1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sanity Returns to Kansas

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by The Galatian, Feb 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, and this is where a lot of obfuscation takes place. Scientists point to a new species and claim proof of evolution. But that is simply misleading. I think the looseness with which terms like "science" and "proof" and "theory" are thrown around contribute to a lot of discussion. No one wants to disagree with proven facts, and when people come along and make the silly claim that evolution has been tested and proven, it has an affect of intimidation. People need to realize that there are some significant differences in the way evolutionary theory uses terms from the way other scientific arenas use them.
     
  2. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what "testable" means:
    Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

    *snip*

    It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends.

    *snip*

    Source: TalkOrigins: 29+ Evidences (linky)

    The articles goes on in great detail to list and discuss the 29+ predictions which are the meat of the piece.
     
  3. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone who claims that the theory of evolution has been proven simply doesn't know what they're talking about.

    Mathematical theorums are proven; scientific theories are accepted, sometimes tentatively, modified or discarded. They can be disproven, falsified, but not proven as they are explanations for the known facts.

    No, they use the same terms in the same way, but it's confusing because that way is different than how the terms are used in casual conversation.
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    B observes:
    Yep. That's why, when Darwin and Wallace discovered what happened, scientists abandoned other theories and accepted theirs. It explained the evidence.



    They changed it to fit reality. That's the difference between science and creationism. It happens in all sciences. As our understanding improves, theories are continuously refined.



    Name a few. I'll show you the evidence for them.



    You've confused methodological and ontological naturalism.
    Quote:
    Methodological naturalism is the way science works, but it's only a tool. The idea is that natural phenomena have natural causes. I think you've been fooled into thinking it's ontological naturalism, which says nature is all there is.


    Nope. They misled you on that one, too. This is why theists can do science, even though it is methodologically naturalistic.



    So far, it works. Science is very pragmatic, and as long as it gives reliable results, we use it. The few miracles known to have happened are inexplicable to science, but fortunately they are not inexplicable to scientists. Learning the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism might help.



    See above. Ontological naturalism makes that claim, but the methodological naturalism of science does not.



    This goes back to your confusion of the two kinds of naturalism, again. Even Darwin attributed creation of life to God. Nothing in evolutionary theory denies creation.

    Barbarian:
    It's tested daily by researchers, who make predictions that have been validated. Would you like to learn about some of them?



    1904. O. lamarkania to O. gigas, by a polyploidy event.

    Barbarian observes:
    Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random.



    It’s a common misconception about evolution. Darwin showed that natural selection, not random change, is responsible for evolution. This is why his theory was so quickly accepted He showed that it wasn’t random.


    “Higher” has no meaning in evolution. But would you consider a tetrapod to be higher than a fish?

    Barbarian observes:
    As long as creationism admits evolution, it doesn't.


    Quote:

    They lied to you about that, too. "Microevolution" is variation within a species. "Macroevolution" is the evolution of new species.


    You misspelled “asinine.”
    Science is the rational belief-system/philosophy that uses the methods of observation, objectivity, experimentation, and organization to understand and explain the underlying patterns and structure of the universe. It does this by creating an ever-evolving model of the actual universe, a mathematically-based approximation which provides logical explanation and prediction of natural phenomena.
    http://members.aol.com/SciRealm/ScienceMath.html
    Science is a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains diversity and change in living things.
    Barbarian observes:
    Um, no. They lied about that, too. A lot of people, including Darwin, thought and think that God is behind it all.



    See above. You don’t understand evolutionary theory at all. You have many very odd misconceptions about it.



    This goes back to your conflation of naturalistic and ontological naturalism. Most of your misunderstandings would be cleared up if you could get that. Let’s try a simpler way:

    Plumbers are methodologically naturalistic. They expect problems with your plumbing to have natural causes, and seek naturalistic explanations for them. Many plumbers are also theists, and readily admit that God and the supernatural are facts. However, they don’t check to see if the demons of stoppage have backed up your toilet, even if they admit that the supernatural might in some cases, impact the natural world. Does that help?

    Barbarian on evolutionary theory:
    Wrong again. It makes no claims about Genesis, which says nothing at all about evolution either way.


    “Twenty-for hour” is your addition to scripture. You added that to make it acceptable to you.

    Nope. It’s just you adjusting it a little to a way you find more comfortable to think about.

    Barbarian on the confusion between a theory and a belief system:
    Technically, it's a scientific theory. A belief system would be more comprehensive than one theory.



    See above. It’s better to understand technical terms before you use them.

    Barbarian on the revision of scientific theories when evidence indicates:
    That's how science works. You see the same things in chemistry, physics, geology, etc. It differs from religions like creationism, because it does change when evidence indicates. You might see this as a flaw, but very little humans do works better. Here's a way to keep them straight:

    Science changes to fit the evidence.

    Creationism changes the evidence to fit the belief.


     
  5. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    C'mon, Helen, you can do better than chanting some factless ad hom. Show us your facts, and we'll talk about them.

    That's what it is. "Microevolution" is variatoin within species and "macroevolution" is speciation.

    Actually, speciation is the only form of evolution that can be objectively determined. Higher taxa are a matter of opinion.

    And a new species of tetrapod is still a tetrapod. But it might also be a reptile, instead of an amphibian. This is like saying the evolution of man doesn't count because he's still a primate.

    No, that's what evolutionary theory says. Macroevolution is merely speciation.

    It's the old Gish dodge; "Macroevolution is whatever evolution takes too long for humans to have seen it."

    Fortunately, as even Gould admits we can see gradual and continous evolution in a number of lines. If there was no macroevolution, we wouldn't see any of them. Would you like to test my assertion, with an examination of the fossil record?

    It says "usually"; fortunately, there are some cases where the record is quite complete.

    Darn, there's still some things I can surprise you with, Helen. There it is.

    It's a play on words. There is nothing wrong with religious belief. It just doesn't work in science.

    That is not,and never has been the Christian take on it.

    Science is a belief system. Evolutionary theory is a theory.

    Well, let's take a look at it, and we can talk about it, if you think can stand inspection.
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it doesn’t. That is what is so funny about it. The theories of Darwin have been greatly changed in the last 150 years precisely because they don’t fit the evidence.

    Wasn’t that why they changed it last time? Because they discovered a “new reality” which meant the old hypothesis didn’t work anymore? And what happens when the “reality” they changed it to fit is found not actually to be real? You see, this is so humorous that I don’t think you really believe it.

    That man evolved from lower life forms. Or that anything evolved from lower life forms. That the universe found this exacting design by accident, by random processes. It is preposterous, and you know it. The only reason it is believed is because the alternative has been rejected out of hand because it is a premise of supernaturalism that a world committed to naturalism cannot tolerate.

    No I haven’t. Perhaps you are not aware of their similarities or distinctions because if you were, you would understand and not accuse me of confusion.

    Yes it would. It would prevent the confusion that you are creating here. Again, it is hard to take you seriously on this because your assertions are so flawed that one is forced to wonder how they can be said with a straight face.

    Ontological naturalism requires that foundation in methodological naturalism. And your failure to recognize this connection causes you to make false dichotomies like this. A Christian scientist can practice methodological naturalism, but methodological naturalism can never explain the origin of the universe. It is ill-equipped to answer that question. Scientists who hold to ontological naturalism, or philosophical naturalism, inevitably bring that belief (faith assertion) into their scientific work.

    I am not sure that you understand what Darwin actually proposed.

    Of course it does. Evolutionists recognize that man is a higher life form than an amoeba.

    Like so much else in your posts, this makes no sense. I didn’t use the word. I don’t use language like that. And you shouldn’t either. It doesn’t help your argument.


    Citing a members site on AOL is not considered good research.

    But even at that, consider this statement with your definition of science. Science is a belief system. (It’s really not, but that’s another issue). Evolution is a scientific (belief system) theory that explains diversity and change in living things.

    It actually attempts to explain it in non-living things as well. But as your own definition admits, you cannot separation evolution from a belief system.

    And a lot do not.

    I think it is clear that you do not understand, but are simply repeating what you have been told.

    I didn’t conflate it.

    No, it’s silly. It has no relevance at all. A plumber is not making assertions about things he cannot see. An evolutionary scientist is.

    No it’s not. If you understand Hebrew, then you know that the word YOM as used in Genesis 1 is a 24 hour day, and it is marked by “evening and morning,” something compatible only with a 24 hour day. Furthermore, the fact that God uses Gen 1 as the pattern for man’s work week (Exod 20) makes it clear that YOM in Genesis 1 is a 24 hour day. Again, you are just repeating stuff you have heard without bothering to critically think about it.

    As was shown, your “above” is incoherent.

    That is simply untrue. Creationism does accept new evidence all the time. What is does, however, is refuse to admit that the evidence can contradict reality. It holds that there is no evidence that is contrary to the reality of the universe in which we live.

    It’s not my wisdom. Scripture has defined this for us.

    Exactly my point to you. I have not hardened my heart to his creation. I have not created false issues nor distorted the issues to fit a worldview, as you have. I have not been incoherent and internally inconsistent as you have. God is God and he created the world as he said he did.

    As you have shown a tendency to do here at the BB, you are way too free with the facts, and too willing to ignore reality to fit your own little worldview. On most issues, it’s not a huge deal. But this is one with eternal consequences because it goes to the heart what God has revealed about himself and the world that we live in.

    So I think it is disingenuous to a high degree for you to pretend that you are making any kind of meaningful or substantive contributions to this discussion. You are ignoring basic scientific principles and basic theological truths. You are presuming that God's revelation about something that he saw, in fact did, can be corrected or superceded by finite man who can only guess at what happened, based on evidence that is, at best, circumstantial and subject to varying interpretations. These are serious flaws that require more thought than you have obviously put into it.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think with Galatian there are some philosophical foundations that are so different regarding theology and science. You see origin science does not exist in a philosophical vacuum. The presuppositions you start with determine where you can end up. A scientist who starts from philosophical or ontological naturalism can never end up with a special creation. He has ruled out that option from the beginning.

    There are some who admit to God and his work in the universe, but deny his revelation about how things came to be, preferring to have the approval of men about their "scientific" views rather than to be consistent with reality.

    Any origin science is going to be about beliefs, and more importantly about epistemological foundations and the justification of knowledge. And that is why talking about the surface about the "what" is rarely satisfactory. We must delve below that to the "why" we believe what we do, and how do we justify the epistemological claims that we make.
     
  8. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian on why scientists overwhelmingly accepted evolutionary theory:
    It explained the evidence.

    Sure it does. The five basic claims Darwin set forth are still part of evolutionary theory. Since Darwin, we found out about genes, which explained many problems he coiuldn't solve at the time, then DNA, which explained more about evolution, and so on. The theory has been modfiied, not replaced.

    In the same sense, the discovery of hydrogen bonding or resonance in aromatic compounds changed chemistry, but did not invaldate kinetic theory. It merely added information.

    See above. Darwin's five claims:

    1. More are born than can live
    2. Every organism is to some degree different than its parents
    3. Some differences make a difference in survival.
    4. Those with differences that help surival tend to leave more offspring.
    5. This accumulates over time, and explains the diversity of life we see.

    Still the same theory. Just a little richer, with more explainitory power.


    Barbarian on why chemists modified their theory:
    They changed it to fit reality.

    No. They just found that bonding was a little more complicated than initially thought. Some phenomena didn't fit. So they investigated, and the evidence showed that kinetic theory needed some addition. As so it happened. This goes on in all science, all the time.

    Chemistry has been through a lot of changes like that. The theory, like evolutionary theory, is robust enough to be modified.

    See above. I really think you'd be more effective against science, if you knew more about it.

    Larry on scientists:
    Barbarian suggests:
    Name a few. I'll show you the evidence for them.

    "Lower" isn't part of evolutionary theory. However, we can show that for example, whales evolved from hoofed animals, and that horses evolved from very differnent sorts of animals. In the case of horses, it's a very detailed and gradual change in the fossil record. Would you like to learn about that?

    As you learned earlier, Darwin's discovery was that it was not random. Again, if you learned what science actually says about it, you would be much more effective.

    I never say anything I don't believe to be true here. I would never do anything like insist evolutionary theory says complex structures formed by random, after I was told that the theory doesn't say that. You probably aren't doing your soul any good by doing that, either.

    As you have learned, but chose to pretend otherwise, the methodological naturalism of science does not deny the supernatural.


    Barbarian observes:
    You've confused methodological and ontological naturalism.

    Yep. Methodological naturalism of science merely looks for natural causes for natural phenomena, without denying the supernature. Ontololgical naturalism says nature is all there is.


    Barbarian on methodological naturalism:
    So far, it works. Science is very pragmatic, and as long as it gives reliable results, we use it. The few miracles known to have happened are inexplicable to science, but fortunately they are not inexplicable to scientists. Learning the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism might help.

    At this point, I don't think a name-calling snit is going to help you very much.

    Nope. That's why theists can do science, even if it is methodologically naturalistic.

    You've finally gotten something right. The question as to why there is something, rather than nothing, is one that science can't answer. But scientists can, if they are theists.

    It can't answer it at all. For that, you can't use science.

    Nope. No room in science for ontological naturalism. But ontological naturalists can do science, because science makes no claims about that sort of thing.


    Barbarian observes:
    Darwin showed that natural selection, not random change, is responsible for evolution. This is why his theory was so quickly accepted He showed that it wasn’t random.

    By now, I know you don't know what he wrote about it.


    Barbarian observes:
    “Higher” has no meaning in evolution.

    Nope. The theory makes no distinctions of that sort. However, as humans, we can make the non-scientific observation that man, being a little lower than the angels, is higher than an amoeba.

    You misspelled “asinine.”

    Science is the rational belief-system/philosophy that uses the methods of observation, objectivity, experimentation, and organization to understand and explain the underlying patterns and structure of the universe. It does this by creating an ever-evolving model of the actual universe, a mathematically-based approximation which provides logical explanation and prediction of natural phenomena.
    http://members.aol.com/SciRealm/ScienceMath.html
    Science is a belief system. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains diversity and change in living things.

    (Larry objects to AOL)

    Me too. But the statement explains what you're confused about.



    You don't understand what a "belief system" is.

    Larry on evolution:


    Nope. Darwin's theory is only about the way living things change.

    (Larry says one cannot separate evolution from science)

    Yep, it's true.

    (Larry denies conflating ontological and methodological naturalism)

    But you did, Larry. You don't even know how they are different.


    Barbarian tries to explain more simply:
    Plumbers are methodologically naturalistic. They expect problems with your plumbing to have natural causes, and seek naturalistic explanations for them. Many plumbers are also theists, and readily admit that God and the supernatural are facts. However, they don’t check to see if the demons of stoppage have backed up your toilet, even if they admit that the supernatural might in some cases, impact the natural world. Does that help?

    I don't know a plumber who doesn't. He can't see into your system; he make inferences from the evidence to figure it out. Just like scientists.

    (Barbarian points out that "24 hour day" is not found in scripture)

    (Larry insists it is)

    Show me. Don't bother with "We know this is what it really means"

    Barbarian observes:
    See above. It’s better to understand technical terms before you use them.

    (Another snit, with name-calling)

    Bluffing and aggressive language won't help you either.

    (ending with a little Larry false witness)

    That's our Larry.

    I'd still be willing to look at the evidence for all those claims, if you think you have anything. Let me know.
     
  9. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are right, Barbarian/Galatian/Pat, I can do better. But if I gave a more complete opinion of what I think of the way you obfuscate and twist words and meanings, I would probably get kicked off of Baptist Board.

    In the meantime, there is NO evidence that one basic type of life form can change to another over any amount of time. Mutations cannot do it. Natural selection deletes, it does not add to the gene pool of any population. And even if both of those were working the way evolution wants them to work, there is not enough time in ten times the amount of time long-agers say the earth has been around for evolution of everything we see to day out of original proto-bacteria to have taken place. That leaves only pure chance, and chance has a way of working with increasing entropy and not against it.

    These facts are known, have been demonstrated many times, and are completely ignored by staunch evolutionist believers such as yourself.

    Some of us, however, prefer looking for the truth and using actual, real data to do it rather than imagination.
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's random mutation plus natural selection over time. Evolution is a process; it has no wants.
     
  11. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    I meant you could do better by laying out the evidence, instead of telling us how much you hate me.

    We can show in great detail the evidence for reptile to mammal. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

    That sounds like a testable claim. Let's see the evidence for it.

    It merely selects from all mutaitons, those that are useful. And by limiting the genes that will be available in the next generation, it tends to produce better and better organisms. ("Better" meaning more fit for the environment)

    Engineers are now realizing that mutation and natural selection work better than design for complex engineering projects. Genetic algorithsm that mimic these processes are now solving problems that were impossible a few years ago. Why not? Wouldn't God have picked the best way?

    The interesting thing about these solutions, is they often utilize some hitherto unsuspected effect to optimize the solution. Here's an early example of this process:

    Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it
    creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. Clive Davidson
    reports
    http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

    Note that even the guy who set up the program doesn't know how it figured out the solution; he doesn't even know how it works. But it's more efficient than anything we can design. And this amazing device evolved step by step under natural selection.

    Well, let's see your evidence for that. That might be worth examining.

    Nope. As you know, the process is anything but random.

    People have made claims of this sort, but they all fall apart when confronted by the evidence. This is why the vast majority of scientists, including Christians, accept evolution.

    Sounds good. Let's see that data, and we'll talk about it. Much better than calling names, I think.
     
  12. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thread closing warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 2:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

    Lady Eagle
     
  13. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Guess we won't talk about it. If anyone has any questions, we can talk abouit them in PM.
     
  14. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    And faith in the Word of God is how Christians live. What is "real" is truth coming from God.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Originally Posted by Daisy
    Testable theories are how real science gets done.

    Fortunately, there's no conflict between the two. That's why Christians can do science.
     
  16. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pastor Larry!

    I have been monitoring this debate between you and Galatian concerning evolution, and I find it interesting. The highest degree I have is a Bachelor of Science degree and I certainly haven't taken enough biology to debate you or Galatian on the subject.

    However, I do know how to read and I checked out Galatian's claim concerning methodological and ontological naturalism. He is correct in his definitions so either you are mistaken about what you said, or you refuse to accept the truth.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    More reading would be in order. I am correct in what I said about naturalism. Ontological naturalism is necessarily followed by methedological naturalism. Methodological maturalism is not necessarily preceded by ontological naturalism.

    It appears that Galatian doesn't even understand this.

    Galatian comes in and thinks he can throw out some big words and win the debate. He can't. It makes no sense. His last long post is more of the same kind of switching of terms, misidentification of issues, misunderstanding of basis principles in the debate, and obfuscation.

    In the end, it begins with the epistemological foundation that one approaches this with. Galatian's is flawed.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. But they also recognize the limitations of science when compared to revelation, particularly on issues of the origin of the universe. The conflict is created by people like yourself, who confuse issues.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Barbarian on the error of confusing ontological and methodological naturalism:
    Fortunately, there's no conflict between the two. (science and faith) That's why Christians can do science.

    That's what we've been telling you Larry. Science makes no claims about that sort of thing.

    See above. Your conflation of methodological and ontological naturalism is what keeps you from understanding the difference. More specifically, you've confused evolutionary theory, which explains how populations change over time, with the origin of nature, which is not part of science at all.

    Terry writes:
    However, I do know how to read and I checked out Galatian's claim concerning methodological and ontological naturalism. He is correct in his definitions so either you are mistaken about what you said, or you refuse to accept the truth.


    Nope. You've simply conflated the two. One can be (like the plumber) methodologically naturalistic, without being an ontological naturalist at all.

    Nope. It's quite possible to be an ontological naturalist, but a methodological supernaturalist.

    Methodological naturalism gets along quite nicely without ontological naturalism at all.

    He can learn.

    Why not just admit the obvious, Larry? You got confused between the two. Everyone can see it.

    As you just learned, it takes more than big words. You also have to know what you're talking about.

    And Larry, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's more than just conflating two kinds of naturalism.
     
    #39 The Galatian, Feb 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2007
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is hilarious to see you telling me that I dont know what I am talking about. You have said so many nonsensical things in this thread, that it is the height of presumption and humor for you to even consider a line like that, much less actually write it for others to see.

    From the beginning of this topic, you have shown a constant disregard of facts and a misuse of terms and ideas. You have worked hard to confuse issues, perhaps under the guise of being able to hide the fact that you really don't understand what is going on here. It would have been better for you simply to stay out of it and learn.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...