[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > > > > > looking   
   > > > > > > > > into   
   > > > > > > > > funding for one in my early years due to my inquisitive nature   
   in many   
   > > > > > > > > things and arena's.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > So why did you lose your interest in think tanks? And what makes   
   them   
   > > > > > > > even on a par with scientific excellence?   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > It has nothing to do with scientific excellence it has to do with   
   ideas   
   > > > > > > carried out to their useful ends and or total failures thus   
   proving it   
   > > > > > > to   
   > > > > > > be   
   > > > > > > just another pipe dream. That part of my life I did not wan't to   
   sell to   
   > > > > > > anyone, although one of my project ideas I wish that I could have   
   given   
   > > > > > > it   
   > > > > > > to the proper people for even free, since it would/could have   
   helped   
   > > > > > > space   
   > > > > > > travel considerably in a variety of ways.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Think tanks -- popular culture's answer to a question no one asked.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > You must be a pessimist at heart.   
   > > >   
   > > > No, I just don't have a high opinion of pop culture. Science seems   
   > > > to separate itself from that part of society.   
   > >   
   > > Enter Fauci. LOL   
   >   
   > Consulting is not science, though scientists outside academia might   
   > become interested in it.   
      
   Fauci was not a consultant..   
   >   
   >   
   > > > >   
   > > > > No.   
   > > >   
   > > > I'm glad we agree on that.   
   > >   
   > > It was never an issue. But imprints in certain layers are.   
   >   
   > They are, but they're not found with dinosaur footprints.   
      
   A very generalized and false statement.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > And in the Rain Forest of the Amazon a large city covered up by the   
   > > > > > > jungles.   
   > > > > > > Lots of things to learn there, as well. Ancient people were not as   
   > > > > > > stupid   
   > > > > > > and illiterate as many gave them credit for.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Hunter-gatherers would probably be illiterate but not stupid. However   
   > > > > > I don't know of anyone that would claim literate and intelligent   
   > > > > > civilizations couldn't exist in the Americas 2500 years ago. I mean   
   > > > > > that civilization lasted to almost the beginning of the well-known   
   > > > > > Maya civilization which developed in the jungles of Central America.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Hunter gatherers, splorf. There always has been and forever will be.   
   > > >   
   > > > What does that have to do with ancient civilizations?   
   > >   
   > > You were the one who brought it up, as if there was a reason for it. You   
   > > started off you paragraph referring to them.   
   >   
   > Wasn't it you that introduced the idea of civilization in the Amazon,   
   > and claimed that you had shown that ancient peoples weren't illiterate   
   > or stupid?   
      
   Yes. But then you reduced them, to hunter gatherers. Despite the large   
   cities, etc.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > > The reason that stood out to be was because the   
   evolutionary   
   > > > > > > > > > > scientists   
   > > > > > > > > > > who   
   > > > > > > > > > > tried to say that somehow the human foot prints were man   
   made seemed   
   > > > > > > > > > > absurd   
   > > > > > > > > > > to me, it was like they were grasping at straws to   
   disprove it   
   > > > > > > > > > > because   
   > > > > > > > > > > it   
   > > > > > > > > > > stood out so bad in a manner that contradicted the current   
   thinking   
   > > > > > > > > > > of   
   > > > > > > > > > > evolution.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > I find it interesting that these YECs have gone *back* to   
   Paluxy,   
   > > > > > > > > > despite its history of fraudulent "human footprints."   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > That has nothing to do with what is on the table of topics for   
   this   
   > > > > > > > > discussion. Which I prefer to stick to at this time.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Yes, let's just agree that human footprints with dinosaur   
   footprints   
   > > > > > > > have been debunked, and move on.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > Sorry, but I have seen the evidences so I cannot agree with you.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > So I'll just assume you were wrong, and we can move on.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > That has been you presumptive assumptions from the beginning. It has   
   been   
   > > > > your ongoing perception about me in all areas of these discussions, it   
   is   
   > > > > time to bring it to a halt as it is just wasting both our time.   
   > > >   
   > > > So bring it to a halt. It's no skin off my nose.   
   > >   
   > > Of course not.You had none to give.   
   >   
   > What foolishness.   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Of course when they dug up their own sites and discovered   
   the same   
   > > > > > > > > > > things   
   > > > > > > > > > > they were blown away, and I remember a couple of them   
   saying that   
   > > > > > > > > > > this   
   > > > > > > > > > > find   
   > > > > > > > > > > means that they have to completely changed their order of   
   things or   
   > > > > > > > > > > that   
   > > > > > > > > > > this just destroyed in so completely that no longer could   
   they   
   > > > > > > > > > > accept   
   > > > > > > > > > > the   
   > > > > > > > > > > theory.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > Pure fabrication.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Typical subjective reasoning for agenda focused people.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Cite the scientists who you claim acted this way.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > I would if I still had the documentation. Which BTW I might have   
   on one   
   > > > > > > of   
   > > > > > > my old hard disks that I have stored away.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Yeah, why don't you post those when you're "able to find them."   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Oh I am able to all right, I just need the motivation and then allocate   
   > > > > the   
   > > > > time to do it.   
   > > >   
   > > > So post them as soon as your "motivation" comes in to rescue them for   
   > > > you.   
   > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > HOWEVER! LOL, there was a large group of them who then   
   came up with   
   > > > > > > > > > > the   
   > > > > > > > > > > idea that whoever created the original footprints MUST   
   have created   
   > > > > > > > > > > those as   
   > > > > > > > > > > well and then recovered the land, bushes and trees to make   
   it all   
   > > > > > > > > > > look   
   > > > > > > > > > > Natural. And they literally believed what they said, at   
   least   
   > > > > > > > > > > outwardly.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > They moved the trees and shrubs around? Where did you get   
   that from?   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > That is what the naysayers suggested and claimed.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > What naysayers?   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > The very scientists that you requested the cites of.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > What were the names of these scientists?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > We already discussed that.   
   > > >   
   > > > No, we discussed people that have supposedly had OBEs -- I was asking   
   > > > you for the names involved, which is similar to what I'm requesting   
   > > > here but is clearly different.   
   > >   
   > > Ok so your memory comes and goes. That is too bad. You have my sympathies.   
   >   
   > You should figure out whether you're wrong or right before you develop   
   > unwanted sympathy.   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Their argument basis of thought reminded me of the typical   
   low level   
   > > > > > > > > > > atheists   
   > > > > > > > > > > arguments as the same reasoning skills or lack thereof was   
   in full   
   > > > > > > > > > > effect.   
   > > > > > > > > > > And those people were educated, some very highly.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > No, atheist arguments are not low-level, the way theist   
   arguments   
   > > > > > > > > > are.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Really? Look at your comment just above, the reasoning of it   
   and the   
   > > > > > > > > knee   
   > > > > > > > > jerk reaction.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?   
   > > > > > >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)