The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Max Mckloud
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:55 am

The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Max Mckloud » Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:28 pm

Any skeptic must question the justification of all claims. Moreover, a truly intelligent skeptic must realize that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan). We must remember that "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." That being said, we must question the scientific authenticity (and ergo, educational, political, and media authority, among others) of Evolution; for if we do not seek to justify such an extraordinary assertion of biology, then we are no better than those who accept the Unicorn, the Loch Ness Monster, or the Sasquatch as evinced beasts on Earth.

That being said, I intend to boast an even more offensive claim than that of my last: Evolution is pseudoscience. The ideology of man being apes, relative to chimpanzees; that, through macro-evolution, we came from mere aquatic globs to be these highly complex and sentient creatures named en masse mankind; and/or that there once was an intermediate stage of organism between reptilian makeup and aerial is absolute, 100% hooey. Note that I did not say unsubstantiated (Proof by Assertion) or based on belligerent unintelligence (argumentum ad ignorantiam), but I asseverated that Evolution is entirely fantasy, as in undeniably. This is because it is an argument based on a lie, justified by, quite literally, nothing. Evolution is illogical.

Of course, I intend to present the disproof of Evolution, a great heinous absurdity on countless biologists' parts, soon, but first I would like to aberrate from my initial and primary themata. You see, while I accept and, furthermore, plead! that interested readers and bored onlookers would be excruciatingly skeptical of my contentions, it is mere crockery of the mind to delete or discard my post without due perusing of my alleged debunking and offering of a counter-argument of equal solidity - namely, the ultimate irrefragability of logical deduction and a logician's humble persuasion thereafter. So, if any bid this document "hooey" before even recognizing my claims or offering and establishing a rebuttal of equal logical standing (not any level lower, viz. science, which is that datum obtained through the scientific method (a philosophical, metaphysical tool): empirical fact based on faith that our senses do not lie), that same person can not consider themselves an intellectual on the first ground and is, at least, not a skeptic on the second. Without further adue, I continue:

Evolution (i.e. capital "E" Evolution: macro-evolution, not micro-) is false, as I already alluded, whence it stands. It stands upon a complete and total lie, Darwinian Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a fallacious argument that began with a simplistic petitio principii ("The fittest organism is that which survives. That organism which survives justifies fitness"). However, seeing how any skeptical logician could easily obliterate such a nonsensical view and effortlessly mock biologists (prev. naturalists) for it, it has been spruced up, tortuously refurbished, and annoying says the exact same thing, only in an even worse begging of questions - the circulum in probando.
Def. A: Fitness is the containment of genes from organisms that previously survived.
Def. B: Survival is reproduction of fitness (i.e. "fit genes").
Postulate: Inheritance is nonrandom because fitness is propagated through survival.
Justification: Those who are "fit" (contain fitness) survive; survival evinces fitness.
Let's review:
Postulate 4 w/Justification: A is continued ("propagated") by B because B identifies A.
Wow...

Excuse me while I chortle at the sheer pretentiousness of such fools as Darwin, Dawkins, and Forrest, among others! No! Ratherish, I congratulate these perfidious geniuses on fooling thousands across the globe with the nonsense of pseudoscience and irrational thought. What hooligans!

Presumably, some will attempt, in reply, to substantiate macro-evolution with pleas to "evidence" (e.g. Darwin's finches). Alas for the evolutionist, there are two major problems with this response:
1.) Evolution relies fundamentally upon Natural Selection and therefore has lost its foundational support; thus, it is irrelevant to bring up empirical phenomenon about a conclusion when the problem is located in the logic of the presuppositions.
2.) Logic is the tool we use to consider this or that as evidence for this or that IN THE FIRST PLACE; it is a philosophical feat to connect/apologize empirical phenomenon A with empirical data B. And so, science pressupposes the support of logic, which means that Evolution, a thing based on an illogicality, can not, therefore, even HAVE any evidence - it is literally impossible to give evidence to something illogical because an illogical thing is not a "thing" to begin with - logic denotes reality, thus illogicalities being lack thereof.
And so, the person has two rational choices thence:
1.) Accept Evolution as nonsense.
2.) Attempt to reanalyze and turn-table Natural Selection.
I am one of those who has committed himself to the first choice yet I have nothing against those who honestly set themselves to rational decision 2 because, provided they are a devout and sincere skeptic, they will ultimately be forced to conclude 1; 2 is inevitable. Why? Because Natural Selection is a lie at its basis. Darwin invented it (he never observed it obviously, since you can not observe what does not exist) as support of his conjectures and scientists (prev. naturalists) thereafter have skewed his work to be absolute instead of a mistaken ponderance. Begging the Question never intellectually evolves into a logical basis for anything - it remains a quip to the wise, meaningless to their eyes.

Notwithstanding, the very minute that Natural Selection becomes a valid description, a logical depiction of reality - a thing and not lack thereof - I will immediately admit its actuality and scientific standpoint. Until then, I remain a steadfast skeptic of the monstrosity that is Evolution, and the botched science and faux-intellectualism that follows therefrom - even more, skeptical that such a claim will ever be meaningful: describe biological reality. Relatively, if like me you agree or have just come to concede that Evolution is philosophical back-wash, please check out the following links as they will help explain further predicaments with Evolution (ones scientifically sustained given that we ignore the great logical blasphemy of Natural Selection).

http://creation.com/question-evolution
http://creation.com/15-questions

Now, I am a logician, but there are quite a few scientists involved in a Question Evolution! blog. As I have already admitted, science has no discussion with the problems I presented because logic precludes science. Regardless, if you intend to be obstinate contact the following blog, as it will be more relevant thereat: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:16 am

Max Mckloud wrote:Any skeptic must question the justification of all claims.

Why?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:22 am

Max Mckloud wrote:. . . I am a logician . . .

Your claim is contradicted by the many flawed arguments, fallacies, and failures of logic in your opening post.

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Hex » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:11 am

It is hard to debate anyone who gets their information (Seeming all?) from creationist sites. It is also hard to debate someone who wants skeptics to keep an open mind to creationism, when they refuse to honestly debate natural selection, hence has already made up their mind and will skew things to only fit their stance. It is also hard to debate someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of just what natural selection is. It also hard to debate someone who (typically) cherry picks "proof" from such a small known facts (Leaving room to move the goal posts all over the place and dig up every straw-man available.). It is also hard to debate someone who claims to know just what someone was doing over a hundred years ago, as if they where there to observe it. It is also hard to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge that science has "evolved" and is much more sophisticated, than it was over a hundred years ago. It is hard to debate someone who thinks that evolution was built by just a few people and not the hundreds, from all sorts of disciplines that are peer reviewed and contested "finds" in ways that would make creationists very happy.

Finally it is hard to debate someone, who's eventual argument will distill down to, "You gotta have faith!"

This is all old hat and I personally don't want to tackle such a complex question, that would take literal reams of books that you wish for me to supply my sources of information, when you want simple answers to fit your world view.

You want me to supply proof contrary to your argument, setting the ground rules that I supply much more evidence than you will have to.

Sorry, don't like the conditions you've set to be of any interest to debate something that has overwhelming evidence (It is the 21st century after-all.) that you are too lazy to look-up yourself and supply such meager arguments for your position.
Last edited by Hex on Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwoaOJZ7Dfk

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:28 am

Hex wrote:. . . This is all old hat . . .

Exactly.

Every objection to evolution in the opening post has already been thoroughly and soundly rebuked elsewhere by many people. No need to waste our time re-doing all that work here to satisfy the irrational demands of someone who has clearly not been paying attention.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:41 am

Wow. He really told us. I feel suitably humbled.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby OutOfBreath » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:59 am

The style is eerily similar to another poster I have on ignore, and thought were perhaps banned.
Arrogant self-proclaimed philosopher with full on attacks on science with the cunning use of selective logic and general misunderstandings abut the subject.

The OP boils down to evolution by his premises is illogical. His premises are not sound, and very questionable. (Although Darwin is credited as the orignator of the general ideas underlying the field, it is not his work that today is the fundament of the field. Few of Darwin's judgements and conclusions today stand. But the general idea does) Further, natural science isn't guided by logic first and foremost, but by data, observations and physical proof, which then is sought given a logical framework. It is not hard to find problems with the framework using idealized logic, but you are then really trying to refute actual data with sophistery. The church was also good at that throughout the middle ages.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Gord » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:59 am

"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5007
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Monster » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:39 pm

Gord wrote:
Personally, I think it sounds more like a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOUQvDuRR7Q :lol:

That VenomFangX guy posted the most outrageous self destruction ever seen on youtube a while back. He had threatened a popular youtube atheist (forgot the name), and in doing that, VenomFangX essentially committed crimes, and then he had to make a public apology. The apology was WOW. Like publicly punching himself repeatedly.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Max Mckloud
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:55 am

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Max Mckloud » Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:47 pm

Hex wrote:It is hard to debate anyone who gets their information (Seeming all?) from creationist sites. It is also hard to debate someone who wants skeptics to keep an open mind to creationism, when they refuse to honestly debate natural selection, hence has already made up their mind and will skew things to only fit their stance. It is also hard to debate someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of just what natural selection is. It also hard to debate someone who (typically) cherry picks "proof" from such a small known facts (Leaving room to move the goal posts all over the place and dig up every straw-man available.). It is also hard to debate someone who claims to know just what someone was doing over a hundred years ago, as if they where there to observe it. It is also hard to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge that science has "evolved" and is much more sophisticated, than it was over a hundred years ago. It is hard to debate someone who thinks that evolution was built by just a few people and not the hundreds, from all sorts of disciplines that are peer reviewed and contested "finds" in ways that would make creationists very happy.

Finally it is hard to debate someone, who's eventual argument will distill down to, "You gotta have faith!"

This is all old hat and I personally don't want to tackle such a complex question, that would take literal reams of books that you wish for me to supply my sources of information, when you want simple answers to fit your world view.

You want me to supply proof contrary to your argument, setting the ground rules that I supply much more evidence than you will have to.

Sorry, don't like the conditions you've set to be of any interest to debate something that has overwhelming evidence (It is the 21st century after-all.) that you are too lazy to look-up yourself and supply such meager arguments for your position.


The first sentence is a presumptuous Straw Man; I get my information from logical deduction and philosophical criticism of a botched view of biology - nothing more. The links were for the edification of true skeptics, which you clearly are not.

Your second note is also quite the obstinate red herring as I already admitted, "the very minute that Natural Selection becomes a valid description, a logical depiction of reality - a thing and not lack thereof - I will immediately admit its actuality and scientific standpoint," thus showing that I am open to anything logical. However, you seem to forget this; or did you read my post at all?

As to your mentioning that I am knocking down a straw-man-NS, you failed to back up your assertion with evidence (i.e. a supposedly "true" version of Natural Selection). Ergo, this is a Proof by Assertion fallacy. I thought this was a skeptic's forum?

It is a common claim of any historically accurate person (viz. educated individuals) to know what one did thousands of years ago, much less fret over a mere hundred. Notwithstanding, I fail to see how this relates to Natural Selection being true or false? This is a Trivial Objection fallacy; please actually belie the thesis of my claims next time, thank you.

Actually, I mentioned more than three times logic (intuition and deduction) and specifically said, "Evolution is illogical" and then proceeded to support my case with a symbolic description of Natural Selection - namely, A = B because B = A. No where is the word "faith" used as a medium for accuracy in my argumentation or a means by which to believe me - in fact, oppositely, it takes literally no faith to believe what I said since that which I stated was 100% logically static: truth. Nice Straw Man, though... you appear to be a fan of those.

In summary, your response was not a sincere rebuttal but an anti-intellectual whine begging me to take faith in evolution because of your deplorable uses of illogicalities. How hypocritical, Mr. Fideist. You are hardly a skeptic, and I invite you to look once again at the name of this forum.

User avatar
Hex
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:26 pm
Custom Title: mi malam ciuj el vi
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Hex » Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:19 pm

Your already twisting words, ignoring statements and refuse to read and understand what I wrote. I'm impressed how quickly all this occurred and backs up everything I wrote.
Spoiler:
  TOYNBEE IDEA
IN KUBRICK'S 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPITER  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwoaOJZ7Dfk

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:40 am

Max Mckloud wrote:. . . you failed to back up your assertion with evidence . . . Ergo, this is a Proof by Assertion fallacy. I thought this was a skeptic's forum?

That's comical coming from someone who has presented NO evidence whatsoever for his assertions about evolution. All you have offered are flawed arguments and in science, that's not good enough.

Secondly, all of your supposed objections to evolution have already been thoroughly and profoundly discredited elsewhere and there is no need to repeat all that work here just to prove we are "skeptics".

The argument in the opening post is wrong at a very deep level, both scientifically and logically. We have seen your kind of histrionics before and most of us no longer have any patience for nutjobs who come blasting onto the forum attacking skeptics and demanding we show you why you are wrong. This may come as a surprise to you but no one here cares what you think. So go ahead a run your mouth all you want, all it will do is make YOU look bad.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:50 am

Max Mckloud wrote:
Hex wrote:. . . Sorry, don't like the conditions you've set to be of any interest to debate something that has overwhelming evidence (It is the 21st century after-all.) that you are too lazy to look-up yourself and supply such meager arguments for your position.

. . . In summary, your response was not a sincere rebuttal but an anti-intellectual whine begging me to take faith in evolution because of your deplorable uses of illogicalities.

He did no such thing. Not even close. I guess we can add lack of reading comprehension to the list of your other rhetorical ineptitudes.

Max Mckloud wrote:. . . You are hardly a skeptic, and I invite you to look once again at the name of this forum.

Hey look the pot is calling the kettle black. [yawn]

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Gord » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:06 am

Max Mckloud wrote:The links were for the edification of true skeptics, which you clearly are not.

No true skeptic he, you say!

I thought this was a skeptic's forum?

But did you think it was a true skeptic's forum?

It is a common claim of any historically accurate person (viz. educated individuals) to know what one did thousands of years ago, much less fret over a mere hundred.

I don't believe you.

...please actually belie the thesis of my claims next time, thank you.

Why? He's obviously trying to skip the long, tedious process of actually engaging you, you silly blivet, and instead wishes to jump to the inevitable result of ignoring you as just another nuisance poster.

That is, after all, your purpose. To pester us.

(We deduced that. We're smurt. :nuts: )

In summary, your response was not a sincere rebuttal but an anti-intellectual whine....

What intellectual, where?!

Ohhhh, you mean you.

No, if you consider yourself an intellectual, I think you'll have to accept our responses as sincere rebuttals to your post. [/whining]

You are hardly a skeptic....

Hardly a true skeptic, you mean!

...I invite you to look once again at the name of this forum.

"The...Skeptics...Society...Forum." Huh! We're a society! I wonder if there's a dress code? We should wear hats!

I can picture it now.... *dreamy* That would be awwwwwesome.... *dreamy*
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:41 am

We have several silly hats...

:tiara: :jester: :paladin: :king: :elf: :orc: :dwarf:

But none to spare. Sorry, Max. You know what they say, the quick and the dead, and all.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Max Mckloud
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:55 am

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Max Mckloud » Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:54 pm

xouper wrote:
Max Mckloud wrote:. . . you failed to back up your assertion with evidence . . . Ergo, this is a Proof by Assertion fallacy. I thought this was a skeptic's forum?

That's comical coming from someone who has presented NO evidence whatsoever for his assertions about evolution. All you have offered are flawed arguments and in science, that's not good enough.

Secondly, all of your supposed objections to evolution have already been thoroughly and profoundly discredited elsewhere and there is no need to repeat all that work here just to prove we are "skeptics".

The argument in the opening post is wrong at a very deep level, both scientifically and logically. We have seen your kind of histrionics before and most of us no longer have any patience for nutjobs who come blasting onto the forum attacking skeptics and demanding we show you why you are wrong. This may come as a surprise to you but no one here cares what you think. So go ahead a run your mouth all you want, all it will do is make YOU look bad.


There was plenty of intellectual evidence; empirical evidence is unnecessary to debunk that which fails logically alone. Your complaint, therefore, is a trifle nuisance of the advocates of scientism, evidentialism, materialism, and other nonsensical Kantian illogicalities. Logic is the subject; not something as subjective as empirical "evidence".

Furthermore, your reference to outside sources is a Proof by Assertion. Link or lie. Had you quoted such disproof, you might have been taken seriously, but instead you decided to be intellectually lazy or just plain dishonest.

Finally, "The argument in the opening post is wrong. . ." does not even have insufficient support from logic, much less sufficient advocation therefrom. It's as solid an argument as "Unicorns exist empirically because I said so." Bravo!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10720
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:12 pm

Max Mckloud wrote:
xouper wrote:. . . So go ahead a run your mouth all you want, all it will do is make YOU look bad.

There was plenty of intellectual evidence; empirical evidence is unnecessary to debunk that which fails logically alone. Your complaint, therefore, is a trifle nuisance of the advocates of scientism, evidentialism, materialism, and other nonsensical Kantian illogicalities. Logic is the subject; not something as subjective as empirical "evidence".

Furthermore, your reference to outside sources is a Proof by Assertion. Link or lie. Had you quoted such disproof, you might have been taken seriously, but instead you decided to be intellectually lazy or just plain dishonest.

Finally, "The argument in the opening post is wrong. . ." does not even have insufficient support from logic, much less sufficient advocation therefrom. It's as solid an argument as "Unicorns exist empirically because I said so." Bravo!

QED

<plonk>


Max Mckloud wrote:Furthermore, your reference to outside sources is a Proof by Assertion.

It was not offered as a proof. It was merely a statement of fact.

Max Mckloud wrote:Link or lie.

Fallacy of false dichotomy.

Max Mckloud wrote:Had you quoted such disproof, you might have been taken seriously,

Those who matter already take me seriously and know that what I said is true because they have already seen the proof.

Max Mckloud wrote:but instead you decided to be intellectually lazy or just plain dishonest.

Argumentum ad hominem and false dichotomy.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Gord » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:42 pm

Max Mckloud wrote:Def. A: Fitness is the containment of genes from organisms that previously survived.
Def. B: Survival is reproduction of fitness (i.e. "fit genes").
Postulate: Inheritance is nonrandom because fitness is propagated through survival.
Justification: Those who are "fit" (contain fitness) survive; survival evinces fitness.
Let's review:
Postulate 4 w/Justification: A is continued ("propagated") by B because B identifies A.
Wow...

A=B
B=A
C because A
C because B
Your conclusion: neither A nor B! :lol:

You're not a "logician," you're a BS!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5007
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: The Monstrosity of Natural Designation

Postby Monster » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:29 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:..., natural science isn't guided by logic first and foremost, but by data, observations and physical proof, which then is sought given a logical framework. It is not hard to find problems with the framework using idealized logic, but you are then really trying to refute actual data with sophistery.

Well stated.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.


Return to “Monster Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest