Search results

Your uninformed opinion is of no relevance. The thread that someone else started seeking examples of me being shown up in science discussions, but which quickly filled with numerous examples of me explaining scientific points to people? Heck, there were even quotes such as: "I have to give you...

Nope. You've gotten it completely backward. No surprise there. The scientific process begins with ideas. Ideas are tested against evidence, logic and reason. The sources of the ideas are an irrelevant consideration. You have it entirely backward, but are going to keep insisting that things...

And yet there it is. Your uninformed opinion of it is irrelevant. More significantly, your tirades have been exposed as empty of any value. Oh, you want to pretend to talk about the law now? Very well: What is the law? Define it. That's right. I don't live in a poisonous snake.

Blaming Democrats is counterproductive.

Here are prime examples of the difference between constructive, sensible contributions to a debate and the nonsense, dissembling and invective that are the limit of the input from Darwinists. Election integrity? Examples, reasonable disagreement and straight up facts. The response? Denial of...

Except that there is ongoing litigation. You're free to live in the make-believe, conspiracy theory world you've invented, but you don't get to force your ignorant, foreign ideas on us. :LOL: We'll take that as a tacit admission of utter incompetence when it comes to issues science...

Nope. There is ongoing litigation. Brain tries his Limey luck with science again and again shows his ineptitude. Theories do not "come about" in science; theories are free -- they can arise in whatever manner they please. Darwinists love to pretend that the genesis of an idea has some...

Then why insist that everything has been settled? It hasn't been settled. There is ongoing litigation. Just the facts for you foreigners, because you hate looking into things for yourselves.

When a Darwinist is presented with an idea, his first (and usually only) port of call is to mock the source. They never examine an opposing idea rationally.

Because when the ballots that were counted are recounted, the same result emerges. Darwinists are morons.

"It's the canvas, not the count." Why do Darwinists insist on repeating the same questions as if they have never heard the simple answer. Of course it is. That's what you foreigners are forever screeching. Or are you now contending that the election was not legitimate? Or is this simply...

My but you do a lot of screeching. It is your contention that the election was legitimate. This is despite the fact that legal action is ongoing. What you think the result might or should be is irrelevant. The case is literally not settled, contrary to your insane conspiracy theory that it...

Actually, it's rather bland.

You should stick to that instead of the latent genocide.

They're just words on a screen. They affect you as much as you allow them to.

You're little more than the idea of a person.

Meanwhile, in Georgia (and elsewhere) ...

Oh, quiet, you darned conspiracy theorist. ;)

What we believe is irrelevant. What others say we believe is irrelevant. What is important is that we honestly represent the word of God and face up to reality when it proves us wrong. Here's a good guide for anyone entering a debate that seems to divide people along lines of the names their...

Does that include nearly 100 million babies murdered before they had a shot at making it in the world?