asyncritus' question time

asyncritus arguments against evolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: asyncritus' question time

#221  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 4:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
hey eshuis, if there wasn't a swallow #1, then swallows existed from all eternity.
Begging the question.
Again try reading a high school biology book and prevent future moronic claims like these.


If you haven't got anything to say, why not try saying it?

asyncritus wrote:But you're just being pathetic or worse.
Since you have failed to refute any of my arguments and furthermore have not even addressed half my questions and challenges, that's rather a rather hypocritical statement and yet another dishonest dismissal. :nono:


You have presented no arguments worthy of the name.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#222  Postby Rumraket » Apr 30, 2012 4:17 pm

Technically, Darwin is simply stating that natural selection itself could be thought of as said "agency". He doesn't even use the word agency itself, and merely describes what natural selection does.
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 9419
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#223  Postby mindhack » Apr 30, 2012 4:21 pm

asyncritus wrote:you were saying?


this:

mindhack wrote:It does indicate just how old the earth and everything around us is. Amazing really. :)


mindhack wrote:Agreed.And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


:banana:
"Greed is out, empathy is in."
- Primatologist Frans de Waal
mindhack
 
Name: Van Amerongen
Posts: 2267
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#224  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:37 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
hey eshuis, if there wasn't a swallow #1, then swallows existed from all eternity.
Begging the question.

Again try reading a high school biology book and prevent future moronic claims like these.


If you haven't got anything to say, why not try saying it?

Again, learn to quote properly.
I am telling you something: that you have do not even understand the basics of the theory of evolution, that your suggestion of the 1st swallow is ridiculously flawed. It's the chicken and the egg story all over again.

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:But you're just being pathetic or worse.

Since you have failed to refute any of my arguments and furthermore have not even addressed half my questions and challenges, that's rather a rather hypocritical statement and yet another dishonest dismissal. :nono:


You have presented no arguments worthy of the name.

Dismissing things out of hand does not whisk them out of reality.
You have to actually show how my arguments aren't arguments.
All you're doing is plugging your ears and going : "does not!".
It's pathetic, dishonest and you can do better. :naughty:
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Apr 30, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#225  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 4:39 pm

asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
mindhack wrote:
It does indicate just how old the earth and everything around us is. Amazing really. :)

The exact quantity of mutations is irrelevant to the question of how they know where to swim.

Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?

1. Darwin founded the theory of evolution he's no longer the prime authority in the field. The theory has improved since then.
2. You apparently have a problem with metaphorical language, 'cause that's what he's using here, metaphors.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#226  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 4:44 pm

Spearthrower. I owe you a debunking, and here it is.

What do you mean 'get into the genome'? What does that actually mean? It's already in the genome, it's the expression of the genome... it's not magically floating around in potential bird space waiting to be alighted on.


Since it was not present in the UCA, then where is it?

You have a population of birds living across an environment from optimal feeding grounds to non-optimal feeding grounds. As seasons change, as climate changes over millenia, these optimal and sub-optimal grounds shift. Birds would have started moving to wherever the food was or died (actually, numerous, probably the majority of species of birds did just that). That's partially genetically influenced, as in the drive to eat etc, but the actual specifics don't need to be encoded into the gene.


Good so far.

There's not a map written in DNA with an alarm clock saying - move north 2 miles on October 3rd, land, eat, then fly 2 miles further.


That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere. So

a. How did it get it wherever it is and
b. What mechanism do you propose for its origin?

Instead, there would have been variation in the population. Some birds would have stayed where they were and eked out a living on sub-optimal grounds and consequently gained adaptive traits that improved their survivability, others would have travelled further and further in search of food.


I don’t think anybody disputes this.

Over the generations, those birds whose genetic traits encouraged this behaviour would be retained, as they'd be passed onto their surviving offspring. Over the generations, these traits would have become more stringent with respect to the changing environment. They tied themselves into a survival strategy, and consequently there would be a strong selection pressure on their ability to traverse the world in this way as it's precisely how they survive.


But I see no explanation of
a. how a specific geographical location 7,800 miles away becomes programmed into the genome and
b. how a specific date becomes programmed in at the same time.

If you said ‘specific season’, I might agree with you, but a specific date? No chance.
The return journey also presents a difficulty. How do the birds acquire the information needed to return, since the geographical and astronomical features are now in reverse order?

And then they pass down the ACQUIRED information to their offspring. Not allowed.

Further, it must be obvious to you that a journey of 7,800 miles poses an enormous threat to their survival. Whether the swallows fly entirely over water is not clear to me, but the godwit flies 7000 miles, and the plover flies 2,800 miles entirely over water, with no stopping points possible.

Therefore those migrations at least were not undertaken bit by bit. There were simply no places to stop.
That means that gradual evolution and natural selection played no part in the production of these behaviours.

So consider your explanation debunked.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#227  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 4:52 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
hey eshuis, if there wasn't a swallow #1, then swallows existed from all eternity.
Begging the question.
Again try reading a high school biology book and prevent future moronic claims like these.

If you haven't got anything to say, why not try saying it?


asyncritus wrote:But you're just being pathetic or worse.
Since you have failed to refute any of my arguments and furthermore have not even addressed half my questions and challenges, that's rather a rather hypocritical statement and yet another dishonest dismissal. :nono:


It must, therefore, exhibit some kinship to your own.

I keep asking your to present your case(s) which will account for

a. The origin of the amphibians from fish, specifically how a fish managed to get out of the water and survive)
b. The bats' echolocation system
c. The swallow migration

and now, to add insult to injury, the migration of the eels.

Have fun, but do try to produce some sort of facts and coherent arguments. If you have nothing to say, please say that.

(If possible, please avoid the 'OHHH-MMMMM mutations and natural selection' reflex mantra. Unless, of course, you can present some facts and maybe fossils(?) to support your miserably undernourished case).
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#228  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 4:54 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
The exact quantity of mutations is irrelevant to the question of how they know where to swim.

Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?

1. Darwin founded the theory of evolution he's no longer the prime authority in the field. The theory has improved since then.
2. You apparently have a problem with metaphorical language, 'cause that's what he's using here, metaphors.


Heh heh heh. This couldn't be a cop out, could it? Hmmm. Quite possibly...
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#229  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 4:57 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
hey eshuis, if there wasn't a swallow #1, then swallows existed from all eternity.
Begging the question.

Again try reading a high school biology book and prevent future moronic claims like these.


If you haven't got anything to say, why not try saying it?

Again, learn to quote properly.
I am telling you something: that you have do not even understand the basics of the theory of evolution, that your suggestion of the 1st swallow is ridiculously flawed. It's the chicken and the egg story all over again.

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:But you're just being pathetic or worse.

Since you have failed to refute any of my arguments and furthermore have not even addressed half my questions and challenges, that's rather a rather hypocritical statement and yet another dishonest dismissal. :nono:


You have presented no arguments worthy of the name.

Dismissing things out of hand does not whisk them out of reality.
You have to actually show how my arguments aren't arguments.
All you're doing is plugging your ears and going : "does not!".
It's pathetic, dishonest and you can do better. :naughty:


I've shown that you have not made any 'arguments'. I've repeated my demands for you to present your case, in my previous post.
Spearthrower has made a valiant effort, and I commend him for it.

You now have another first class opportunity to cop out, evade or otherwise slither away. Which one are you going to use this time?

We wait with bated breath.
Last edited by asyncritus on Apr 30, 2012 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#230  Postby Shrunk » Apr 30, 2012 4:59 pm

asyncritus wrote: That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd.


This is not actually true. You need to deal with facts, and not myths and folklore. That's how science works.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19412
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#231  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 5:02 pm

Onyx8 wrote:Why don't you answer what you have already been asked instead of bringing up yet something else you don't understand?


With reference to the eels, Onyx, if I were an evolutionist, your comment would be fully justified = I wouldn't have a clue as to how this behaviour could possibly have evolved.

But I do know. They were created that way.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#232  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 5:04 pm

Shrunk wrote:
asyncritus wrote: That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd.


This is not actually true. You need to deal with facts, and not myths and folklore. That's how science works.


What are you talking about? Time actually has newsreel footage of this happening. The facts about the godwit and the golden plover are in every textbook about bird migration. Go have a look and stop bleating foolishly.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#233  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:06 pm

asyncritus wrote:Spearthrower. I owe you a debunking, and here it is.

What do you mean 'get into the genome'? What does that actually mean? It's already in the genome, it's the expression of the genome... it's not magically floating around in potential bird space waiting to be alighted on.


Since it was not present in the UCA, then where is it?

Why do you have such trouble quoting properly? And no, this isn't a trivial point, it's rather hard to quote your posts if they aren't using proper quotation themselves. This is not debunking, this is posing arguments from personal incredulity in the form of questions.

asyncritus wrote:
There's not a map written in DNA with an alarm clock saying - move north 2 miles on October 3rd, land, eat, then fly 2 miles further.


That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts.

How? How is it not consistent with the facts, once again you are making baseless assertions.
asyncritus wrote:Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd. They must, therefore, have a GPS and a calendar built in somewhere.

That's a non-sequitur and therefore once again begging the question.


asyncritus wrote:
Instead, there would have been variation in the population. Some birds would have stayed where they were and eked out a living on sub-optimal grounds and consequently gained adaptive traits that improved their survivability, others would have travelled further and further in search of food.


I don’t think anybody disputes this.

Then why quote it?

asyncritus wrote:
Over the generations, those birds whose genetic traits encouraged this behaviour would be retained, as they'd be passed onto their surviving offspring. Over the generations, these traits would have become more stringent with respect to the changing environment. They tied themselves into a survival strategy, and consequently there would be a strong selection pressure on their ability to traverse the world in this way as it's precisely how they survive.


But I see no explanation of
a. how a specific geographical location 7,800 miles away becomes programmed into the genome and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_migration#Orientation_and_navigation
Notice especially the chapter called orientation and navigation.

asyncritus wrote:b. how a specific date becomes programmed in at the same time.

You really can't understand that a combination of changing temperatures and the reproduction cycle incite the animals to migrate?

asyncritus wrote:If you said ‘specific season’, I might agree with you, but a specific date? No chance.

Since you have failed to support this with either a sound logical argument or verifiable evidence, this is still an argument from personal incredulity and still as illogical and pathetic as when you first brought it up.

asyncritus wrote:The return journey also presents a difficulty. How do the birds acquire the information needed to return, since the geographical and astronomical features are now in reverse order?

More arguments from incredulity poorly hid as questions.

asyncritus wrote:And then they pass down the ACQUIRED information to their offspring. Not allowed.

Why? Because you don't like it? Really dismissing things out of hand like this is futile it only shows you aren't interested in the explanations only in confirming your limited view of the world.

asyncritus wrote:Further, it must be obvious to you that a journey of 7,800 miles poses an enormous threat to their survival.

Not as much as staying in their original position or in the area in between.

asyncritus wrote:Whether the swallows fly entirely over water is not clear to me, but the godwit flies 7000 miles, and the plover flies 2,800 miles entirely over water, with no stopping points possible.

And? This only increases their chances of survival as the only dangers are other birds or planes.

asyncritus wrote:Therefore those migrations at least were not undertaken bit by bit.There were simply no places to stop.

I fail to see how this is a problem.

asyncritus wrote:That means that gradual evolution and natural selection played no part in the production of these behaviours.

Non-sequitur, the time part of natural selection and evolution refers to changes within species, not the time it takes for animals to migrate.

You haven't debunked anything, all you have posted are baseless assertions, arguments of incredulity and gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory.
It won't fly, no matter how many times you repeat your dislike or ignorance on the subject, unless you can present actual sound arguments and/or verifiable evidence all you have is personal incredulity. Which is neither logical nor smart. :nono:

asyncritus wrote:So consider your explanation debunked.

:rofl: :rofl2: :rofl: :rofl2:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#234  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:14 pm

asyncritus wrote:
It must, therefore, exhibit some kinship to your own.

What must? What 'it' are you referring to?

asyncritus wrote:I keep asking your to present your case(s) which will account for

a. The origin of the amphibians from fish, specifically how a fish managed to get out of the water and survive)
b. The bats' echolocation system
c. The swallow migration

And I keep telling you that:
A. Your personal ignorance on how these things work isn't a logical argument in any way.
B. You have failed to address any of the questions and challenges I posed to you, so I do not see why I should address yours.
C. The explanations have been given several times already, at which time you either ignored them or dismissed them out of hand, leading me to conclude it's no use to present them again as you'll probably display the same dishonest behaviour again.

asyncritus wrote:and now, to add insult to injury, the migration of the eels.

No what adds insult to injury is that you continue to ignore questions and challenges posed to you and regurgitate the same incredulity argument again and again.

asyncritus wrote:Have fun, but do try to produce some sort of facts and coherent arguments. If you have nothing to say, please say that.

Pot calling the kettle black much?
You have not presented even a single fact that refutes or debunks evolution.
Nor have you presented any coherent arguments at all, only fallacy upon fallacy upon baseless assertion.

asyncritus wrote:(If possible, please avoid the 'OHHH-MMMMM mutations and natural selection' reflex mantra.

You do not get to dictate how I address your questions.
asyncritus wrote:Unless, of course, you can present some facts and maybe fossils(?) to support your miserably undernourished case).

I have already presented you with a list of observed instances of speciation, which you still haven't addressed. :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#235  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:18 pm

asyncritus wrote:
I've shown that you have not made any 'arguments'.

Because I do not have to make any arguments, I only have to show the abundance of flaws and fallacies in yours.
Fallacious arguments do not need to be argued against, just shown to be illogical or counter-factual.

asyncritus wrote:I've repeated my demands for you to present your case, in my previous post.

And again until you start addressing the arguments I made earlier in the thread, as well as several questions and challenges I see no need to honour your request. Especially not since the case has already been made by others and the theory of evolution does not fall on my inability to explain to migration habits of specific species.

asyncritus wrote:You now have another first class opportunity to cop out, evade or otherwise slither away. Which one are you going to use this time?

Says the pot to the kettle.

asyncritus wrote:We wait with bated breath.

Don't presume to speak for other forum members it makes you look even more a fool than your continued refusal to address explanations and regurgitation of fallacious arguments.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#236  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:19 pm

asyncritus wrote:But I do know. They were created that way.

This is a claim, you have to present evidence for it otherwise this yet another baseless assertion. :coffee:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#237  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:20 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
mindhack wrote:
Agreed.

And what the heck is nsync implying with 'natural selections' (plural)?

As if an agency is working full time making natural selections? :lol:


Darwin:
t may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .selection

You were saying?

1. Darwin founded the theory of evolution he's no longer the prime authority in the field. The theory has improved since then.
2. You apparently have a problem with metaphorical language, 'cause that's what he's using here, metaphors.


Heh heh heh. This couldn't be a cop out, could it? Hmmm. Quite possibly...

Nope, it's an explanation of the flaws in your comment. Namely an appeal to authority and a (possibly unintentional) failure to understand metaphors.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#238  Postby Shrunk » Apr 30, 2012 5:22 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
asyncritus wrote: That’s curious, and not consistent with the facts. Let me remind you that the swallows arrive at the specific location in Capistrano on the 18th March precisely, every year, and leave on Oct 23rd.


This is not actually true. You need to deal with facts, and not myths and folklore. That's how science works.


What are you talking about? Time actually has newsreel footage of this happening. The facts about the godwit and the golden plover are in every textbook about bird migration. Go have a look and stop bleating foolishly.


"Time actually has newsreel footage of this happening"? :lol: And I'm the one bleating foolishly?

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, Calif.—Legend has it that migrating swallows once darkened the skies on arrival each spring at Mission San Juan Capistrano.

For decades, however, cliff swallows building mud nests under the mission eaves have dwindled, disappointing visitors who attend festivities celebrating the birds' traditional arrival date, St. Joseph's Day on March 19.

The Orange County Register ( http://bit.ly/HMMmF8) says the mission is now playing recorded swallow courtship songs four hours a day on weekdays to lure them back.

University of Tulsa biology professor Charles Brown says using bird calls to attract them is backed by research.

There aren't any nests yet, but mission development director Barb Beier says there were a few swallows flying overhead on Monday.


http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... capistrano

You might want to click on the link to the story, and check its date....
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19412
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#239  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 30, 2012 5:24 pm

asyncritus wrote:Go have a look and stop bleating foolishly.

Ouch, the irony.... :lol:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14581
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#240  Postby asyncritus » Apr 30, 2012 5:25 pm

Eshuis

Do forgive me for ignoring your future posts unless and until you respond to my demands. If you had a case, that wouldn't be too difficult, but since you don't, I can see the difficulties you're experiencing.

You are tedious, boring, repetitive, and pedantic..

So please carry on with my assurance that I shall not reply unless and until you answer the handful of points mentioned above.

Happy Christmas.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest