Search results

Again, nobody is arguing that there has never been any event of fraud where it comes to elections. That applies to all sides. The ridiculous conspiracy rubbish regarding widespread voter fraud that "robbed" Trump of a second term in office? Nah.

The burden of proof, as has been outlined to you numerous times before, is on those who make said allegations. If such is non forthcoming as is the case in question, then such can be dismissed. There was ample opportunity for such to be aired in court and lo and behold, nothing. Tell me...

At this stage, nobody would convince you so meh.

Believe that as you will, it isn't true but hey ho.

I've never stated that there hasn't ever been cases of political fraud so that's a fail and that applies to all sides. The ridiculous allegations of widespread fraud and election stealing is an all together different animal and is simply laughable.

Supply the quantifiable evidence and apparent "known facts" then. The floor is yours!

How many guliibles does it take to buy into fraud conspiracy rubbish that has yet to be substantiated with anything remotely credible in support? Oh, the entire MAGA! crowd perhaps.

You've been educated more than enough through the years on here. You're just unwilling to accept that which runs contrary to your set belief. Fair enough. You keep hold of that.

The measurement of the age of the earth/universe isn't solely dependent on radiometric dating you realize? I don't have a 'preferred fantasy' as I don't consider it to be anything like the big deal that you and others who are insistent on a young earth consider it to be. Truth matters for sure...

Well, no, it's not fantasy and I sure don't know everything, never claimed to. It's also pretty funny when people like you call others buffoons but hey, have at it. Again, what does it ultimately matter anyway whether the earth is old or young?

It was over months ago.

No, the evidence is clear and considering that I'm not rooted in a belief system that has a preconceived notion from the outset then I can view it from an objective stance. The constraints of your belief restricts you from even entertaining the possibility that the earth can be a fair bit older...

Well, no. I don't have any preconceived ideas and as I've stated before, if the evidence supported a young earth/universe then I would have no problem with it whatsoever. It doesn't. Simple as. I've no interest in that particular source so you're right there. It's woeful but I read the article...

No, it's based on evidence like anything else that becomes a theory in science. If you can't understand that basic detail then you're in no position to talk about 'facts'.

You don't seem to have any idea of what scientists actually think but just post bizarre and uninformed diatribes regardless.

There was nothing insecure about the last election to start with, as corroborated by those in charge of security that included Republicans. Trump's continual whining and unhinged rants notwithstanding, it's a complete farce.

I've read how radiometric dating works thanks, I've certainly no interest in reading something that Bob Enyart cobbled together. To say that the ToE is based on such is just completely ignorant also.

There was no problem whatsoever with the phraseology and you dropped the ball when you accused me of stating that Dawkins was the only one when he clearly isn't as you now acknowledge. To say it's a 'huge' number of people is just hyperbole. You do understand what hyperbole means, right?

Uh huh. So you accuse me of a diversionary tactic by simply pointing out that you've been linked to an in depth article that debunked your supposedly 'completely detailed' explanation and then link to a Bob Enyart article?! That's hysterical right there. I recommend that you take your own advice.

Uh, I said "only the likes of Dawkins." Do you have a reading comprehension problem? That clearly doesn't state that he is the only one. It obviously implies that there are others of similar ilk so get a grip.