I am sure you must be pleased with all the recognition you are getting.

John

No proof at all then?

Clasty, take these words seriously:

You are an arrogant prick. Nothing you have done has made any kind of impact on acadamia. Nothing you write ever will. Your sense of logic is beyond irreparable, you deny facts as if they were mere opinions, you mis-state or simply lie about anything and everything you can get your grimy hands on to prove your failing point.

Those of us with proper knowledge of science won't fall for it, and neither will the professionals you intend to slander.

Nobody gives half a rat's ass as to your laughable literary exploits. That's because they are bubbles on an ocean of real science, and burst with even the slightest bit of realistic assessment. Your ludicrous ego is both unjustified and, to be completely honest, kind of funny. Like a mouse running at a blue whale's tank with a needle for a sword.

"I shall slay you, beast!" he cries to one so large, without knowledge of glass or size difference. He thinks he looks so big to those observing, but they only laugh.

Knock off the "better than thou" attitude without anything at all to back it up.

Atheistoclast wrote:I am trying to get an explosive fifth published soon. It was accepted several months ago, but there seems to be a delay.

I regard it as nothing short of an atomic bomb that can blow Darwinism apart.

You are "Dr." Garvan Ellison. I claim the prize!

Earlier I bookmarked this thread to keep an eye on any debate that arose, as a lay observer.

After this I will unsubscribe because there is not any argument, only delusions. falconjudge gave the most recent of the accurate summaries, among many.

I don't normally lurk in these parts but having read the story so far I can't believe that Atheistoclast is is doing anything other than winding you guys up. Maybe you know something about him that I don't.

Simpleton Foundation gives money to Ebola School of Apologetics?

In an equally ground-breaking development, gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

More on this after a message from our sponsors...