05 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI can just imagine his offering:
But your opinion is, in this regard, worthless.
You know nothing about the subject, you are self admittedly biased, and wilfully ignorant.
You have no relevant qualification or expertises, and all those that do disagree with you.
Every aspect of science and reason disagrees with you, your opinion on the subject can
thus be utterly ignored.
U ...[text shortened]... f you are correct. (published in a reputable peer reviewed journal
and independently verified)
"On The Compatibility Between Talking Snakes and Science"
blah [vague appeals to Scientific Theories] blah [insert Bible Scripture contradicting scientific theories previously mentioned] blah
😵
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere are some biology scientist that partially agree with me. I have
But your opinion is, in this regard, worthless.
You know nothing about the subject, you are self admittedly biased, and wilfully ignorant.
You have no relevant qualification or expertises, and all those that do disagree with you.
Every aspect of science and reason disagrees with you, your opinion on the subject can
thus be utterly ignored.
U ...[text shortened]... f you are correct. (published in a reputable peer reviewed journal
and independently verified)
gave reference to them on this forum. They just have not gained enough
knowledge to agree entirely yet.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThen they are not yet worth listening to.
There are some biology scientist that partially agree with me. I have
gave reference to them on this forum. They just have not gained enough
knowledge to agree entirely yet.
Get back to us when they do have proof. (published in a respected peer reviewed...ect ect)
Don't give me, "well there are people looking for proof".
Tell me if they find it, till then they are irrelevant.
The reason none of them have a Nobel prize for overthrowing evolution is none of them has
anything that contradicts or throws even a shadow of doubt on evolution.
Till they do they are an irrelevant minuscule collection of crackpots.
Who, like you, can be ignored on this topic.
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou talk about peer review, which is ridiculous since all that means is that
Then they are not yet worth listening to.
Get back to us when they do have proof. (published in a respected peer reviewed...ect ect)
Don't give me, "well there are people looking for proof".
Tell me if they find it, till then they are irrelevant.
The reason none of them have a Nobel prize for overthrowing evolution is none of them has
anythin ...[text shortened]... irrelevant minuscule collection of crackpots.
Who, like you, can be ignored on this topic.
they have those that agree with them. Surely if the peers "believes" in
evolution they are going to be blinded by this "belief" and are not likely
to turn against their own "belief". No one has found proof of evolution
either but when they publish something in your "respected" magazine
claiming proof of adaptation is proof of evolution you accept it without
question. You think it is a great scientific breakthrough as long as it
agrees with your worldview. Well I think the discovery of information
in the cells is a scientific breakthrough supporting intelligent design
because it agrees with my worldview. So we are not that different. Only
my worldview is correct. 😏
05 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHinds😴😴
You talk about peer review, which is ridiculous since all that means is that
they have those that agree with them. Surely if the peers "believes" in
evolution they are going to be blinded by this "belief" and are not likely
to turn against their own "belief". No one has found proof of evolution
either but when they publish something in your "respected ...[text shortened]... es with my worldview. So we are not that different. Only
my worldview is correct. 😏