St has beings that are pure energy, you on the other hand are pure ad hom.
Of Gods and Men didn't feature Gary Mitchell, but Charlie Evans from "Charlie X". Who got his powers from the Thasians. A non-corporeal race.
St has beings that are pure energy, you on the other hand are pure ad hom.
Or you could just respect the fact that it didn't work for me, and move on?
"Ad hominem " you keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it meansSt has beings that are pure energy, you on the other hand are pure ad hom.
You don't have to be so thin skinned. I wonder what you would say if you were on the receiving end of what I am currently getting from JO.
Of Gods and Men didn't feature Gary Mitchell, but Charlie Evans from "Charlie X". Who got his powers from the Thasians. A non-corporeal race.
"Ad hominem " you keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means
What biological evolution is or isn't is not subject to my opinion or anyone else's. Locutus101 has demonstrated he doesn't understand what evolutionary biology is. Identifying that someone's arguments are based on ignorance is not ad hominem.I'd respect his opinion, but disagree. Then move on. It's a TV/movie franchise.
What biological evolution is or isn't is not subject to my opinion or anyone else's. Locutus101 has demonstrated he doesn't understand what evolutionary biology is. Identifying that someone's arguments are based on ignorance is not ad hominem.
What biological evolution is or isn't is not subject to my opinion or anyone else's. Locutus101 has demonstrated he doesn't understand what evolutionary biology is. Identifying that someone's arguments are based on ignorance is not ad hominem.
I was more about a general disagreement.![]()
You got that right. There is a general disagreement between him and myself.
Calling people names isn't helping your case.
I am not calling anyone names.
Why would you say that?
You don't even know the difference between a genuine scientist and a charlatan.
This is clearly designed to insult someone's intelligence.
I'm sorry. I don't mean to draw you into this but, what disagreement? Being factually wrong and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge one is factually wrong is not an opinion. It's just doubling down on being wrong. You don't decide for yourself that water is not wet and refuse to budge when someone notices you are wrong.I was more talking about a general disagreement.![]()
I'm sorry. I don't mean to draw you into this but, what disagreement?
I'm sorry. I don't mean to draw you into this but, what disagreement? Being factually wrong and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge one is factually wrong is not an opinion. It's just doubling down on being wrong. You don't decide for yourself that water is not wet and refuse to budge when someone notices you are wrong.
More Irony. You don't understand the very concept of evolution. You keep making meaningless analogies, because you'd be at loss to make a factual statement about evolution itself.
What did I do to you that justifies this opprobrium?I wasn't talking about this conversation, at all.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.