Synchronicity wins: None so blind as .....

Are they too afraid to look at it in case it shows them something or are they just plain stupid?

What do YOU think?

Ross Kelly shared Tobi Emmanuel Samuel's photo.

He's quite right, unlike Dawkins the scientist wouldn't be an idiot

Tobi Emmanuel Samuel to Atheist and Theist Free Speech Discussions - But Be Polite!

Richard Dawkins is one deluded man. The truth is there are plenty of scientists who reject evolution. And neither he nor any other atheist can claim that no "real scientist" rejects evolution, because that would be a classic example of circular logic. Circular logic would conclude that no “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that any scientist would reject evolution would mean the scientist isn’t a “real scientist”. Can you say LOGIC FAILURE?

Comment

3737

Comments

Dave Rabjohns I don't think Dawkins is an "idiot", just a biologist that supports evolution based on existing evidence to hand.

"The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent"

Lets not forget "science" is a broad field, many scientists know fuck-all about evolutionary biology or geology/palaeontology.

LikeReply23 hrs

Paul Blecha Dawkins is certainly no idiot, although he is prone to speaking inappropriately about matters of opinion. In that regard, he is eminently human.

LikeReply13 hrs

Alan Quinn Some scientists do dispute evolution, but you are being disengenuous to imply that bcause those scientists dont agree with evolution, they somehow lean towards religion, how silly in this group do you think the people are?,
you ask those same scientists if from the evidence they have seen wether they believe in god, and they will laugh at you.

LikeReply13 hrs

Scott Fitzgerald Some scientists, even some biologists, reject evolution. None of them can refute it.

LikeReply13 hrs

Paul Blecha There are scientists who dispute evolutionary theory. However, none of those scientists doing the disputing are evolutionary biologists. And considering that is the area of expertise in question, I would question the commentary of a scientist speaking disdainfully about that discipline without having expertise therein.
Oh, and while I'm commenting, engineers are NOT scientists. Scientists do more than just apply scientific findings; they further the research and theoretical models at hand. Conservatives have a difficult time extricating engineers from scientists. They aren't the same.

LikeReply23 hrs

Ross Kelly Look up Mental universe theory.

LikeReply3 hrs

Zen Rasta Its still a 'theory'...

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly So is the theory of evolution.

LikeReply38 mins

Write a reply...

Michael Jones Dawkins is correct. There is no refutation of evolutionary theory. There is a great deal of evidence to support evolutionary theory. The fact that there are scientists who reject evolutionary theory is irrelevant. They can't refute it, and their rejection is not an argument against it. If it were, the fact that a majority of all human beings don't share your belief would prove you wrong. If you're going to attempt an argument against something, it would be prudent not to use a line of reasoning that undermines your own position.

LikeReply13 hrs

Dave Rabjohns How does "mental universe" relate to your OP? is it a theory?

LikeReply3 hrs

Ross Kelly This refutes it but you have to be smart to understand why.

http://synchronicitywins.blogspot.co.uk/.../what-are-odds...

Synchronicity wins: What are the odds?.

SYNCHRONICITYWINS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ROSS KELLY

LikeReplyRemove Preview3 hrs

Jeremy Petley Emperors new clothes much!?

LikeReply2 hrs

Write a reply...

Dave Rabjohns Not again? Ross Kelly - please stay on topic

LikeReply13 hrs

Ross Kelly I am on topic.

LikeReply3 hrs

Dave Rabjohns What is the link between darwinian evolution and your incomprehensible blog?

LikeReply3 hrs

Ross Kelly It proves that time is PLANNED.

LikeReply37 mins

Dave Rabjohns It doesn't "prove" that at all. Time may well be "planned" in that a sequence of inevitable events have been unfolding for billions of years. Determinism might argue that every event is inevitable and was always going to happen

However this is not demonstrated by your blog or any other field of discovery.

But a sequence of unfolding events doesn't require a "planner" just natural processes.

LikeReply32 mins

Write a reply...

Michael Jones It doesn't refute it. If you think it does, try publishing itvin a peer-reviewed journal of evolutionary biology.

LikeReply33 hrs

Dave Rabjohns "you have to be smart to understand why" - lol

LikeReply13 hrs

Paul Blecha According to Ross Kelly, "smart" means "gullible enough to buy any snake oil that validates my preconceived notions." Yeah, sounds like religious diatribe to me.

LikeReply23 hrs

Ross Kelly I see that you bothered to look then?

LikeReply3 hrs

Dave Rabjohns I have seen your blog and read it. I'm not smart enough to understand it.

Ross Kelly I know.

Write a reply...

Alan Quinn Some scientists do, on that we agree, but most do believe, from trial and error experiments, and from observable evidence in the natural world, evolution is the accepted theory of how we humans came to exsist, now take the evidence that any of the bible is real, spiritually, and you'll find none, and anecdotes about your personal relationship with god dont count as evidence.

LikeReply13 hrs

James A. Quick Define "plenty"... we have more Steves than your entire "plenty".

LikeReply23 hrs

Jeremy Petley Project Steve fallacy !

LikeReply13 hrs

Jeremy Petley Sorry james. U beat me to the punch.

LikeReply13 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Did this cockwomble just call Richard Dawkins an idiot, Dawkins is far from an idiot, you just have to read any of his work and you will see he is no moron he is held in high regard in the scientific world and the people he interacts with wouldn't accept an idiot into their discussions

LikeReply33 hrs

Ross Kelly He is an idiot, he makes his living denying god when he doesn't actually know whether God exists or not.

LikeReply3 hrs

Hide 43 Replies

James A. Quick He knows what the evidence strongly suggests.

LikeReply3 hrs

James A. Quick Mostly what he "knows" is that YHWH™ did not create all life in its present form a few thousand years ago.

LikeReply3 hrs

Ross Kelly Heres some evidence that proves that he hasn't seen all of the evidence.

http://synchronicitywins.blogspot.co.uk/.../what-are-odds...

Synchronicity wins: What are the odds?.

SYNCHRONICITYWINS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ROSS KELLY

LikeReplyRemove Preview2 hrs

James A. Quick What evidence do you have that your evidence is evidence? Where's the peer review?

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick We can't possibly know the odds. We have no basis of comparison.

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Review it yourself.

Are you not capable of doing that, do you need somebody else to tell you what to believe when you can see it with your own eyes?

Who's peer reveiwing YOU?

LikeReply2 hrs

Dave Rabjohns I've peer reviewed James, he's real wink emoticon

LikeReply12 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross if you were to read any of his books you would discover in his book, Unweaving the Rainbow Richard Dawkins throughly debunks this hypothesis maybe you should read from both sides of an argument before you open your gob and make a fool out yourself

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Read what's in the blogpost.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick I'm telling you, I have a standard of evidence, and I have given you the sine qua non of it. I don't need to read it, it's telling me the odds can be calculated when I know better.

LikeReply12 hrs

Dave Rabjohns I have read it ross, it has all the hallmarks of nonsense. Also there is no peer review or citations to back up your "claims"...

LikeReply22 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock I have many times for the most part it's complete shit hence why it's on a blogpost and not published in any journal of science

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick I've read several of these "calculations", and every one has at least one false premise.

LikeReply22 hrsEdited

James A. Quick The "math" is fine... it's what they are saying each step of the math portends that is faulty.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly Read the blog, idiot.

LikeReply2 hrs

Dave Rabjohns Is everyone who doesn't agree with you an "idiot"?

LikeReply2 hrsEdited

James A. Quick I'd be an idiot to read the blog. I'm not much MORE than an idiot discussing it with a bigger idiot.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Here, read this blog that PROVES alien abduction....

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly No, just people who argue against something without even bothering to find out what it is.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick I know what it is.

LikeReply2 hrs

Carlos M. Morales And, you do ?

LikeReply2 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross why don't you take some time out read some books from Dawkins then decide whether he is an idiot because right now he is seeming way more intelligent than you

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Because I already know and have proof of the truth, it's in the blog post.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly Carlos M. Morales I am talking about my own blog post.

LikeReply2 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Well I've done my charity work today trying to nourish the mind of a moron time to cook that baby for my dinner

LikeReply22 hrs

James A. Quick Then claim your Nobel Prize...

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Jordan Rhys Brock Read the blog.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Seriously, peer review... look into it.

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Seriously, the use of reason, look in to it.

LikeReply2 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock James it's his own blog it's basically the ravings of a mad man

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick Contact every statistician, cosmologist, and organic chemist on earth, and get a few dozen of each to sign off.

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick Otherwise, you are the proverbial "voice crying in the wilderness", and the voice I'm hearing is crying "wolf".

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Did you read the blog?

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick I don't need to. I'm not a mathematician, nor a chemist, nor a cosmologist, nor do I need to be to understand the premise is wrong. You might as well be arguing flat earth, or young earth creationism.

LikeReply22 hrs

James A. Quick I'm not giving you so much as one click on your hit counter.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly There is a SELF EVIDENT proof in that blog post.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick There is SELF EVIDENT proof that you're a moron.

LikeReply22 hrs

James A. Quick Every paper has an abstract: give us yours, or GTFO.

LikeReply22 hrs

Carlos M. Morales So just because you have a blog ,everything you say there is true ? I can have a blog about fire breathing dragons ,but it won't make it true ..

LikeReply32 hrs

Alan Quinn But ross you call richard dawkins an idiot when you have no proof that he isnt right, and i'll stress again, anecdotes about your own personal relationship with god is not evidence.

LikeReply22 hrs

Ross Kelly James A. Quick How do you know that, you haven't seen it, so who exactly is the moron here?

LikeReply33 mins

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross give up mucker, there is no point arguing this you have failed to answer several questions and just like all theists whenever a question comes up that you can't answer you ignore it, now do what Alan suggested or bog off.

LikeReply31 minsEdited

James A. Quick //who exactly is the moron here?//

Still you.

LikeReplyJust now

Write a reply...

Dave Rabjohns I have read all of Richards books, where does he "deny" god. He makes no claims about the non-existence of gods. Just points out logical arguments against such a dubious being.

..and how does that make him an "idiot"?

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Because God is real.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Citations needed.

LikeReply2 hrs

Carlos M. Morales Santa is real..I read a book about him ...

LikeReply2 hrs

Write a reply...

Dave Rabjohns "Because God is real" - Citation / evidence needed for such an outrageous claim.

LikeReply32 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross stop flogging a dead horse mate give in your not going to convert us by posting stuff from a blog website

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly It's my own blog.

LikeReply2 hrs

Colton Wallace A rejection isn't evidence to any alternative . I don't understand what the OP is getting at with this. Just that Dawkins said something you don't understand?

LikeReply12 hrs

Jeremy Petley Dawkins is not an idiot. I would say he can come across as a bit of a dick at worst.

LikeReply22 hrs

James A. Quick "Science: It WORKS, bitches." - Richard Dawkins

LikeReply22 hrs

Write a reply...

Jeremy Petley Lol! I'm sure that not a direct quote. But I hope it is.

LikeReply2 hrs

4 Replies2 hrs

'Edward De Leau I´m curious to the alternative theory ... PLEASE don´t let it be `santa claus put a present in my shoe then he was gone again´

LikeReply12 hrsEdited

1 Reply

Jeremy Petley Edward, everything you need to know is in the link below...

LikeReply2 hrs

Jeremy Petley http://youtu.be/4kRMvN8gG_U

Family Guy - Evolution vs. Creationism

YOUTUBE.COM

LikeReply22 hrs

Alan Quinn I dont think dawkins is a dick, it just his clipped english accent can sound patronizing and sarcastic at times, and im english too so have right to comment, ross you the one calling dawkins, offer up your proof he is wrong, or shut the fuck up and sit down until you can provide said proof, which is never.

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Read the thread, I have put the link to my proof on it several times.

LikeReply2 hrsEdited

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross your proof is your own blog it's clearly biased towards the theist system provide some proof that has been peer reviewed by experts in that field then come back

LikeReply22 hrs

Ross Kelly You don't even know what it is I'm trying to SHOW to you.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Not only that, we don't believe even YOU know what it is you're trying to show us.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly Have you looked at it?

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick You must be THIS TALL to ride this discussion.

LikeReply2 hrs

'Edward De Leau An alternative theory would at least require to also form alternative theories for a couple of tens of million derived articles all relying and underbuilding it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

So far there is uhm .. 0

Home - PubMed - NCBI

PubMed comprises more than 25 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science…

NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV|BY PUBMEDDEV

LikeReply12 hrs

Dave Rabjohns No we don't because if your blog is anything to go by, it is - ill thought out, ill presented and has faulty premises. At best is is retrofitted "evidence" to align with your pre-conceived notions.

Lay out the evidence clearly and succinctly and have it peer reviewed. Then you might be taken more seriously. Suggesting all that don't align with your view are somehow mentally deficient is asinine at best.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly It's not a theory.

It is demonstrable self evident PROOF.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Now I'm less inclined. You don't even know what theory means.

LikeReply2 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross steady on them big words don't want you getting confused now

LikeReply2 hrs

Dave Rabjohns That is what a theory is..

LikeReply2 hrs

Jack Hook The premise of the evolutionary model was to seek a materialistic approach to origins. That was the presupposition before they had archeology, microbiology, paleotology and the like. They would then force interpretations of physical fossil and geological evidences into those presuppositions. But then came modern science which clearly shows highly complex structures that couldn't have developed by chance.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Self evident can be a very tricky thing.

LikeReply12 hrs

Dave Rabjohns "self" - evident.

LikeReply2 hrs

1 Reply

Ross Kelly None of you have a clue what my view is because none of you will look at it and yet you argue against it.

LikeReply2 hrs

2 Replies2 hrs

Jack Hook I think he had an ax of bitterness to grind. Perhaps he hated God.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly You are all ridiculing yourselves here.

LikeReply2 hrs

Dave Rabjohns lol

LikeReply2 hrs

Alan Quinn Ross if you had cedible proof that evolution was false, the only place we would be able to find the evidence is in the blog of some gobshite on fb, and unless ive been under a rock for the last few weeks, ive seen nowt about your 'startling scientific evidence' on bbc news, which suggests your full of shit ross.

LikeReply22 hrs

Ross Kelly Did you read the blog?

LikeReply2 hrs

Jordan Rhys Brock Ross your theist ways have no power here you are in the land of reason and reason tells us not to waste our time on a theory written by you and not peer reviewed by any scientist

LikeReply2 hrsEdited

1 Reply

Ross Kelly It's not theory it is a self evident demonstration of the proof, you should read it.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Again, you condemn yourself.

LikeReply2 hrs

Write a reply...

Jeremy Petley I can't open your link Ross. Give us the jist.

LikeReply2 hrs

12 Replies2 hrs

James A. Quick The odds that we evolved are one-to-one, or very nearly. Abiogenesis might have required a god to make our single common ancestor species, but smart money is betting against even THAT.

LikeReply2 hrs

Alan Quinn I dont need to, ive read nowt about your evidence in national geographic, seen any of your proof on the news or any of the scientific programmes, or websites i visit, if you had proof of you claims you would have hundreds of reporters camped out on your front lamn, and us atheists would be sick of the site of you rubbing our faces in it, which suggests your full of shit, or your 'evidence' would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

LikeReply2 hrs

7 Replies1 hr

Alan Quinn Theory does not mean guess ross, bloody hell mate, no wonder you think you have evidence if you dont have a clue what scientific terms mean.

LikeReply22 hrs

Hide 19 Replies

Ross Kelly Read the blog or shut your stupid mouth please.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Desperation reeks

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick You have not established credentials to call any of us stupid, yet.

LikeReply12 hrs

James A. Quick Go to your room.

LikeReply12 hrs

Ross Kelly Desperation, anagram of A rope ends it.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick OK, an OCD idiot who knows a few anagrams....

LikeReply2 hrs

Dave Rabjohns OR "Tirade opens"

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly My credentials are in the blog post, you'll see that if you read it.

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Do geese see god?

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Present them here, not giving you a page view.

LikeReply2 hrs

Ross Kelly Far better than you do I should think.

LikeReply1 hr

Ross Kelly No.

LikeReply1 hr

James A. Quick Silly goose

LikeReply1 hr

James A. Quick No way

LikeReply1 hr

James A. Quick Are you 12?

LikeReply11 hr

Alan Quinn Ross is getting upset, aw didums, are the nasty men and women laughing at what you consider evidence ross, why are you so eager we read you blog ross?,
do you get a free toaster after so many hits?.
Fool.

LikeReply21 hr

Martin Brown Ross Kelly Be polite or fuck off.

LikeReply11 hr

Alan Quinn Ross kelly,
jog on stormtropper, religion is for the weak minded.

LikeReply1 hr

Ross Kelly I adhere to no religion, what I am trying to get you people to look at would end all religion if enough people get to know about it, take a look.

LikeReply1 hr

Write a reply...

Sam Millman Not refutations but there are many variations for Darwin's theory

LikeReply2 hrs

James A. Quick Seriously, is this just trolling?

LikeReply21 hr

James A. Quick What if his blog just has two words: April Fool's

LikeReply21 hr

James A. Quick OK, there is a site that allows us to view his page without a page view... let me see if I can find it....

LikeReply1 hr

Alan Quinn Too right james, april fools, or christian fuckwit.

LikeReply1 hr

Dave Rabjohns "What this blog is about.

In 1996 something extremely important (understatement of the century) happened that my partner Elaine and I were directly involved in.

The other participants in it work for government intelligence agencies.

They are keeping it a secret.

As a result of that secrecy and their negative response to what happened the people of this world are now in a state of great peril and most of them have no idea how great that peril is.

Take your time with this and treat it as priority learning or click on something else if your attention span isn't up to it, that's your choice. I hope you make the right one.

Here's a little summary of what a part of what has been hidden -

If you are at all familiar with the biblical book of Daniel,the origin of the term, 'to be shown the writing on the wall' comes from there.

The biblical account says that a miraculous hand put some writing on the wall of the Babylonian kings palace in Aramaic or Hebrew, can't remember which and that Daniel (an Israelite slave) translated it for the king.

Basically it was a warning from God to tell the king that his kingdom was about to end.

In 1996 a patient in the Gordon Hospital in London recreated a piece of writing (very much enlarged) that had no connection to her, on the wall of her room.

It was not written in her own handwriting and it amazed or at least baffled her doctors. It was a VERY unusual thing.

Word of it got to MI6 in Vauxhall just down the road and when they investigated it they knew what it was because they already had a copy of it from the Vatican who had obtained it in Fatima in 1917, written (in English) by an illiterate Portuguese boy at the time of a massive solar phenomenon.

What they didn't know is who the handwriting belonged to, until a month and a half after the London writing had appeared, when I sent a handwritten note and a document about the Sun to Camilla Parker Bowles.

Four months later just as they tracked me down knowing that the writing on the wall was my childhood handwriting and while knowing where I was I was used to speak directly to them from a location that nobody but them knew they were listening to, a Dublin guest house used as a meeting place by the IRA.

The message was a warning from God to them.

MI6 were bugging the place.

So when they got that ultimatum message, knowing that I had been identified to them in such a way that only God could have arranged they knew it was genuine.

That's how the real God gave the real governments their own real writing on the wall.

The people who received that message already knew the real Sauniere secret,(the existence of a secret anagram code that is synchronised to time in advance) when it was delivered to them in 1941 by Rudolf Hess.

After the message was given Some of them tried to kill us but were not allowed to do it. They knew that I would find the seventh seal code breaker and the proof in the code that it led me to.

If you read the Little Book Big Secret book on the link on this blog you you will find out something about TIME not mentioned in my film, explained by our unexpected trip to Billericay.

The reason why I bother to mention it is that in the book of Daniel it says that at the end time (which is now, as the writing on the wall makes certain) the 'elect' will escape by means of smoothness.

You may find that you need to understand what that means.

The July 22nd and THE REASON WHY. page will help with that (http://synchronicitywins.blogspot.com/p/july-22nd.html )
and...

Please watch the linked films and read the book to find out more detail.

Ross Kelly."

Synchronicity wins: July 22nd and THE REASON WHY.

SYNCHRONICITYWINS.BLOGSPOT.COM

LikeReply1 hr

James A. Quick That's IT?

LikeReply1 hr

Dave Rabjohns Yes - there is more to it than that. But that is what his blog is "about"...

LikeReply11 hr

James A. Quick Unsinn. I'm not sure saying it in English is sufficient, but nonsense.

LikeReply11 hr

Dave Rabjohns "After the message was given Some of them tried to kill us but were not allowed to do it. They knew that I would find the seventh seal code breaker and the proof in the code that it led me to."

lol

LikeReply11 hr

Ross Kelly No, it's connected but THIS is what I am asking you to look at .http://synchronicitywins.blogspot.co.uk/.../what-are-odds...

Synchronicity wins: What are the odds?.

SYNCHRONICITYWINS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ROSS KELLY

LikeReplyRemove Preview59 mins

Write a reply...

Alan Quinn Ross, i got upto something very important and skiped the rest,
something very important?!,
ross youd be lucky if scientists used that shite to prop up the leg on a wobbly table,
you made me laugh out loud,
so it wasnt a total waste.

LikeReply21 hr

Ross Kelly This is what I asked you to look at -

http://synchronicitywins.blogspot.co.uk/.../what-are-odds...

Synchronicity wins: What are the odds?.

SYNCHRONICITYWINS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ROSS KELLY

LikeReplyRemove Preview1 hr

Alan Quinn Ross you are not listening.

LikeReply56 mins

Ross Kelly HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LikeReply27 mins

Write a reply...

James A. Quick The plural of anecdote is not evidence... and this is singular.

LikeReply11 hr

James A. Quick I have now revised my estimation... he's not stupid, he's delusional. As much to be pitied as to be censured. Someone find this man some help.

LikeReply11 hr

Alan Quinn If your looking for ross try hogwarts.

LikeReply1 hr

Cyrus Epler This troll has caught a lot of people up in his bullshit

LikeReply11 hr

Jim Williams In the varying fields of science no surprise that one may find a archaeologist for example that still believes in some afterlife....Like most topics/subjects/ fields of learning, one may be well educated in one while still ignorant on so many levels in other fields..... Like a good mathematician that cannot spell. A historian that is not good at math..........and so on. Here again, the bigger picture was ignored.... Simple thinking vs critical thinking.....

LikeReply159 mins

Jack Peters Just because you don't like the scientific method and prefer your faith based life, does not indicate that scientist with which you disagree are deluded or idiots. Come up with a better theory, or shut up, self referencing books do not count.

LikeReply339 mins