Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker

Steve Peterson

"Fletis Humplebacker"




No, I feel freed from the burdens of the fundamentalism that has
enslaved your thinking. I can look at both sides of the issues.



You seem to be a living, breathing, evolved example of fundamentalism run
amok. You certainly don't look at both sides of the evolution issue. John
has given you a great deal of reading to do,

As I suspected, most of this went over your head, Steve. I've provided
quotes with links to support my view, which probably also went over your
head.

!

I can throw out any number of books too but the point is that
anything well documented and accepted will have some reference
on the web.

An interesting thesis. It might be true, though I don't think so yet. At
any rate, I'm not as good at finding things on the web as I am at
knowing the scientific literature.

I would imagine that any well established scientific axiom would have
some kind of presence on the web, given all the higher education sites,
especially regarding something as significant as what we have been
discussing.

I've forgotten at this point what specific things you want documented.
Give me some particulars again, and I'll try to find them on the web.

Dipping into each other's bank accounts isn't necessary.

That's what libraries are for, dude. Learn to use them.

We've crossed that bridge before, I don't have the extra time.
Web space is cheap these days, they can post anything significant
for the masses to read. That has the advantage of being updated
and perhaps being responded to elsewhere.

A nice theory. Some day it may be true.

and summarized the information.
I have given you additional information of another type. You just ignore
it if you don't like it, and keep playing one note on the piano.

This coming from you has quite some irony. Rather than spewing your
vitriol why didn't you show me where I was wrong? If you're that right and
I'm that wrong it should be easy enough.

Showing where you were wrong is easy enough. It's showing *you* that's
the trick.

Nice going. But you accused the websites of fraud and responded
with Gould's beef with contemporary experiences 20 or so years ago.
How is that supposed to show anyone anything?

It may not be a response to the particular web sites you referenced. But
it's a response to the same quotes used in the same way. Creationism
doesn't evolve very fast. How is it inapplicable? Isn't he addressing
exactly what your sites did?

You are
stuck in the Cambrian,

Wrong.



but have to make your observations 600 million years
later.

Time traveling isn't within my powers.



I think you are about to lose points for tardiness.

Steve

Let us know if you can come up with something substantive.


I will admit that I don't know what Steve was talking about either.

I don't think he does either.