THE DARWINIST "ATHEISTS" TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUER

Viewing 63 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #15549
      ahmd1432
      Participant

      THE DARWINIST "ATHEISTS" TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY

      ———————————————

      Allah,said

      { Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse. (32) He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. (33) }

      ————————————————–

      ((( THE DARWINIST "ATHEISTS" TECHNIQUES OF CLAMOR AND DEMAGOGUERY )))

      There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism. For that reason, for the last 150 years Darwinists have used a different technique to providing evidence; clamor and demagoguery. 1- Darwinists resort to all possible means to cover up the fact that the theory of evolution is a deception. Academics and scientists questioning evolution and espousing anti-Darwinian views are hurriedly removed from their posts and silenced.

      2- They attempt to portray the fraud of Darwinism as a highly complex scientific reality. They try to deceive people with complicated formulae and unintelligible terminology. They take advantage of science and people’s respect for it, even though there is nothing scientific to the theory whatsoever.

      3- They engage in loud and long demagoguery and resort to charlatanry instead of giving scientific responses to people holding other views. Since they are unable to provide any real scientific evidence at all, they imagine that they can invalidate the definitive proofs of Creation by making so-called jokes and using a mocking, improper tone. They imagine they will thus be able to deceive people, even though the evidence is plain for everyone to see.

      4- They try to prevent people thinking and investigating the true facts. They imagine that only in this way can they prevent the fraudulent nature of Darwinism being exposed. They try to prevent people thinking by means of demagogic accounts and complicated, incomprehensible articles adorned with grotesque-looking formulae.

      5- They apply pressure to ensure that students holding anti-Darwinist views are expelled from their schools. For example, in a report on the subject in the British weekly The Observer, Darwinist scientists are reported to say that “if religion stops their students accepting evolution, there is no point in them staying at university.” This is a clear statement from the mouths of Darwinists regarding the Darwinist technique of menaces and intimidation.

      6- Another aspect of the same demagoguery is the claim that Darwinist scientists are afraid to speak out. In fact these scientists have no fear at all of speaking to the proponents of Creation. Their fear lies in having no evidence in favor of Darwinism despite all the millions of proofs of Creation. There is no reason why they should not take part in debates of this kind if they did have any scientific evidence of their own. They are unable to respond to the 100 million fossils that prove the fact of Creation, and are unable to admit that proteins cannot form by chance. They know that they will be faced with clear and incontrovertible scientific facts during the course of any debate. And they have no answers to them.

      7- The Council of Europe’s attempt to have the teaching of the Atlas of Creation in schools banned, also described in The Observer, is one of Darwinists’ best-known so-called intimidatory techniques. They imagine than banning books will stop people accessing the scientific facts. The fact is, however, that permitting no alternative view to the one-sided teaching of Darwinism in schools is a disgrace to Darwinists themselves. Fascism is still taught as an opposing view in schools of philosophy that teach communism. Alternative theories to the Big Bang are still taught regarding the formation of the universe. The situation in this example is even more terrible, because Creation is a fact proved by scientific evidence, whereas Darwinism is just nonsense.

      ((( If Darwinists had the evidence to prove their theory, and if they genuinely believed that their theory was true, then they would very definitely feel no need to resort to demagoguery, to try to hide the evidence for Creation, and to attempt to intimidate scientists and other proponents of Creation. The main reason for Darwinists’ banning books, mockery, long demagogic accounts and unwillingness to engage in debates is that Darwinism is terrible nonsense that has deceived the world for the last 150 years. )))

      But all these measures, clamor and demagoguery have come to an end now that the existence of 100 million fossils supporting Creation has been made public. People have now seen the daylight. And there is no point in trying to tell them it is still dark outside. The scientific facts are in front of everyone’s eyes. The Darwinist lie has been unmasked. From now on, by the will of Allah (Allah), Darwinists will always be defeated no matter what demagoguery they resort to.

      ———————————————————–
      Facts from the ground and The scientific facts fixed.

      ——————————————————–

      Proponents of Creation are either removed from their posts or expelled from their schools.

      As a requirement of the Darwinist imposition, a great many professors have been removed from their posts for defending the fact of Creation. The latest example of this is Michael Reiss, the former director of education at the British Royal Society, who was hastily removed from that position for suggesting that Creation also be taught in schools.

      OTHER PROFESSORS WHO LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE THEY DEFENDED THE FACT OF CREATION

      Dr.Caroline crocker

      The scientists cited above were removed from their posts at America’s most prestigious universities or scientific institutions for questioning belief in evolution.

      ———————————————————————

      Books espousing the fact of Creation are burned in many countries,

      ——————————————————————–

      —————————————————–

      100 million fossils unearthed from below the ground and that have remained unchanged for millions of years are hidden away from the public eye, even though they prove the fact of Creation.

      ————————————————————

      ——————————————————————————
      It is never admitted that there is not even a single intermediate form fossil.

      ———————————————————————————-

      ———————————————————————————-

      he odds that a protein molecule forms by chance are 1 in 10950. In practical terms that figure means "zero probability." The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is "1" in 10950. It is never mentioned that it is impossible for proteins to form by chance.

      —————————————————————————————————–

      Fake skulls are constantly displayed as evidence of supposed human evolution. Even though they have been proven false, they are still on display in the world’s famous museums as if they were real.

      ——————————————————]

      When they were unable to find any genuine intermediate form fossils to prove Darwinism, they added feathers to fossil dinosaurs and tried to pass this off as an intermediate form.

      —————————————————-]

      ————————————————————-
      A new hoax intermediate form, Nebraska Man, was invented from a single wild pig tooth. They produced false reconstructions to give people the impression that such a being had once existed. People were deceived by pictures produced showing this non-existent entity’s whole family.

      —————————————————————–

      —————————————————————–
      Even though they know perfectly well that the first organisms with characteristics of a similar complexity to those of present-day life forms appeared suddenly and simultaneously in the Cambrian Period, some 530 million years ago, efforts are still being made to keep the fraud that life forms gradually evolved from the primitive to the more advanced on the agenda.

      ——————————————————————————–

      The lie that the human embryo exhibits first fish-like and then reptilian features during the course of its development in the mother’s womb has gone down as another of the theory of evolution’s deceptions. Haeckel’s fraud under the magnifying glass: Photographs of embryos taken by the British embryologist Richardson in 1999 showed that Haeckel’s drawings were totally unrelated to reality. Above can be seen Haeckel’s fictitious drawings, with authentic photographs to the left.

      They for years depicted Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings, produced with the aim of proving the lie that human embryos possess gills, as evidence for evolution. They never declared that they were a hoax.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      The sequence showing the supposed evolution of the horse, which even they admit to be false, is still on display in museums.

      The horse series charts were the result of distortions of the facts. Every new fossil discovery has revealed the invalidity of these imaginary charts.

      ————————————————————————————————–

      ———————————————————————————————————
      Despite knowing full well that mutations do nothing but harm organisms, they portray mutation experiments as evidence for evolution, and they have for years reiterated the lie that mutations lead to evolution.

      ———————————————————————————————————————

      —————————————————————————–

      Natural selection can never give rise to a species that does not exist in nature; it can only bring about the elimination of weak or deformed individuals in living species. The peppered moths are an excellent example of this. Looked at in the light of research up until the last quarter of the 20th century, trees grew darker in color as the Industrial Revolution progressed. Therefore, lighter colored moths living on these trees declined in number as they were more visible to birds and more easily caught. Darker colored moths, on the other hand, increased in number. But this has nothing to do with evolution, of course. No new species emerged. All that happened was a change in the proportions within the moth population. But in order to show this as a so-called evidence of evolution through natural selection, Darwinists resorted to sticking moths onto tree trunks.

      The moths that were glued onto the tree trunks were dishonestly depicted as "the peppered moths that had evolved by way of natural selection."

      —————————————————————————————-

      ———————————————————————————-

      The bones in its fins led to the coelacanth being depicted as a fish about to progress to the walking stage. However, the capture of many living specimens consigned all such fictitious evolutionist scenarios to the waste bin.

      The coelacanth, which still lives in deep sea waters today, was for years depicted as an intermediate form.

      ————————————————————————————————

      ——————————————————————————————–

      Fossils of complex life forms dating back to the Cambrian Period were concealed for no less than 70 years, out of a concern these would totally discredit evolution.

      ——————————————————————————————————

      ——————————————————————————————————–

      Piltdown Man, portrayed for 43 years as highly significant evidence confirming evolution, turned out to be a hoax. In 1953, investigations into the skull revealed that Piltdown Man was no fossil, but a forgery produced by combining human and orangutan bones. Left: Excavations at Piltdown, birthplace of the Piltdown Man scandal

      They portrayed the Piltdown Man hoax, made by adding an orangutan jaw to a human cranium and filing down its teeth, as an intermediate form and deceived people by exhibiting this fake fossil in the British Museum for 40 years as alleged evidence of evolution.

      ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

      ———————————————————————————————————————

      In all schools and universities the deception that "chance causes evolution" has been taught as a scientific fact.

      briefly, the entire world has been deceived by clear and apparent forgeries for 150 years

      http://newaninvitationtothetruth.blogspot.com/

      THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN 20 QUESTIONS

      http://newaninvitationtothetruth.blogspot.com/

    • #106981
      Crucible
      Participant

      So they’re bad ?

    • #106993
      biohazard
      Participant

      😀 😀

    • #107128
      Tomn
      Participant

      ahmd1432:
      Me and you would be very good friends if we were to meet. We both have the same view of evolutionists and their theory. Everything you say here is absolutely true.

      Evolutionists do these things indeed. I have argued with evolutionists in person, and have found that they brush off these arguments as false. Also, they question the source of these arguments, knowing that they are blatantly true.

      Also, I have experienced this personally when arguing with evolutionists. Multiple upon multiple upon multiple times, when I attempted to argue with my science teacher in my last high school about evolution, he would say "You dont know what you’re talking about." Or, anytime I would say "evolution" instead of saying "the theory of eolution", he would mock me and say "Ha-ha. look at you. you just said evolution. haha. you didnt say ‘the theory’ ." This was the repeat of our conversations every class.

      Also, I have been called stupid by another evolutionists. I will record the actualities of the conversation here, which is very close to word for word what we said. I wrote down what we had said after the verbal altercation.
      -We had just watched a movie on evolution in class, where throughout, I was mocking the theory with "humph"s. The young man next to me said in an angry, frustrated manner "Bro can you please shut up!" Afterward, I attempted at conversation:
      Me "Can I ask you a question?"
      Him "I dont want to have a conversation."
      Me "Why?"
      Him "Because you’re stupid."
      Me "So because I have a different point of view, I’m stupid?"
      Him "Yes."
      Me "How long have you known me?"
      Him "Just this class."
      Me "Then how can you cay Im stupid?"
      Him "Because of the comments you made." (the comments during the movie)
      Me "If Im dumb can you educate me?"
      Him (no response)
      Me "If Im uneducated, then educate me."
      Him (ignores me and turns to someone else for conversation)

      Basically, twice in a row, he said that because I have a different opinion, I’m stupid.

      Also, on the first day where we debated in my AP Environmental Science Class, when explaining my opinion, I could only fully explain myself 3 or 4 times because I was constantly shouted out, constantly interrupted, and overcome by 32 voices to 1. Also, one person would as a question and then another would interrupt another question in the very beginning of an explanation. Bottom line, I was shouted out and my opinion, after that first and only debate, every time I wanted to talk about it or would try to talk to the teacher, I was again ignored.

      Also, if you want to see more proof against evolution, check out this thread on this site about22923.html

      All of these intimidating tactics are true, especially in universities. In universities where students are Christians and they differ from the evolutionists view, they are intimidated and shouted out and mocked. You can ask any christian or creationist college student this, and they can tell you.

      I know all these things about evolutionists are true. I know they use these tactics. However, they always simply deny it, so I stick with the facts, which is enough to disprove them.

      Although, we will differ on one thing: by your use of Allah, you are probably Islamic. I am a Christian.

    • #107133
      Crucible
      Participant

      Maybe if you guys narrowed the quarry down a bit – like, to PZ Myers and RIchard Dawkins; 2 clamouring extremists of the Neo-Darwinian-Athiest Demagogue herd.
      That could work.

    • #107144
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      ahmd1432:
      Me and you would be very good friends if we were to meet. We both have the same view of evolutionists and their theory. Everything you say here is absolutely true.

      So you agree that Allah created the world and the life? So all the holy wars were for nothing because you can all pray to one god?

    • #107154
      Crucible
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      quote Tomn:

      ahmd1432:
      Me and you would be very good friends if we were to meet. We both have the same view of evolutionists and their theory. Everything you say here is absolutely true.

      So you agree that Allah created the world and the life? So all the holy wars were for nothing because you can all pray to one god?

      I think it shows that just being exposed to atheism, can cure religious strife; "the enemy of mine enemy", and so on.

      "You may do some nasty things with farm animals sometimes, but at least you believe in something !"

    • #107162
      Tomn
      Participant

      JackBean:

      quote JackBean:

      So you agree that Allah created the world and the life? So all the holy wars were for nothing because you can all pray to one god?

      I think you should read the whole reply that I wrote.

      quote Tomn:

      Although, we will differ on one thing: by your use of Allah, you are probably Islamic. I am a Christian.

      Let me make this clear: Allah is not the god of this universe. He did not create it, and he has no power, and does not exist. God, Jehovah Jireh, is the Lord of this universe. He created all of these things you see: the animals, the atoms, the world, the universe, and everything in it, not Allah.

      No, Allah and God are not one in the same. Allah is not alive, and never was. God is the only God who is true, and when you pray to Him, He hears you and answers those who have faith in Him and His answering of that prayer.

    • #107163
      Gavin
      Participant

      Brilliant. An evolution forum debating which god is the one true god. How fascinating. Biology.org needs to reassess its mandate.

    • #107171
      aptitude
      Participant

      Hey, all you guys are retards. Obviously the one true god is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He just covered up the evidence to make it look like evolution is real and the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

    • #107173
      Tomn
      Participant

      aptitude:
      Your sarcastic, insulting comments have no place in this forum, much less any discussion. Especially those comments which are aimed at insulting the other party.

      Obviously, this is an unpropitious mark towards your personality. You insult the other person when there are facts to debate. You could have chose to respond to the evidence against evolution as well as the evidence of corrupt tactics which evolutionists use, but you did not.

      Actually, the very fact that you call us "retards" and condemn our conversating God and want us to stop shows how you want to silence the other side, especially since you could just chose not to look at this thread instead of causing a ruckus against our freedom of expression.

      If the board moderators want to stop us, they have the authority to do so, not you.

      If you want me to be honest, neither of us, out of me and ahmd1432, have the place of discussing religion in a forum explicitly designated for science.

      However, we each have the right to free speech and expression of religion. If you disagree, you can go to another thread. We should not stop discussion what we wish in addition to evolution just because one person sais otherwise.

    • #107212
      biohazard
      Participant

      Everything was created by God just as they are currently. A very nice and smooth explanation that covers everything and leaves no room for misinterpretation or confusion. I understand why some of you guys like it so much. Creation is a plain and simple way to explain difficult things.

      However, I would like you to consider this: this is a scientific forum. So we should play by the rules of science. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of a god. Thus, we cannot use god as a means to explain things. Just as we cannot say something like "the gnomes cause gravity".

      So it leaves us to play with observable phenomena that we can measure and analyze. We can, for example, subject bacteria to ionizing radiation or mutagenic chemicals and look into their genome before and after the experiment. We see that the genome has changed after the exposure. We call the changes mutations, we can even pinpoint the mechanisms, such as deletion of a nucleotide, translocation of a segment of the genome and so forth. We see that usually these changes cause bad things to happen to the bacteria, but not always. We have now shown a mechanism how the genetic material can randomly change, so we have found a way for organisms to differentiate.

      We can do genome-wide analysis on a wide variety of species, see how far or closely they resemble one another. We can build a phylogenetic tree out of that. We can dig up fossils and see if they fit into the picture. We can try to figure out, with these observable things, what may have been the way we evolved into the beings we are today.

      We measure and analyze things, we try to put pieces together. Some pieces are missing. Some are still on a level of hypothesis, but the hypotheses are based on previous findings. We keep building the picture, and most think it is a nice and logical one that explains many of the puzzling things. Some people disagree, but if they do so, they need to find evidence for their claims, just as evidence is needed for any scientific claim.

      I find it amusing and sad at the same time to hear a religious fanatic to come here and boast that they require solid evidence, facts and observable events, when their own view has none of those.

      So, in my opinion, you are free to come and discuss evolution here, even if you disagree with everything, as long as you agree to play with the same rules. You must also provide solid, measurable evidence of the existence and work of a god. Otherwise it is an unfair game, when you call us for solid evidence, but provide none in return.

    • #107259
      Tomn
      Participant

      Well, thats not exactly why we like creation, although I can only speak for myself. And in reality, everything has not been the same since God first created it. In the Bible, there was a flood, Noah’s Flood. Now the bible sais that the flood completely covered the earth, meaning that the highest mountains were covered. This means that mount everest was covered with water. now with a high rise in water comes the push on earth’s atmosphere which almost caused it to collapse. i forget how exactly it changed the atmosphere, but a near collapse is enough to show you. this changed the air pressure that was on the earth. The change in air pressure caused a change in the way animals looked as well as their size.

      This was shown in something called the Eden project. A desolate space of hillside was taken and covered in a dome to create an individualized biosphere. Gasses were placed inside to replicate the pressure of gasses pre-flood. The most stark change I remember was in the python. Normally, the pythons colors are dull, but when put in the biosphere, the colors became vibrant. So there was some change.

      Why do we like creation? Its a long story involving religion, which I suppose you would not like to hear.

      2)Yes, I understand. Thank you Biohazard for being patient.

      Yes. I can see where you are coming from about evidence for God, although I strongly, but respectfully disagree.

      This is perfectly fine to play by the rules.

    • #107269
      Cat
      Participant
      quote Cat:

      from post: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

      Why do you think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive???

      Below is my “theory”.

      – Once upon a time there was a being, let’s call him/her “God”. God was interested in genetic engineering and observing effects of evolution. His primary purpose of coming to Earth was to conduct a large scale experiment – create a race in his/her likeness but capable of surviving in the conditions present on this planet and observe evolution with his/her own eyes.
      God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge). After the accident God dumped all of his subjects on Earth in fear that next time someone will drink the potion that will introduce genes of longevity into population of his experimental subjects. If that happens, experiment will be ruined. God’s lifespan was many times that of a person.
      From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine – http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .
      Feel free to come up with the rest of the story!

      😀

    • #107294
      DanielSan
      Participant

      Well, this discussion in a designated "science forum" is definitely going in a wrong, a non-scientific, direction. Although it may be pointless in view of some previous statements, i feel the urge to comment on some of these postings.

      quote ahmd1432:

      There is not one single piece of evidence for Darwinism.

      First of all, “Darwinism” is a universal concept that explains evolution by gradual development. In the light of scientific evidence there`s no way of ignoring this FACT. And by evidence I mean physical evidence. Museums are stuffed with lineages of fossils (hominid, vertebrate- whatever you are interested in) that beautifully illustrate evolution. Just go there and look at it!

      quote ahmd1432:

      They attempt to portray the fraud of Darwinism as a highly complex scientific reality. They try to deceive people with complicated formulae and unintelligible terminology.

      Imagine a layman looking at a construction plan of an aeroplane. The fact that the layman cannot understand it doesn’t mean the plane is not able to fly.
      The term “…“science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained” (Wikipedia). Scientists have their own way of communicating, and scientific “jargon” often is awfully complex. The basic concepts of evolution, however, are everything but hard to comprehend! There`s plenty of literature, from strictly scientific to popular scientific, and everyone who is sufficiently interested in the topic can easily learn about it.

      quote ahmd1432:

      they imagine that they can invalidate the definitive proofs of Creation by making so-called jokes and using a mocking, improper tone.

      I`m neither making jokes about anyone`s religious beliefs nor using an improper tone. Freedom of religion is a basic and untouchable human right (and so is apostasy!!), which I don`t question in any form. Scientists are not “invalidating” creation by making fun of anybody; instead they are using something really powerful: facts.
      I obviously missed something, because creationists never produced a tiny shred of actual proof confirming their story.

      quote ahmd1432:

      They know that they will be faced with clear and incontrovertible scientific facts during the course of any debate. And they have no answers to them.

      I accept the challenge!

    • #107297
      Tomn
      Participant

      Daniel San:
      You accept the challenge? Debate the facts above. They are enough to show evolution as a fraud.

      If thats not enough, which it is, look at these threads I published. I understand that I argued them with others already. However, we may argue the same or different points Wherever you want to take the argument.

      I have received answers on my rebuttal to evolution. However, I have received no valid explanation towards what I would say in response. I proposed some tough questions, and when I questioned their answers with flaws, no explanation or rebuttal of those flaws were given. I was simply told that I was a "blindman". I would appreciate that you could refute and explain the holes I find in your rebuttal to these threads or otherwise except that my holes prove to show that evolution is not true.

      DanielSan;aptitude;biohazard;gavin;crucible;JackBean
      I notice another thing: none of you are debating the facts. I would appreciate if you could either respond to these facts or admit that they show evolution as false.
      The embryo appearing as a fish?
      Firing creationists professors from universities?
      The fake skull?
      The fish fossil?
      Actually, with the fish fossil, there is no fossil of that fish without fins or losing fins. Also, there has been no evidence of that fish developing lungs. Also, our brain is much larger than his. Also, our body structure and functions are very different. Finally, there is NO intermediate fossil between that fish and us humans.
      The moth?
      Actually, with the moths, I have said before that

      quote Tomn:

      Also, if darker wings is a mutation, a random mistake in DNA, then there would be evidence showing that at the time before the mutation, there were only white color moths, and then after, there were dark color moths. Has this been observed? Also, this must have been recent considering that industrial smog began being released into the air 250 years ago when England first began to use coal.

      Also, I have said

      quote Tomn:

      You said that “the moths bearing a mutated black pigment allele were quickly eaten by birds”. What Im asking you is this:
      How do you know that the black pigment is a mutation? Has this been assumed, conjectured, or simply labeled as a mutation just to prove evolution? Or, has it been observed or proven to be a mutated allele?

      The response I got from biohazard was

      quote biohazard:

      Unfortunately people of the 19th century did not have knowledge or tools to identify and isolate mutations, so of course we cannot tell the exact time of “birth” of that mutation. Similar mutation has been observed to happen in modern times as well, and the moths have been extensively studied and the location and type of mutation has been identified. See for example Van’t Hof et al. (2011) in the journal Science.

      I looked into this Van’t Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

      False horse development?
      If this is not how the horse developed, then where is evolution’s explanation? The fact of the matter is that evolution cannot explain, with a viable possibility, how biodiversity came about. It simply has paintbrush labels "oh this is a mutation", but with no proof of mutation. Evolution’s explanation of the past of development of species is simply not viable.

    • #107303
      canalon
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      I looked into this Van’t Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

      Looking at it right now. What I read is that he mapped the locus on the chromosome where the yet unknown gene causing melanism is found and demonstrated that multiple SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) are strongly conserved among the melanic moths. And a change in size is observed between the Chromosome 17 of the Wild type and the carbonaria variants.
      Previous genetic studies appear to have demonstrated that the melanic character is behaving like a single character in a pure mendelian fashion, suggesting that only one gene (or group of very strongly linked genes) is involved.
      The conclusion are that what causes the spread of the melanic phenotype was due to clonal expansion of a single carbonaria ancestor (if the events had happened multiple times, one would expect diversity within the SNPs in the studied region. And that whatever mutation caused the change is located in a small region of the chr 17.

      But what I am not sure to understand is what "mutation" you need to see? You are aware that mutations is a large term that cover genetic changes and not only single nucleotide changes. A massive deletion, insertion or many other events are also mutations. And we might even soon learn the exact genetic change that happened there considering the lowering cost of sequencing these day. Although that would probably depends on the funding available.

    • #107310
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      I looked into this Van’t Hof, and all he did was map the genome of the moth, find the gene that is responsible for coloring, and simply labeled it a mutation, but again without proof that it is a mutation.

      That is the same as you would require scientists to point you a supernova explosion that happens now. And because scientists can only show you supernova explosions that happened tens of thousands of years ago or more because of the time it takes from light to travel from the supernova to the Earth, you would say that supernovae do not happen, because we cannot see them happening – we can only see that they happened.

      The same applies pretty much to mutations as well: they can usually be seen only after they have happened. Although scientists could show you a mutation happening at the very moment with proper experimental settings, but of course we cannot just capture a moth, wait till its germ cell undergoes a mutation to cause black pigment and the show everybody that now it has happened.

      But even if something is difficult to show happening, we can use many means to show that it has happened. Just like with supernovae, detecting a mutation happening is just a bit more complex than detecting a flash of light. However, you could, for example, take one bacterial cell that carries one piece of genome. Put it on an agar plate and let it grow and sequence the genomes of this bacterium’s "children" and you see a whole lot of mutations have happened.

      By continuously sampling your bacteria you can even catch one in a middle of a cell division that is causing a mutation at the very moment. You would just have to catch a cell that is in the middle of a cell division and whose daughter strand differs from the original one – there is a mutation happening for you, voilá!

    • #107311
      biohazard
      Participant

      Well, tried to edit my previous post a bit to make it more creationist-proof, but ran out of time. You should still get the point even from that original one.

    • #107312
      DanielSan
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      Put it on an agar plate and let it grow and sequence the genomes of this bacterium’s “children” and you see a whole lot of mutations have happened.

      By continuously sampling your bacteria you can even catch one in a middle of a cell division that is causing a mutation at the very moment. You would just have to catch a cell that is in the middle of a cell division and whose daughter strand differs from the original one – there is a mutation happening for you, voilá!

      Thats exactly what the group of Richard Lenski did. Starting with a single "wild-type" colony of E. coli, they maintained it in a liquid culture- in 12 parallels. On a daily basis they would put these cells into a fresh medium and take samples regularly to freeze and analyze them on a genomic level. This experiment now lasts for app. 20 years (more than 50,000 generations), and the outcome is that throughout the cultivation all strains accumulated a stunning genetic diversity (by means of mutations!), allowing them to grow better in the conditions they were put into.
      One strain, for example, developed the ability to metabolize citrate: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

      See also:
      http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ResearchInterests.html
      and in particular
      http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSear … ?group=aad

    • #107313
      Crucible
      Participant

      Well, as to the transitional fish fossil deal >

      Tomn has, at least, perhaps enough reason to complain, since it’s slippery language ( "transitional", "intermediate" )that is presented, it can and does lead to erroneous understanding and then statements in news items, online fora and blogs, and journals.

      Can we start by giving what "transitional" means, and what "intermediate form", means ?

    • #107314
      biohazard
      Participant

      Yes, I am familiar with Lenski’s work and I have used it previously as an example for some creationists. The problem is that no matter how well you try to explain things and how extraordinary laborous and advanced experiments some scientists do to show these things and provide the much-demanded facts and evidence, the doubters just keep ignoring all that work and keep repeating the same old mantras over and over again.

      Apparently one can never overestimate the amount of self-deception and delusion of religious people. Even though they call for facts and proofs they have already decided that no matter what they see or hear, if it is against their books, they ignore it.

    • #107317
      Gavin
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      Apparently one can never overestimate the amount of self-deception and delusion of religious people. Even though they call for facts and proofs they have already decided that no matter what they see or hear, if it is against their books, they ignore it.

      That’s why it’s useless to try. I gave up long ago. Blind faith means not only belief without evidence but also blindness to evidence.

    • #107325
      Cat
      Participant

      I see that both sides of this argument agree on ignoring my post…

    • #107332
      Tomn
      Participant

      Cat:
      Your theory on God is a misconception. God and evolution do not mix, and God did not create the earth or any part of the universe to let it evolve. He created it all. Period.

      quote Cat:

      God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge).

      We are not God’s social experiment. God created us to love and worship Him, and for Him to love us and enjoy his creation, and for us to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and enjoy creation (where snakes did not bite, and birds did not flee).

      God’s lifespan is infinite, as is ours. We are a spirit bound in a body. Our spirit lives on after our body to go to either heaven or hell. God is a spirit. He lives on into eternity.

      We were never like animals. We were created in His image and likeness, where we have a free will, will power, curiosity, personality, etc.

      quote Cat:

      From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine – http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .

      God and aliens do not go together. It has been SPECULATED, not shown or proven or observed, that there is extraterrestrial life. It has been CONJECTURED that since there are millions upon millions of stars, one is bound to contain a planet like out own. I can also CONJECTURE that there might be another planet with humans because God specified that he created this planet, but how do we know that he did not create another like our own? The answer to this, regardless of what side you approach this from is WE DONT KNOW. We can say that since the Bible only describes our planet, that this is one of a kind. We can SPECULATE, but the fact is that both evolutionists and creationists dont know.

    • #107333
      aptitude
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      Cat:
      Your theory on God is a misconception. God and evolution do not mix, and God did not create the earth or any part of the universe to let it evolve. He created it all. Period.

      Do you have direct evidence that "God did not create the earth or any part of the universe to let it evolve. He created it all. Period."?

      quote Tomn:

      quote Cat:

      God did not mean to create a person capable of complex thinking. Original “people” were a lot more like animals until one of them (Adam or Eve?) accidently made it into “employee only” section and drank (ate?) potion that activated/introduced genes for brain development (the famous apple of knowledge).

      We are not God’s social experiment. God created us to love and worship Him, and for Him to love us and enjoy his creation, and for us to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and enjoy creation (where snakes did not bite, and birds did not flee).

      God’s lifespan is infinite, as is ours. We are a spirit bound in a body. Our spirit lives on after our body to go to either heaven or hell. God is a spirit. He lives on into eternity.

      We were never like animals. We were created in His image and likeness, where we have a free will, will power, curiosity, personality, etc.

      Same question, any direct evidence?

      quote Tomn:

      quote Cat:

      From time to time God or those of his/her race come to earth to pick up a few people, animals, plants and check progress of the experiment (UFOs/aliens). Sometimes he/she saved some of those subjects from being exterminated by others (see manna machine – http://www.thepansophical.com/node/117) .

      God and aliens do not go together. It has been SPECULATED, not shown or proven or observed, that there is extraterrestrial life. It has been CONJECTURED that since there are millions upon millions of stars, one is bound to contain a planet like out own. I can also CONJECTURE that there might be another planet with humans because God specified that he created this planet, but how do we know that he did not create another like our own? The answer to this, regardless of what side you approach this from is WE DONT KNOW. We can say that since the Bible only describes our planet, that this is one of a kind. We can SPECULATE, but the fact is that both evolutionists and creationists dont know.

      http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c012.html
      Do you agree?

    • #107335
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      It has been SPECULATED, not shown or proven or observed, that there is extraterrestrial life.

      LOL, strong words from someone who blindly believes there is some God without any proof!

      quote Tomn:

      We can say that since the Bible only describes our planet, that this is one of a kind.

      You’re right, since Bible says there is only one Earth-like planet, we should believe that, stop the space research and cut-off budgets of space researchers.

    • #107336
      JackBean
      Participant

      Tomn: why don’t you comment the posts of canalon and biohazard? Now you ignore the "facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence"?

    • #107337
      Gavin
      Participant

      We humans are here largely due to our ability to reason. Like most complex traits, the ability to reason is normally distributed within the population. Most scientists lie to the right of the mean on that curve. Religious people tend to lie to the left. We can easily excuse these people. It’s the ones who can but don’t reason that we cannot excuse. Many people come to these forums not to learn or discuss but only to annoy us with their unreasoned opinions. Because they are unreasoned, these opinions are not worth a response. Since their goal is to annoy, they succeed when we respond.

    • #107659
      Tomn
      Participant

      1)My goal is to annoy?

      Bro, if I wanted to annoy you, I would have given you some immature nickname or something. If its anyone who wants to annoy, it is you Gavin. Who is the one who tries to insult my intelligence instead of debating the facts? Whos the one who tried to get out of saying you were insulting me by distinguishing between stupidity and ignorance?

      You, Gavin.

      Readers: want to know what Im talking about? Check out what Gavin said to me in Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution, beginning page 2. about22923-12.html

      2)Want to see if I can reason?

      Post a thread with your "evidence". My offer still stands.

    • #107661
      Gavin
      Participant

      Debating with ignorant and closed minded creationists is futile. Your facts are nonsense to educated people.

      Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY. (Part 1 of 37, and counting)

    • #107690
      Tomn
      Participant

      I would appreciate if debate could return to this thread. Does ANYONE want to debate facts here?

    • #107695
      Gavin
      Participant

      As I and others have said, debate with ignorant people is futile and not worth our time.

    • #107696
      Tomn
      Participant

      Go eat pie.

      Why are you even here then? If its pointless to debate, you should just get out.

      Leave.

      You dont belong in a forum designed for debate.

    • #107699
      aptitude
      Participant

      This is not a "forum designed for debate". The slogan of the forum is "Answers to all your Biology Questions".

    • #107702
      Gavin
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      Why are you even here then?

      My functions are to help people who seek answers to questions abouy evolution and to be an antibiotic against infections. I like pie. Apple pie especially.

    • #107703
      Tomn
      Participant

      Something like that I guess.

      And I am questioning evolution.

      If this is the way opposite opinions are recieved: religious filibusters, insults, and attempts to shut down the debate, then this is some shame of a forum. Or at least, some shame of the people who debate here.

    • #107707
      Gavin
      Participant

      It’s a science forum.

    • #107709
      Tomn
      Participant

      Go eat pie.

      Evolving but-microbe anyone?

      Wow. What a science forum.

      Opposing views are insulted and told to leave. This isnt science, its intimidation.

      Just keep ignoring the facts.

      Debate the facts or go home.

      Hey. You got that rock anywhere nearby? Etch "common sense" into it, and try to get some in you.

    • #107714
      Gavin
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      Opposing views are insulted and told to leave.

      Stupid views are insulted and told to leave. Most forums have moderators that can block posts from certain users. I suspect, though, that the moderators of this forum are enjoying this entertainment.

    • #107748
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      Evolving but-microbe anyone?

      What is wrong with microbes? They are not alive by your standards? Or just an exception to your rule: mutations DO NOT happen, unless they happen in a microbe, in which case is is ok? God only created E. coli to mutate and evolve, but left other living beings out?

      In Lenski’s experiment you have a nice, controlled experimental setting with a strand of bacteria that have been proven to have mutated and have proven to have acquired new, beneficial traits by mutating. It is a nice example of evolution in action, is it not?

      It works the same way in use "higher" organisms as well, just takes much longer time to be seen due to our longer generation times.

      We are not that special when compared to bacteria.

    • #107786
      Tomn
      Participant

      The evolving but-microbe was a sarcastic joke and has no scientific meaning at all.

      I have already apologized for this.

      If you honestly want a response . . .
      1)God created all things as they are. Although, (and I have already said this) the biblical flood, by raising up to Mt. Everest, almost collapsed the atmosphere and changed the makeup of the atmosphere. This was replicated in the Eden Project, where biomes were constructed on barren hillsides and had O2 levels adjusted to pre-flood. When pythons were put in, their skin turned very dark, vibrant beige and brown as opposed to the dull beige and brown. There were also venom changes. You can look up the Eden Project on you own.

      2)But-microbes? I dont even know if there are microbes in the anal region. However, I do know that there are microbes in the large intestine just before the anal.

      3)I said that "but-microbes" evolve as a joke, not as scientific fact.

      4)Are you honestly going to blow up a joke into a scientific discussion? If so, lead on.

    • #107823
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote Tomn:

      The evolving but-microbe was a sarcastic joke and has no scientific meaning at all.

      I have already apologized for this.

      If you honestly want a response . . .
      1)God created all things as they are. Although, (and I have already said this) the biblical flood, by raising up to Mt. Everest, almost collapsed the atmosphere and changed the makeup of the atmosphere. This was replicated in the Eden Project, where biomes were constructed on barren hillsides and had O2 levels adjusted to pre-flood. When pythons were put in, their skin turned very dark, vibrant beige and brown as opposed to the dull beige and brown. There were also venom changes. You can look up the Eden Project on you own.

      2)But-microbes? I dont even know if there are microbes in the anal region. However, I do know that there are microbes in the large intestine just before the anal.

      3)I said that “but-microbes” evolve as a joke, not as scientific fact.

      4)Are you honestly going to blow up a joke into a scientific discussion? If so, lead on.

      Sorry, I thought that the rear end of a human being is spelled "butt", not "but", hence I thought you were looking for anything "but" a microbe that evolves.

      Still, I am waiting for your response to Lenski’s experiment with E. coli, where one bacterial cell has given rise to millions of other bacterial cells, of which many have undergone mutations (=mutations happen) and some have benefited from the mutation, e.g. by gaining new metabolic pathways to utilize nutrients previously unsuitable for the bacteria or a gene that gave the bacteria resistance to penicillin, among other things (=beneficial mutations happen).

    • #107828
      scottie
      Participant

      Tomm
      You are demonstrating a belief system, albeit a firmly held one.
      You may be able to provide some supporting evidence that, for example shows Mt Everest was once under water and that is fine, but that does not prove your god exists and created everything. You can infer that, from all the evidence you have and display confidence in it but that does not scientifically prove your belief.

      Remember that many people also have total confidence in the bible, but don’t share your particular belief system. That is why the whole of Christendom is divided against itself in it’s belief patterns.

      The evolutionary community is in no better position. They are also divided between themselves. I have repeatedly asked members who have debated with me, to inform which branch of evolutionary theory (and there are a number) they support and I have never received an answer.

      Biohazard is right, mutations happen and change over time does occur. This form of evolution is a fact that cannot be disputed with any evidence. What the evidence does not show however is that this change over time results in new species forming.
      Lenski in his own discussion on the experiment makes tacit acknowledgement of that.

      Unfortunately we have at least one moderator on this forum who behaves like a spoiled adolescent and, as so often happens when such a one is given some power, they invariably misuse it to cut down debate in order to prevent further embarrassment.

    • #107831
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      Correction: the E. coli did not develop penicillin resistance, but instead they had a mutated penicillin-binding protein that increased their fitness in certain conditions. My apologies.

    • #107832
      Crucible
      Participant

      I think it’s regrettable that some of the mods seem to be engaged in attempts to alienate, antagonize, and prod members who they disagree with, into more radical forms of disagreement, seemingly in order to arrive at distinct actionable conflicts.
      One does not even identify himself as moderator or staff

      It’s a poor show. Staff should be clearly identified, be welcoming, and should not be intent on creating actionable situations.

    • #107834
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote scottie:

      Unfortunately we have at least one moderator on this forum who behaves like a spoiled adolescent and, as so often happens when such a one is given some power, they invariably misuse it to cut down debate in order to prevent further embarrassment.

      I asked you at least tree times to respond. You didn’t, so why should we bother with further "discussion"? If you have problem with that, I have boss too and you can contact her.

    • #107836
      Crucible
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      quote scottie:

      Unfortunately we have at least one moderator on this forum who behaves like a spoiled adolescent and, as so often happens when such a one is given some power, they invariably misuse it to cut down debate in order to prevent further embarrassment.

      I asked you at least tree times to respond. You didn’t, so why should we bother with further “discussion”? If you have problem with that, I have boss too and you can contact her.

    • #107837
      JackBean
      Participant

      did I respond to you? Maybe try to read whole post (including quote) next time.

    • #107838
      JackBean
      Participant

      since you deleted the reaction, I guess I can delete whole post, so that you are not embarrassed, right?

    • #107839
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote Crucible:

      One does not even identify himself as moderator or staff

      so, now I’m "one"? The one-whose-name-should-not-be-written 😆
      What would that change? Would you act nicer in front of me, not arguing with me?

    • #107841
      Crucible
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      since you deleted the reaction, I guess I can delete whole post, so that you are not embarrassed, right?

      No need to delete. I misread. I asked what you were talking about. I immediately deleted that. So what ? I made a mistake. No need to delete, Jack. You can now claim that you caught me making a mistake.

    • #107842
      Crucible
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      quote Crucible:

      One does not even identify himself as moderator or staff

      so, now I’m “one”? The one-whose-name-should-not-be-written 😆
      What would that change? Would you act nicer in front of me, not arguing with me?

      Surely, being a hidden mod encourages the member to respond as if being attacked by a mere "member", and not as he might if he were being attacked or prodded by a member clearly identified as staff.

    • #107845
      Crucible
      Participant

      Maybe a little sign saying "Moderator in training – keep a safe distance" ?
      That’s a joke. However, it is disturbing ( to me) that mods both engage in aggressive behaviour and then take any moderator action.

      It’s bad enough that staff would be insulting to any members , "right out of the box".

      What we have then is a fighting referee, who cannot ever lose. Add the "unmarked" status, and it’s something that could be improved upon.

    • #107846
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote Crucible:

      quote JackBean:

      since you deleted the reaction, I guess I can delete whole post, so that you are not embarrassed, right?

      No need to delete. I misread. I asked what you were talking about. I immediately deleted that. So what ? I made a mistake. No need to delete, Jack. You can now claim that you caught me making a mistake.

      I don’t need that. That’s yours (plural) way.

      Did I ban someone because he was arguing with me? Did I ban you, because you’re giving me pain with the saltiness? Did I ban scottie because he refused to respond? No. No. No. I have warned him 3-times, so he cannot complain he didn’t know.

      If two years are training for you… I wouldn’t want to be your employer.

      Anyway, I have contacted honee_v to have a look around so I will (try to) be silent until she tells me her opinion.

    • #107849
      Crucible
      Participant

      It’s not that this is a poor forum, by any means. It needs a bit of attention to some details.

      It’s not great, IMO, to have activism/zealotry showing from staff. It does a disservice.

    • #107935
      scottie
      Participant

      I messaged honey_v as recommended.
      I have not been granted the courtesy of even an acknowledgement let alone a response.
      ——————————————————————————————————————

      quote :

      Complaint about a moderators behavior
      Sent: Sun Nov 06, 2011 4:10 pm
      From: scottie
      To: honee_v scottie

      Dear Vicki Mozo,
      May I draw your attention once again to the behavior of one of the moderators jackbean.

      He has referred me to you.

      He has locked the thread “ Theories – Origin of Life” once again, his reason this time is that I have not answered his questions.

      I have repeatedly attempted to answer all questions posed to me, he just does not acknowledge the answers.

      I have done nothing but post science on this forum. The papers I have referred to have all been from the scientific establishment. The majority peer reviewed.

      My complaint is that he is deliberately shutting down debate that he is unable to cope with scientifically.

      Would you kindly inform me, if dissent from a moderators view is not acceptable on this forum as that appears to be the approach that this moderator is taking.

      My thanks in advance for your investigation into this.

      Sincerely

      scottie

    • #107938
      JackBean
      Participant

      1) I didn’t lock the thread again
      2) you didn’t respond, where did the humans come from and some others questions, you have just ignored them
      (interestingly, when you had a response for question, you didn’t bother to respond again, but when you have none, I did not acknowledge the answer)

    • #107947
      scottie
      Participant
      quote :

      1) I didn’t lock the thread again

      You as usaul need to get your facts straight. Below are your own words.

      quote :

      by JackBean » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:07 pm

      Too bad, I was hoping this will fall away into the past, but you are obviously too bored, aren’t you?

      You’re permanently insulting your oponents for lack of biology knowledge and bad English. I was sarcastic to you because of your lack of simple logic, little bit of imagination, comprehention of your oponent’s arguments and overall lack of ability to discuss.
      Yeah, I have locked the topic. If you have problem with that, forward it upwards (the nick of moderator is honee_v).

      Not only that but my username and password became unrecognisable to the forum until I complained and then suddenly I had access again.

      Now your second point

      quote :

      you didn’t respond, where did the humans come from

      What is it about the meaning of the word design that you don’t understand.
      I have spent about 130 posts arguing that and it hasn’t dawned on you yet?

      Am I expected to answer every silly question of yours. Is this part of the forum rules?

    • #107952
      canalon
      Participant

      Scottie:

      The keyword above would have been again. After the thread was unlocked by another mod, Jackbean did not try to supersede that decision.
      Your logging problem was a forum glitch that lasted a day and kept me away too for no reason, but did not affect all users. Not a ban, if that was the case you would have been notified that you had been banned and why, or anything targeted at you. S**t happens.
      As for your behaviour, you have been asked multiple times direct questions to clarify some of your positions that you have completely ignored. And you have just posted you logorrheic tripe over and over again. You are not here to discuss or debate, just to lecture and enjoy the pleasure of reading yourself. And yet all your posts are still there, and your members privileges have never been discussed, just one thread that was going nowhere has been temporarily closed. Cry me a river, but you can take your persecution complex and shove it where the sun never shines, nobody ever persecuted you. But maybe one day you will find that after all, the patience of the mods do have some limits. Not that your loss by ban or by your own volition, considering your activity in other threads, would create a massive loss for the community, eh?

    • #107957
      JackBean
      Participant

      As canalon said, the keyword is again. That’s why is it bold. You should know that, since you like to put everything important in bold. I don’t know, whether the thread has been locked before, I don’t remember anything like that, but I have locked it once and I take for that full responsibility, but do not try to put on me something I haven’t done.

      Well, I’m signed as Mod, I hope you are all happy now. Until now, you would be excused, if you argued with me, since you couldn’t know I’m Mod, but from now on, there is no excuse and if anybody will argue against me no, he will be banned 😉 😆 (just kidding, if someone didn’t get it)

      Yes, you said by design (hups, you put it in bold, didn’t you?). But I asked you specifically, when (hups, bold again), have we been designed?

    • #107983
      scottie
      Participant

      Well well!!

      So when you said you had locked the thread, you were lying, were you?
      Now if that is the case, then you indict yourself with your own words.

      As far as your question as to when life started, no one can answer that.
      Science has not been able to provide any definitive answer.
      What Scientists have attempted to do is to hypothesise when that could have been.

      So asking questions that no one can answer is a fruitless exercise, which of course seems to be your sole aim in this discussion.

      But if you wish to deal with questions that science can answer then have the courage to open up the thread so that I can continue my discussion with Gavin.
      He at least was providing valid scientific posts.

    • #107986
      JackBean
      Participant

      What? are you reading the posts at all? I said I have locked it once. I do not know, whether it has been locked before, I do not remember nothing like that.

      No, I have asked you, when were humans designed? Were they designed about 3 billions years ago or later?

    • #107987
      canalon
      Participant

      Sorry, my fault, I thought I had unlocked the thread, because that was discussed in the moderating team. In fact I did not. I am starting to get old and stressed. Not good.
      Any way, thread unlocked. But be warned that if you are asked more direct questions about some of your assertions, and that you keep avoiding them and refusing discussion, and instead use this as a soap box the mods will not look kindly on your behaviour. Because engaging you on some subjects has been pretty hard. In fact I am still waiting for a logical answer to my question. But not in this thread…

Viewing 63 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.