- Jul 17, 2018
- 3,282
- 676
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You resort to ad hominems, because you can't comprehend what I'm saying.
Upvote
0
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.
You resort to ad hominems, because you can't comprehend what I'm saying.No, your writing is vague, unspecific, and often is not anchored to standard terminology. It is hard to comprehend.
Did I say that no, you have no professionalism just more ad hominemsEverything is in the Universe. "Locked"????
That's a two way street Estrid.In general if a person knows what they are
talking about they can express it clearly.
And they tend not to just toss in inapplicable
cliches
Did I say that no, you have no professionalism just more ad hominems
You can't stop the sarcasm can you. Of coarse you don't get paid you have no couth."Professionalism?" This is a message board. I don't get paid to post here. I tell you I don't understand what you write because I don't. I do know the topic well enough.
Pointing out that your opponent has failed to present any evidence for their position is now denial?Great example of denial mode.
They pay me, yup $2000.00 every month, you should sign up for it!"Professionalism?" This is a message board. I don't get paid to post here. I tell you I don't understand what you write because I don't. I do know the topic well enough.
LQQks like it has been edited."Professionalism?" This is a message board. I don't get paid to post here. I tell you I don't understand what you write because I don't. I do know the topic well enough.
Great example of denial mode.
It really a lot older than I am.What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were. And I'm wondering how wide spread that lack of knowledge about the earth's age is. I don't know if that picture is due to creative editing or actual lack of knowledge.
[Staff Edit]Pointing out that your opponent has failed to present any evidence for their position is now denial?
Call it what you will but you haven't provided the science that you want me to debunk.
I don't know how to argue against something that isn't presented.
You can't stop the sarcasm can you. Of coarse you don't get paid you have no couth.
I don't have the time to go through some other paper.[Staff Edit]
I even provided a link which covered both the theoretical and experimental aspects of the science involved [Staff Edit].
So where is your critique of the link?
Are you so completely and utterly inept?I don't have the time to go through some other paper.
How about you present your ideas and I counter them.
The deal was for you to present the theory.Are you so completely and utterly inept?
This a test of your competence or more precisely the lack of it; if you want make grandiose claims of poking holes in the science then do need to demonstrate the skill level in order to do so.
Perhaps I should take the advice given and not feed the troll.
I'll race youAre you so completely and utterly inept?
This a test of your competence or more precisely the lack of it; if you want make grandiose claims of poking holes in the science then do need to demonstrate the skill level in order to do so.
Perhaps I should take the advice given and not feed the troll.
Look more carefully. It is almost certainly cited.Going over the paper we have the source being a meteorite. (So we impact and atmospheric contamination that I didn't see adressed in the article)
That's what citations are for. The authors report on the things *they* tested and are reporting. The rest, including potentially prior analyses of the same samples, are reported via citation.We have assumed age and cosmic conditions that are not verifiable.
Apparently you have problems with how we write scientific articles. What is uncertain, dependent, etc. is stated as so. We don't pretend that things are more certain or conclusive than they are.There are enough "presumptions" and "considers" and "probablies" to make anyone wonder what good the final report was.
Which one?One paragraph was almost entirely made up of wishy-washy wording.
And you can base this on what experience you possess?So yep... this paper does not look very solid. But solid enough to get peer reviewed and cited.
I never said that either, quote where i said stars are older than the universe. Its apparent your playing word games, that's a bit immature young man.You have some sort of claim about stars being older than the Universe. Would you care to back that up in carefully written sentences?
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?