you go to school? The orbits of the planets are wildly elliptical. Some of the planets that we think of as nearer to the sun are at times further out than those we consider farther from the sun. You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.
[This was followed by a list of corrections, orbit data, expanations of the relationship of circles to ellipses, and so on, by a slew of different posters, the specifics of which are available by clicking on the "472" link above and following the thread. It eventually culminated with this "retraction."]
531 posted on 4/6/02 11:39 AM Eastern by gore3000:
All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows. As to how "wild" they are is pure semantics, sort of like the meaning of 'alone' (in a room, in a building, in a city, in a country, on earth, in the universe). I will not waste my time with such hair-splitting.
[However, it was not too long before the following was posted.]
671 posted on 7/10/02 8:30 AM Eastern by gore3000:
Actually the wildly elliptical comment is a true example of the total dishonesty of the evolutionists on these threads. [Junior], totally moronically, said that the paths of the planets were all circular. I pointed out that they were all elliptical and some were wildly elliptical. Of course all the morons of evolution came out to "prove" through some one hundred posts that an ellipse is a circle. Some of the morons of evolution even stated that a square is a circle. So much for the utter dishonesty and sophistry of the morons of evolution.
At your request, these are the facts. For all the world to see. Based on these facts one is led to the seemingly obvious conlusion that you are engaging in mischaracterization, misquoting, and dishonesty bordering on pathological. This is your opportunity to discuss the facts, and offer an alternate theory, additional information, or some other rational explanation for your behavior. You have the floor.