Quote:
Originally Posted by u crank
The evidence in this case is not there. I have searched in vain for it. The balanced viewpoint is absent. Only one side of the argument is presented. I understand why, but it doesn't change it's nature. Of course the other side makes similar one sided claims without presenting a balanced view. This is why I refrain from doing it.
|
Your religious guy's "logic" surprise me time and again.
To make this clear. You cannot counter the studies' and experiment'S results, which had been run by scientific standards, btw. You even admit you did not find countering arguments or hints or any material falsifying their results. But you still claim they are biased, and what is even worse: you still claim you know it better - but you just weasel around to get away with wanting to be seen as a valid challenger to them without having anything to offer.
This will most likely reward me an infraction and maybe even brig time, I know and I accept it: but I just cannot help myself, I simply must call you an
idiot. What'S more, a blindly believing, dogmatic idiot who wants to tell me he is neither blindly believing, nor dogmatic, he has no material, argument, hints, findings to counter studies and arguments, but makes claims that he nevertheless knows it better.
u_crank, the truth is simple: you are a dogmatic believer not wanting to be called that, and you have nothing.
Okay, Neal, Neon, bring it on, if you want, I don't resist nor protest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by u crank
Your refusal to answer my question on free speech disturbs
|
That is the cream on top!
