***"Mammoth" Evidence


[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ HOURGLASS2 ARCHIVES ]

Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on April 02, 1999 at 07:02:20 {ppHCdFLRUMbkYYamxmSw79YAW9JMpc}:

In Reply to: **"Mammoth" Evidence posted by My point-WW on April 02, 1999 at 06:24:08:

No, we can't see that. Why don't you try to deal with the evidence AF outlined? You just keep denying it and throwing out more Web pages with stuff. Instead, why not take what AF wrote (or any of the talk.origins FAQs on the subject), and show us why, point by point, it isn't as solid as you say?

What you are doing is not too far removed from the technique used by JaneyJJJ -- deny what your opponent has said, and move on to more stuff. You need to deal with the arguments that have already been given first.

Seeker


Follow Ups:

  • ****"Mammoth" Evidence Nope, not at all 10:01:13 4/02/99 (4)
  • *****"Mammoth" Evidence Seeker 12:41:35 4/02/99 (3)
  • ******"Mammoth" Evidence ReasonableDoubt-WW 13:20:59 4/02/99 (2)
  • *******"Mammoth" Evidence Al; 00:16:50 4/03/99 (0)
  • *******"Mammoth" Evidence Seeker 15:35:50 4/02/99 (0)

    [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ HOURGLASS2 ARCHIVES ]

    Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

    1