Steve Shaw
Let me put it to you this way: if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. My tactics in that regard are plastered all over these threads for all to see.

I think I summed up your tactics in my last post. Statements of truth and schoolyard abuse.

As I've said so many times, I dip in and out of here when the fancy takes me. I have rather a busy life beyond Mudcat.

Really? You were rather heavily engaged in another of Jack the Sailor's threads at the time.

So you consider Popper's work to be "quasi-philosophical burblings," do you? Intellectually superior to both Newton and Popper. I bet you could tell Einstein a thing or two.

I see no point in debating with pete or Jack. pete believes in the inerrant truth of the Bible. I don't think anything I say will change that and others can take note and judge what he says accordingly. Jack is a rather silly fellow who thinks that watching the Discovery Channel makes him an expert. He isn't important.

You, on the other hand, claim to be a scientist while completely rejecting the philosophy behind it that makes it different from religion. There is a danger that people might be misled by you as I fear that hundreds of your pupils already have.

Ahem: EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

So you keep saying. You say that it is self evident. I have asked you several times to show me some but you have failed to respond.