Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

[BobRyan]

.

So that is your argument? That since you are quoting a different part of the paragraph than Sunderland that you are off the hook.

Wrong - again.

READ the actual Talk Origins post I gave there -- why HIDE over here cowering from your OWN selected topic on Patterson???

HINT: These Talk Origins guys are YOUR GUYS debunking your own bogus fly-by slander!

How can you possibly ignore EVERYONE even on your OWN selected test case???!!

Bob on that Patterson thread -- latest post -

Has it occurred to everyone else that this argument is too complex for UTEOTW?

But if we grant him that frailty - one has to wonder why UTEOTW selected this line of reasoning in the first place - if mastering it is so far beyond him?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=819956&postcount=45

UTEOTW said -
I guess that this means that you expect us to believe that Patterson contradicted himself in the same paragraph and yet chooses to use the two parts to support what he meant in each.

Wrong "again" in your fact-intolerant practice you fail to even comprehend Patterson's argument and now you have simply "told yourself stories" to the point where you seem to have lost the entire point of his post!

How sad!

Why not AT LEAST read your own Talk Origins source just posted there as IT shows the real context for the letter AND the offending quote??

Why are you so afraid of your own arguments??

Why be so married to non-truths and story telling?

You have yet to even report the Talk Origin post with integrity.

You should AT LEAST be able to make the "Accusation against Christians" in a way that shows you have an ounce of integrity in attacking us!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Has it occurred to everyone else that this argument is too complex for UTEOTW?

On the contrary it is quite simple.

Patterson was asked about a passage from a letter he had written that was being quoted by SUnderland.

Patterson said thatthe interpretation of Sunderland was "wrong."

You are quoting from the same passage and giving the same interpretation. But you expect us to believe that Patterson would contradict himself in the course of a single paragraph.

Furthermore, you expect us to think that he would then use the two seperate halves of that said paragraph to later support his assertions about what he meant in each in some sort of deceitful way, knowing that he intended to two halves to mean the opposite thing.

Wrong "again" in your fact-intolerant practice you fail to even comprehend Patterson's argument and now you have simply "told yourself stories" to the point where you seem to have lost the entire point of his post!

Nope.

It is pretty clear.

Patterson addressed the passage and told us that your inteerpretation is "wrong."

You have given us no indication that Patterson's intent in the second half of the paragraph was to undermine and contradict what he said in the first half which is what would be necessary here. Instead he uses it as support.

 

[BobRyan]

It is obvious from the Patterson thread that Patterson NEVER complains about the segment that I quoted rather EVEN In your OWN quote we SEE him ENDORSING it. The part being COMPLAINED about is CLEARLY identified by the Talk Origins quote - YOUR OWN GUYS -- but as usual your fact-intolerant gloss-over as corrupted even your OWN selected test case.

No wonder you have run away from that thread and will not go back to show you have an ounce of integrity while making your baseless, factless, debunked, shallow claims against Christians.

I don't NEED to show Patterson engaing in your fact-intolerant methods because ONLY YOU do it! EVEN Patterson is more well reasoned and fact tolerant than you and you are totally exposed on this one UTEOTW.

How do you keep from being embarrased by that thread?!!

Quote:
Bob on that Patterson thread -- latest post -

Has it occurred to everyone else that this argument is too complex for UTEOTW?

But if we grant him that frailty - one has to wonder why UTEOTW selected this line of reasoning in the first place - if mastering it is so far beyond him?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=45

 

[BobRyan]

The AUTHOR who is ASKING Patterson the question IS WRITING in the Talk Origins quote -- but the DETAILS in what HE SAYS (as I posted them on the thread) SHOW just how vaccuous, slanderous, baseless, factless, misleading, shallow and transparent UTEOTW's methods ARE!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=45

Those last few pages speak VOLUMES about UTEOTW's exposed, debunked and discredited methods.

I have recieved several direct posts admitting to the fact that this is incredibly obvious to all on this board. A child could see this!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Still no answer on the banded iron? I'd avoid thatlike the plague if I were you too.

Moving on...

You miss the salient point of Patterson's reply in the letter.

You remember that Sunderland had quoted part of a paragraph that Patterson had written in a letter.

When asked if the quote was being presented correctly, Patterson replied by saying that he thinks that the meaning is clear if you complete the paragraph.

THis is the part that you quote.

After quoting that bit, Patterson feels sure that the reader will understand what was meant by the passage.

He feels sure enough that he calls the "creationist interpretation" "wrong."

Since you are quoting the part that Patterson himself ssays shows that the creationist postion on the passage is "wrong," you are also "wrong."

Now it may be that you do not think that it is so clear cut. Patterson could be a poor writer.

But Patterson himself tells us that the part that you are quoting shows, to him, the creationists interpretation of the passage to be "wrong."

That is the salient point that you gloss over.

Patterson has declared you "wrong." Period. End of story.

Move on because I am going to avoid addressing this subject. It wastes too much time trying to get through your delusions. And I don't care how many threads you bump and taunt me. Taunting like you have been doing for the last couple of weeks is for 5 year old children, not adults.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Since you are quoting the part that Patterson himself ssays shows that the creationist postion on the passage is "wrong," you are also "wrong."

Your revisionism seems to have "no end". Why no stay with the facts instead of making stuff up in your every post?

I show your duplicity and your fear of the facts on the thread devoted to your own test case - the thread you keep running away from.

You failed on that thread to SHOW ME quoting the "unnapproved" quote that IS LISTED there by Talk origins.

You failed to show ME making the argument that the dirty rotten Christians were "supposedly making" from that "unquoted-quote" that you also never showed.

The bottom line UTEOTW is that you have failed miserably and a wide number of rabbit trails of your OWN creating - rabbit trails that you now run and hide from as we see from you post above - where AGAIN you do not go to the thread in question and DEAL with actual fact.

The raises a very important question about your practice and integrity on this board. IF you can not be trusted to deal faithfully with YOUR OWN selected test cases and rabbit trails -- when the variables are few and all the facts clearly seen on the thread -- HOW IN THE WORLD could anyone rationally expect to have a discussion with you in areas where facts are few and imagination is king??

Answer: They dare not!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since you stated your intention to continue to run away from your OWN initiative on the Patterson thread (the thread you have been avoiding this entire time) -- perhaps a return to The topics of your failures on THIS thread --

-------------------------------

And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part -- thanks for creating that here for all to read - (Debunked many times on this thread - one of them being here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814607&postcount=61 )

YOU jumped off that cliff in an attempt to attack all of statistics and probability science as you attack the Nobel winning mathmatician Dr. Borel. Congrats on exposing yourself like that to the entire board!

Congrats on admitting that you have NO SOLUTION for the proteins needed to build the cell structures in the first cell!! You just "cling to BELIEF" in abiogenesis "anyway".

Congrats on resorting to blind attack tactics instead of dealing with the data presented here.

Congrats on ignoring the basic fact of Romans 1 as even FLEW was compelled to admit to the bogus myths and failed arguments of the atheist darwinists who way "there is NO GOD" and in service to that religion "imagine" stories about abiogenesis.

Congrats on your published opposition to Romans 1 on this board!!

You have done so well in your service to atheist darwinism here - no one can charge that you failed to fully represent them here EXCEPT when you twisted THEIR OWN statements about the failed, discredited horse series stated by them to be "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER happened in nature" and "HAD to be discardeD" and "LAMENTABLE" that it was still in text books -- you twisted that around to "YES but still nothing fundamentally WRONG with that " discredited and ALL WRONG story telling!!

Then of course we have you opposing the details in the TALK ORIGINS post about Patterson - where you failed to support your blind assertions about WHICH quote Patterson was ENDORSING!!

IF ONLY you had stood firm with your atheist darwinist masters THEN as well as you have in other areas you would not be quite as exposed as you are to this point. But as it is we have YOU creating gross failures of your own AND we have you opposing your OWN Atheist Darwinist masters making THEM to be the "voice of reason" when compared to you!!

Please consider crossing over to the light so that you don't have to go down dark blind alley after dark blind alley!

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, I guess that you think that you can just misrepresent what has been posted and claim victory.
Too bad it does not work that way.

You failed on that thread to SHOW ME quoting the "unnapproved" quote that IS LISTED there by Talk origins.

And this why I quit with you on the Patterson stuff. You don't get it. Patterson uses the part of the paragraph you quote to support what he says the other half of the quote means. You cannot divorce yourself from that.

And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part...YOU jumped off that cliff in an attempt to attack all of statistics and probability science as you attack the Nobel winning mathmatician Dr. Borel.

I cannot help that you did not understand my example and use that as an excuse to obfuscate. The point is that things happen every day which are impossible according to your own definition. Every time a deck of cards is shuffled, for example, the resulting sequence was far less likely than what you call impossible.

Congrats on admitting that you have NO SOLUTION for the proteins needed to build the cell structures in the first cell!! You just "cling to BELIEF" in abiogenesis "anyway".

There is no reason for me to prove a solution to a strawman. No one says that things happened the way that you suppose so there is no reason to try and show that it is possible. I have, on the other hand, shown you how useful and optically pure RNA strands can be formed using common materials as catalyst and how these can later form the right proteins. But you have avoided that like the plague. You'd rather build strawmen and knock them over since that is about all you seem capable of in debate.

Congrats on ignoring the basic fact of Romans 1...

I answered that weeks ago.
[snip silly stuff about horses]
Bob, first off, it has been shown that you have failed to preserve the authors' intent in your horse quotes. Second, your horse quotes deal with a hundred year old hypothesis about horses that has been improved and for which you can come up with no objections.

...even FLEW was compelled to admit to the bogus myths and failed arguments...

I am surprised that you bring Flew back up after it was revealed that he was misled by an IDist, said to feel like a "fool" in his words, and has withdraw his statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
You failed on that thread to SHOW ME quoting the "unnapproved" quote that IS LISTED there by Talk origins.

UTEOTW -
And this why I quit with you on the Patterson stuff. You don't get it.

How can you be so married to falsehood and revisionism that you are willing to embarrass yourself like that?!!!

You make it sound like I AM THE ONE that brought up YOUR TEST case with Patterson. How sad that you would sink to such a level on YOUR OWN TEST case that YOU BROUGHT UP TO ME!!!

Why do you keep that nonesense going? Either keep running away from that thread that is dedicated to YOUR OWN CHOICE for a topic - Patterson's quote, or choose to face up to your innability to read his quote "in detail" on that thread?

(IF I were you I truly did know KNOW how flawed my reasoning was - I would go to MY OWN SELECTED test case and enthusiastically make my case. BUT YOU seem to know your case is totally bogus so you RUN AWAY from your own failed test case!! Refusing to post on it!!!)

On the other hand your blunder on that thread is so amazingly shallow - even a child can see your failure. But you seem to hold up your error as a "victory" AS IF being victorious in failure is one of your key values!

It is KEY that you do not GO to it and ask me to post there THINKING that you could actually MAKE a point using your OWN selected test case!

As someone posted here -- "How pathetic"

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part -- thanks for creating that here for all to read - (Debunked many times on this thread - one of them being here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=61 )

UTEOTW
I cannot help that you did not understand my example and use that as an excuse to obfuscate. The point is that things happen every day which are impossible ...

Here again we have another bogus blunder on your part as you attack the Nobel prize winning mathatician Dr. Borel and all of probability science!!

You are truly married to failure UTEOTW and THEN to running away from your OWN test cases.

It is instructive that you DO NOT respond to ANY DETAILS in the link given above!

It is instructive that you PRETEND to fail to even BEGIN to comprehend simple statistics in this case ALL in the name of atheist darwinism!!

Why is it you consider failure to be such a key part of your strategy. (or should I say -- "The COMBINATION of failure and then RUNNING AWAY from the details" of your OWN selected test cases)

Borel did not say that it isi IMPOSSIBLE to get a 52 card sequence from a deck of 52 cars (as you repeatedly charge) HE says that it is impossible to PREDICT that sequence ahead of time -

This simple fact of statistics has been pointed out to you repeatedly and STILL you "pretend" that these "details" are too advanced for your level of understanding of Math and statistics.

How sad that you would be willing to disgrace yourself like that all in the name of "atheist darwinism" over common sense, reason, and solid sciences like Math!!

But it truly does not surprise me that "defense of atheist darwinism" requires you to attack Emile Borel AND all of statistical science!! And this is the perfect place for you to launch that failed assault on truth and solid science! After all - THIS thread is dedicated to pointout out your blunders in that regard.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Congrats on admitting that you have NO SOLUTION for the proteins needed to build the cell structures in the first cell!! You just "cling to BELIEF" in abiogenesis "anyway".

UTEOTW
There is no reason for me to prove a solution to a strawman. No one says that things happened the way that you suppose

Again - when confronted with your glaring failure you HOLD IT UP as though failure is a "form of success for you"!!

UTEOTW
shown you how useful and optically pure RNA strands can be formed

What a joke! Now back to ACTUAL living CELLS!

To REPEAT for the zillionth time -

ABIOGENESIS: argues that LIVING CELLS "spontaneously generate" (in true neo-alchemist fashion) out of non-living matter. ATheist darwinist INSIST that "THERE IS NO GOD" and SINCE there IS NO GOD then the first fully functionion living CELLS and all that came after them MUST have simply "assembled" out of non-living matter -- on their own!!

That "bogus story" is then embraced by all devotees following the cult of atheist darwinism "AS IF TRUE"!!

So when we point out that THE SIMPLE LIVING CELL is comprised of STRUCTURES made out of PROTEINS as well as ENZYMES made out of proteins -- and that these are NOT being formed EVEN in the lab by the wild-eyed half-crazed desperate atheist darwinists -- the DEVOTEES to that religion respond with "YEAH well we do not have to SHOW that one of our myths CAN ACTUALL HAPPEN in the LAB"

-- as if such a failed argument is a sign of success!!

Your failure in the realm of abiogenesis "no matter how you attempt to contrive the experiment" is stellar!!

Your claim that failure is a kind of "success for you" is also fitting.

Why should this approach of yours be any different from your other efforts here?

Why keep digging that ditch? At some point you are going to need to throw away the shovel - step out of the pit and accept the light of SOLID FACT for a change!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Congrats on ignoring the basic fact of Romans 1...

UTEOTW
I answered that weeks ago.

Yes you spoke out very clearly in bold denial of scriptrue. you stated that you found NOTHING AT ALL to support the Bible claim that UNBLIEVERS can "CLEARLY SEE the invisible attributes of God in the THINGS that have been MADE".

You simply DENY it == then run away from your failure "again".

How "surprising"

How "unexpected"

 

[BobRyan]

One of the most glaring blunders of all in UTEOTW's list of failures is pointed out here --

Bob
You have done so well in your service to atheist darwinism here - no one can charge that you failed to fully represent them here EXCEPT when you twisted THEIR OWN statements about the failed, discredited horse series stated by them to be "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER happened in nature" and "HAD to be discardeD" and "LAMENTABLE" that it was still in text books -- you twisted that around to "YES but still nothing fundamentally WRONG with that " discredited and ALL WRONG story telling!!

Second, your horse quotes deal with a hundred year old hypothesis about horses that has been improved and for which you can come up with no objections.

Your atheist darwinist masters say it was "discarded" you say it was "improved"

Your atheist darwinist masters say "it was all wrong AND NEVER happened in nature" you say "YES but nothing fundamentally wrong with it"

How sad that your failure here is as glaring as all your others listed on this thread. How "instructive" that you run away from this one like all the others!

Oh well!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
...even FLEW was compelled to admit to the bogus myths and failed arguments...
There it is pointed out that Flew was instructed by MIT scientist and physicist on the impossible mountain of contradiction facing "true believers" in abiogenesis as they try to GENERATE proteins to be used in contrived experiments intended to PROVE that the abiogenesis myth COULD ever happen -- even in a most contrived sort of way.

And of course this is a testimony to the Romans 1 statement that the "invisible attributes of God are clearly SEEN " EVEN by UNBELIEVING PAGANS "in the THINGS that have been MADE"

But as usual UTEOTW not only attacks Statistical science and Dr Emile Borel -- but ALSO Romans 1!!!

UTEOTW
I am surprised that you bring Flew back up after it was revealed that he was misled by an IDist,

How said that you have been fooled by your atheist darwinist masters into attack statistical science, ignoring the impossible mountain of facts opposing the myths of abiogenesis and EVEN to this point of opposing Romans 1!!

Is there no END of this for you UTEOTW!!

Do you really find darkness that much better than LIGHT!!??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Still no answers to these glaring blunders UTEOTW??

As stated in the link below and in the examples given - these are so simple so easy to see - a child could easily see this. How can you possibly satisfy yourself with having to pretend you don't get them?

Since you stated your intention to continue to run away from your OWN initiative on the Patterson thread (the thread you have been avoiding this entire time) -- perhaps a return to The topics of your failures on THIS thread --

-------------------------------

And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part -- thanks for creating that here for all to read - (Debunked many times on this thread - one of them being here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=814607&postcount=61 )

YOU jumped off that cliff in an attempt to attack all of statistics and probability science as you attack the Nobel winning mathmatician Dr. Borel. Congrats on exposing yourself like that to the entire board!

Congrats on admitting that you have NO SOLUTION for the proteins needed to build the cell structures in the first cell!! You just "cling to BELIEF" in abiogenesis "anyway".

Congrats on resorting to blind attack tactics instead of dealing with the data presented here.

Congrats on ignoring the basic fact of Romans 1 as even FLEW was compelled to admit to the bogus myths and failed arguments of the atheist darwinists who way "there is NO GOD" and in service to that religion "imagine" stories about abiogenesis.

Congrats on your published opposition to Romans 1 on this board!!

You have done so well in your service to atheist darwinism here - no one can charge that you failed to fully represent them here EXCEPT when you twisted THEIR OWN statements about the failed, discredited horse series stated by them to be "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER happened in nature" and "HAD to be discardeD" and "LAMENTABLE" that it was still in text books -- you twisted that around to "YES but still nothing fundamentally WRONG with that " discredited and ALL WRONG story telling!!

Then of course we have you opposing the details in the TALK ORIGINS post about Patterson - where you failed to support your blind assertions about WHICH quote Patterson was ENDORSING!!

IF ONLY you had stood firm with your atheist darwinist masters THEN as well as you have in other areas you would not be quite as exposed as you are to this point. But as it is we have YOU creating gross failures of your own AND we have you opposing your OWN Atheist Darwinist masters making THEM to be the "voice of reason" when compared to you!!

Please consider crossing over to the light so that you don't have to go down dark blind alley after dark blind alley!

The problem that UTEOTW has is that atheist darwinism is a system based on deceit and misdirection -- as can be seen by his "pretend not to get it" responses to these glaring blunders on his part. (Blunders that include opposition to his own atheist darwinist masters in some cases, and includes attacks on Emile Borel and all of probability science!!)

But if we coud coax UTEOTW into one brief moment of honesty I would ask this question - How is UTEOTW to be trusted in discussions were "facts are few" and there are many gray areas for hiding shallow baseless myths -- when in simple cases like these above were all variables ARE KNOWN UTEOTW responds by "running away" after posting huge blunders?!!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Case in point

Bob said
And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part -- thanks for creating that here for all to read - (Debunked many times on this thread - one of them being here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...7&postcount=61 )

Here we see that the atheist darwinist system of deceit and misdirection attempts to "equivocate" instead of mastering understanding of the hard science of statistics.

Statistics says that you have a 1:1 chance of being able to drop a handful of sand after having picked it up.

Atheist darwinists using the ploys of UTEOTW would claim "Statistics says that is impossible according to Emile Borel". How disgusting.

What stastics says is --

#1. You will not be able to PREDICT where every grain of sand will land. So though statistics predicts you will get exactly ONE of the possible compinations - it also predicts that all things being random - you will not be able to predict which one.

#2. The sand will not land and combine with sand on the beach so that it rests in the shape of a perfect replication of the Disney Castle, or mount Rushmore, or... -

Statistics would tell us that these are not even among the possible combinations because of the wild atheist-darwinist like "scenarios" that would have to be conjured up for how such a result could occur.

But atheist darwinism would love to EQUIVOCATE between the possibility of being able to droping the sand and get one of the possible outces - VS actually PREDICTING that outcome down to the grain of sand location -- or coming up with an exact replica of the Disney Castle!

Then of course they would want to run away from that equivocation and gloss over all the details -- claiming each failure on their part as a wonderful success for Atheist Darwinism!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Could you please pay attention and read a whole post. Please.

There is nothing from your last barrage of posts that even requires an answer. It was all covered in my previous post. And that is the problem with trying to have a rational, reasonable debate with you. There is nothing rational or reasonable about it. You just repeat the same thing over and over and over, ignoring whatever response may be made. You have a tirade. I show where all of your rants fail to be grounded in fact. You repeat the tirade without addressing the essence of the objections raised. There is nothing new from you.

Well, there is one thing new. You seem to have decided that immature taunting is a means of debate.

You carefully avoid facts like the plague. The few times you have ventured into actual facts, it becomes way too easy and obvious to set you straight. So instead you have your carefully crafted set of smoke and mirrors. You take a lot of strawmen, you mix in other logical fallacies liberally. You have a great number of out of context quotes that you toss around. A lot of poisoning-the-well catch phrases. Some plagarism thrown in for good measure.

But there is no actual debate with you. No matter how many times your strawmen are pointed out, you go back to them and proclaim that there is no answer.

No matter how many times your quotes are uncovered for the deceptions that they are, you just keep throwing the same ones out. You even delude yourself into thinking you have good quotes when the author himself directly addresses the quote and calls you wrong. You not only ignore, you actively conceal the original intent behind the quotes.

You do not even read responses to your posts fully. You just automatically go into your standard spiel. We have shown this empirically.

You act as if you believe that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

And when the same phrases have been repeated enough times that neither of us are saying anything new and I tell you that it is time to move on to something different, you twist that to mean that I am fleeing debate and that you have me on the run. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have never shrunk from debate with anyone. You think that you can just declare victory when you have brought the discussion to stalemate by refusing to debate. Is that your goal? To be so obtuse, so delusional, so far from reality that you just try and frustrate your opponents to death with no facts but lots of smoke. That's not winning. That would actually require you to have some facts in order.

You have bought into the standard YE mold that it matters not whether your words have any basis in fact, it is how load you can shout and how often you can repeat your falsehoods. It becomes a complete waste of time. You have no interest in debate. You have no interest in exchanging facts. You have no interest in uncovering new topics. You just stick to your script and never back off no matter what happens.

So let me know when you want to have a real discussion. Let me know when you can gather enough facts to have an actual debate. If all you have is the delusions you've been posting, well enjoy your fantasy world. And I feel confident that you will continue with your childish taunting about how I flee debate with you. I hope you enjoy that delusion as well, but know that I have merely tired of beating my head against the wall with no hope that you will ever actually address any responses or move away from your fallacies. And I doubt that anyone is really paying attention anymore so there are unlikely to be any lurkers to sway. You have won nothing. It is by attrition only, and not by facts, that you seek to call a victory.

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW --
It was all covered in my previous post.

So you admit that you really have nothing but those vaccuous and empty factless-claims to support your wild positions - the very ones you now "run away from"??!!


How unnexpected.


How shocking UTEOTW!


You leave me free to expose your failed arguments - as often as I please - when you choose to run away from each of your failures so far.


As I said - you have left such massive gaps gaffs and blunders that a child can easily see the links and the list and observe your failings. As so many have commented so far..

Why do you think that "running away" is such a compelling form of debate for you?

Who in the world accepts vaccous factless-assertions as posted by you in answer to the hard and pointed questions put to your shallow and transparent arguments listed here??

That is truly a puzzle to be studied!!

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
You just repeat the same thing over and over and over, ignoring whatever response may be made. You have a tirade. I show where all of your rants fail to be grounded in fact.

Sadly you uphold each of your failures as if doing so is a kind of "success for you" INSTEAD of going to these points listed that so clearly expose your blunders and attempting actually ANSWER the points!

How is it you think that this transparent antic on your part is seen JUST AS clearly as your current failings in the items listed?

Do you think the reader is nothing more than a blind drone swallowing your every myth? This is not an atheist evolutionist form UTEOTW - you have to actually make an effort to deal in fact - instead of factless-fiction after factless-fiction.

Try compelling argument for a change!!

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
You carefully avoid facts like the plague. The few times you have ventured into actual facts, it becomes way too easy and obvious to set you straight.

If that were true you would not be running away from each thread listed in that summary post I just gave.

If that were true you would SURELY not be so fearful of the thread I GAVE you on YOUR OWN SELECTED test case.

In every area where we offer a test of your integrity - you simply fail, rant and then run away!!

How can you think that your antics are not clearly seen by all!!??

Come on UTEOTW - you have to at least try to respond intelligently when YOUR OWN test case is given the highlight! Surely if you have to run from every single thread I have listed - THAT ONE thread is one you WOULD be brave enough to respond to with some attention to detail!

You are failing so quickly it is hard to keep up with the count!