Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > > > Note: creationist letters published as a courtesy in New Scientist
> > > > magazine are not the same as peer-reviewed science papers published in
> > > > professional, refereed science journals.
> > > 
> > > say the guy who throw around the T.O. faqs as they were pages of the bible.
> > 
> > As I have repeatedly made clear, the t.o. FAQs are a convenient
> > reference, because they often summarize peer-reviewed papers. 
> 
> which are old and quite outdated...

Once again Jabriol, unable to cope with the challenge, has thrown out
another straw man in the absurd hope that we will not notice his
helplessness in the face of scientific progress.

1. First of all, let us make a note that you *still* have not dealt
with your lie about the creaitonist letter that you pretended was a
peer-reviewed article.  When are *you* going to deal with that?

2.  You are trying your pathetic and impotent straw man trick again. 
Your one and only complaint about the t.o. FAQ. which you mindlessly
repeat here, is that it is not peer-reviewed, **NOT THAT IT IS OUT OF
DATE**.  I have proven you wrong, and oyu now admit this because you
ahve changed the basis of your complaint.  There are three serious
issues here which you are failing in:

A. The t.o. FAQs *are* peer reviewed on *an informal basis* by other
scientists who post to t.o..  This has been repeatedly made clear to
you.

B. The t.o. FAQs *are* supported by many references to peer-reviewed
articles, which you now appear to be admitting, at last.

C.  You have yet to quote a single pwer-reviewed article to support
any claim you ahve made, and therefore are a complete and utter
hypocrite to be compalining about anyone else's peer-review or lack of
it.  can your tiny brain gz=rasp this at all?

Now let's deal with your depsperately moving the goalposts to avoid
yet another example of your blind incompetence.  Now I ahve slammed
your face up agianst the *fact* that t.o. is informally peer-reviewed
*and8 is supported by reference to peer-reviewed papers, you are now
complaining that these peer-reviewed papers are out of date, something
of which you have never made an issue before.

So let's resolve the first issue first.  Are the t.o. FAQs that I have
repeatedly reminded you of *supported by references to peer-reviewed
articles* or not, regardless of whether these articles are up to date
or not?  Answer **that** question first.

Now let's deal with dates.  I have reprimanded you repeatedly for out
of date articles you have amateurishly and inadequately referenced,
now you are complaining that the peer-reviewed references used in t.o.
FAQs are out of date.

First of all, these are two different types of references we are
dealing with here.  The ones *you* have consistently given are not
peer-reviewed **and** are *out of date*, sometimes woefully so.  This
is two issues, not one.

Now let's look at those t.o. dates, shall we?  I glanced throught he
transitonals FAQ, and I don't see anything in there that is half a
century old, and none of these references are argument from
incredulity.  Most of it is from the eighties and nineties, and was
recent when the FAQ was written so unless you can quote *peer-reviewed
material* that refutes this peer-reviewed material *and* that is
*newer*, you lose.

The way you can resolve this is to **either quote peer-reviewed
references** in which case I will not say anything about the date
unless I can find a more recent peer-reviewed article that refutes the
one you have quoted.

OR, you can keep quoting your non-peer-reviewed "references" but you
have to actually *give* a reference so that we can check it out, *and*
you have to quote soemthing that does not consist solely of argument
from incredulity.  Because the things you have referenced so far
*regardless of the date* are not sufficient to support your case. 
*Peer-reviewed papers are* sufficient, regardless of the date, until
and unless you can quote *a more recent* peer-reviewed article that
refutes the earlier one.

Have you grasped any of this?

Now here is a news article that is only two days old that offers yet
more evidence of evolution.  Do *you* have a reference that is within
two days old that refutes evolution??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3142488.stm

If you don't then you need to shut your hypocritical mouth about both
peer-review (of which you have offered none) and about outdated
material.  Let it drop until you can quote *recent* material, that *is
or is not peer reviewed* that actually refutes evolution or
establishes a better alternative, and that is *not* simply argument
from incredulity.  Get it now?

> no I just ignore it because the FAQ are not peered reviewed.

But the *references* are, and you are a hypocrite since **NOT A THING
YOU HAVE POSTED HAS EVER BEEN SUPPORTED BY PEER-REVIEWED REFERENCES,
AS THE T.O. FAQS I HAVE QUOTE TO YOU ARE**.  You lose.  deal with it,
Loser.

Well this goes to show what a blind idiot you are.  You had the
hypocrisy to accuse me of not updating my knowledge, but you have
consistently demosntrated a spastic inability to update yours, because
you are completely blind to reality.  You lose.  Deal with it Loser.

Budikka