Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But science does investigates historical facts and the testimony of witnesses. The same is true about criminal court cases.
Probably from a video by him as well as opposed to an independent source.You probably have not. You may have seen him debate a scientist, I doubt if you saw him win.
Link? I tried look ...
The list was typewritten, and I did not save it. Now I wish I had kept it. But I know this professor, and I may try to contact him.
And since you cannot supply this supposed list it is worthless.
It is not worthless, because I had the list in my possession, and so did the large number of individuals who listened to his presentation at the Loma Linda University.
Can't you treat it like you do evolution and play connect-the-dots?Evidence you can't produce is kinda worthless. There's really nothing to argue until we can actually see the list.
Calling what is done in evolution "connect the dots" shows that you have no idea how the evidence supports evolution.Can't you treat it like you do evolution and play connect-the-dots?
What if you met Joe on the street and told him AV1611VET believes in Embedded Age Creation, and Joe said your point is worthless, unless you can produce a hardcopy?
Joe would be wrong, wouldn't he?
In evolution:Calling what is done in evolution "connect the dots" shows that you have no idea how the evidence supports evolution.
Nope, try again.In evolution:
DOT + missing links + DOT = DOT _______________ DOT
You didn't answer my question. Would you go to a geochemist for a medical check up? If not, then why accept information from a medical doctor who is purposely trying to discredit a scientific discipline for which he is not trained. Frankly, I would be happy to debate Kr. Pitman face to face in public. I would also like to do this with no notes or reference material. You either know the material or you don't.I have seen Dr. Sean Pitman debate a well trained scientist and win.
That is only because you purposefully keep yourself amazingly ignorant. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you here.Looks like connect-the-dots to me:
Looks like real species that share real features.
That is only because you purposefully keep yourself amazingly ignorant. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you here.
No, that is an improper use of that term.We call that ontological reduction.
But as usual you are wrong. The only blindness is yours as has been demonstrated time and time again.Until I do ... this looks like connect-the-dots.
And even after I do, I can't see how anyone can't see connect-the-dots in that picture.
So I might be amazing ignorant to some, but they are amazingly blind to me.
No, that is an improper use of that term.
We call that ontological reduction.
Suit yourself.But as usual you are wrong. The only blindness is yours as has been demonstrated time and time again.
It would help you immensely if you could understand the nature of evidence. You use terms that you do not understand as a means to try to make you look as if you might understand what you are talking about. Sadly you don't.
Nope, you are still mistaken. Perhaps you should use simple terms since the complex ones are beyond you.It works for me.
It allows me to explain how things can have the same parts yet not be connected.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?