Christopher, we've seen your theories ad nauseum. No-one here is interested so give it a rest, hey.
You have failed to provide a single shred of validated evidence for a single thing you have claimed. No-one is threatened by your snake oil seller science, because it simply isn't science.
Happy to discuss anything else you desire, but if you mention pebbles one more time I am going to lose my [censored] completely!
(06-03-2012 03:49 AM)Huitaca Wrote: [ -> ]Christopher, it was funny six months ago. Now it's annoying.
To repeat Vis - you were asked to keep your zany theory to the already existing threads that deal with it, and stop trying to insert it into every thread you post in.
I don’t understand’ the question was asked “whether there were any creationists left on this forum” and when a creationist replies with yes, you get offended … knowing the truth won’t hurt you, your pride might get a bit dented but that all
(06-03-2012 03:58 AM)Flipper Wrote: [ -> ]You have failed to provide a single shred of validated evidence
I have supplied plenty of evidence' it is you who is not listening I have also pointed out visual evidence but again it is you who is too blind to see
And I was talking your science not my science.
Christopher. Asking whether there are any creationists on the site is not an open invitation to repeat your nonsense when you have been specifically requested not to, outside of the specified thread.
I am not offended, hurt or prideful. These are unsubstantiated claims of a desperate, baseless position.
(06-03-2012 04:57 AM)Huitaca Wrote: [ -> ]Christopher. Asking whether there are any creationists on the site is not an open invitation to repeat your nonsense when you have been specifically requested not to, outside of the specified thread.
I am not offended, hurt or prideful. These are unsubstantiated claims of a desperate, baseless position.
But the thread also asked whether they had found any science to support their claims … again’ I answered Yes, again’ sorry to offend
Jesus Christ Christopher. Do you know the definition of offend? You are not offending anyone. Get over yourself. I am not a mod so I cannot force you so I am requesting. Please do not type the word pebble, tide-mark or eons in any thread but your specified one.
(06-03-2012 05:22 AM)Huitaca Wrote: [ -> ]I am not a mod so I cannot force you so I am requesting. Please do not type the word pebble, tide-mark or eons in any thread but your specified one.
On 4 (or is it 5?) other science forums I have been banned for voicing my opinion, members here must count themselves lucky you are not a moderator
Because science is not based on unsubstantiated opinions. Perhaps you should look at yourself as a possible reason why every forum bans you.
(06-03-2012 03:22 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2012 10:01 AM)Visqueen Wrote: [ -> ]Chris I thought you were asked to keep your zany theory to the already existing threads that deal with it, and stop trying to insert it into every thread you post in.
Kevlar wanted to know whether there were any creationists left on this forum … My answer was Yes … sorry to offend
The thread also asked whether they had found any science to support their claims … again’ the answer was Yes, again’ sorry to offend
It seems you don’t like real science so let’s talk your science …
Physics, mathematicians, wanted to know … How long it took that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach.
They put a time-span to this erosion process and the conclusion was … aeons.
Their encyclopedia quoted … ‘Solid rock breaks down by the wind, rain and frost leaving the more resistant rocks in large fragments, where, through the ages, grind against each other along the seashore to become gravel and sand’.
Ages = Aeons
They also quoted that geology is the backbone of science and everything that throws light on the history of mankind falls within the field of geology.
This geological time-span, aeons, was used as a time-span for their theory of evolution.
From geology to evolution, both became suggestive, together they became conclusive.
Based on this scientific conclusion’ RmD was born
Am I right or wrong?
I won’t hold my breath for a sensible answer
How wrong can you get. The time-span that you you pretend science finds in geology has nothing to do with the understanding of the theory of evolution . Why can't you get that very BASIC principle through your incredibly thick scone?
If you need any more padding, let me know and I'll see what I can do.
(06-03-2012 06:20 AM)Huitaca Wrote: [ -> ]Because science is not based on unsubstantiated opinions.
Oops’ well it obviously has, whether you think so or not, the facts suggest science has built a complete science on an optical allusion
(06-03-2012 06:41 AM)Christopher Ball Wrote: [ -> ] (06-03-2012 06:20 AM)Huitaca Wrote: [ -> ]Because science is not based on unsubstantiated opinions.
Oops’ well it obviously has, whether you think so or not, the facts suggest science has built a complete science on an optical allusion
The wrong optical illusion apparently. You are a really funny guy.