rationalskepticism.org

DavidMcC wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Sorry, I didn't realise that you were unaware of the history of this subject.

Ah, so it's to be another thread where you make a shit-tonne of unsupported assertions and then try to deflect responsibility for rational discourse onto others. ....

No, it's one where you show your ignorance of the history of the subject.

EDIT: You probably never saw the evolutionary charts on the WWW, showing the ostracoderms as a "dead end" group, leaving no decendants. However, it is possible that such information has been removed from the web. Therefore, you will, no doubt, claim that such charts never existed, right?

The internet doesn't work that way. I suppose if you were to learn to make more facile use of it, you might know that. If information concerning ostracoderms has been removed from the web, including from academic websites, what would this tell us about how likely that information is to be consistent with a current understanding of ostracoderms? It seems to me that if academic websites stop making a claim, it has probably been shown to be incorrect. If so, that would demonstrate that it is you who is ignorant of the subject, if not the history of the subject, because rather than desiring to continue learning, like a scientist does, you have decided instead to rest upon your out-dated laurels.

I have no idea whether this is the case. It is your claim to support and I have thus not made the effort. Do your own fucking homework.