Atheistoclast wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:He didn't mention a PhD when he wrote the letter;his name doesn't have qualifications attached. I think the "Dr" reference is very much a default thing to use in journal correspondence, I've had a chuckle sometimes when journal staff have insisted on calling me "Dr".

I identified myself as "Mr." when I submitted the article.

But I consider myself on a par with any "Dr."

Yeah I've played that game too. I was an expert in gynecology.

Atheistoclast wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:He didn't mention a PhD when he wrote the letter;his name doesn't have qualifications attached. I think the "Dr" reference is very much a default thing to use in journal correspondence, I've had a chuckle sometimes when journal staff have insisted on calling me "Dr".

I identified myself as "Mr." when I submitted the article.

But I consider myself on a par with any "Dr."

Btw, you didn't actually post my letter, only the response.

Of course you do dear.

Atheistoclast wrote:

GenesForLife wrote:He didn't mention a PhD when he wrote the letter;his name doesn't have qualifications attached. I think the "Dr" reference is very much a default thing to use in journal correspondence, I've had a chuckle sometimes when journal staff have insisted on calling me "Dr".

I identified myself as "Mr." when I submitted the article.

But I consider myself on a par with any "Dr."

Btw, you didn't actually post my letter, only the response.

I never claimed that I posted the letter. Why don't you post it?

Atheistoclast wrote:
But I consider myself on a par with any "Dr."

Yeah I'll bet you do, and your favourite writer Darwin had something to say about that, eh?

Spearthrower wrote:
Ahh it's good that you did so GfL, as Atheistoclast seems to have been coy about the content even while proud about the fact. Interesting.

Does he get a cut if anyone is dumb enough to pay to see it perhaps?

Hey Atheistoclast, you can't do that to me! You helped Rumraket by making him right in this thread:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... 13-60.html

where I wrote:

bert wrote:Not so harsh Shrunk, I don't rule out that Atheistoclast is starting to realise that god did provide too many facts to ignore that he used evolution instead of creation. He knows that god isn't whispering in his ear, and that if he hears voices in his head, he should visit a doctor to get some prescription drugs. I genuinely empathize with someone who has been told never ever to question a particular thing (i.e. the bible). So, it is only fair to give him some time on his own to come to terms with it. There are several former creationists on this forum, if I'm correct, and it took them quite a while to come to terms with that.

Bert
2012 The year that Rod Carty and Robert Byers will have to face Atheistoclast. I'm looking forward to it, because Atheistoclast is not stupid. Imagine what he can do with a set of proper facts.

and Rumraket said you wouldn't.

Now, in response to your letter the scientists explained why you're mistaken but that you're right in that the science is incomplete (fortunately, otherwise scientists would lose the jobs ). But tell me, do you really think that if you'll get your information theory together it will be in contradiction with the mountain of evidence available (tree rings, DNA, limnological layers, ice layers, radiological measurements, fossil lineage etc. etc). Lots of that evidence is merely based on counting. That is not exactly error-prone. Do you really think for a minute each and every line of evidence contains an error and that all these errors are the same in that they all point to old earth evolution and to the same extent? So, why are you so convinced that you're right? What is holding you back to change your mind? Just the fact that you don't like changing your mind (some people believe that is a bad thing)? Fess up!

Bert
Who once came across a website on why smart people stubbornly do stupid things but forgot to bookmark it.