Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
... snip ...

And? Where does this lead? What was the point in posting this information, if not to diss the process? What argument were you proposing to make based on this information?
I hope you aren't expecting a coherent answer. I once had such hope but, after many frustrating attempts, finally realized that there wasn't going to be one.
At least you were expecting me to answer the other parts of the post before the 'snip?' Or you may know a little somink?

What was his point ignoring and seperating the rest of the infomation which it was part of, from the origininal post, I should wonder? See how wonderful how a little bit o' info can be stretched, with a little skill one can create little strawman goodies.
The other part was not relevant. You stated that you were not a science denier, and I showed you a post where you denied the science of the Big Bang. I referenced previous discussions where you had denied the validity of the Big Bang theory, were challenged on your claim, and then ran away on more than one occasion.

In case you don't get this, I don't expect you to respond meaningfully to anything I post, because I know that what you know about the Big Bang wouldn't fill the volume occupied by the universe during the Planck epoch. Which is less than 10^(-100) m^3 in case you were wondering. You have been posting here for many years, but you haven't learned a thing.

We are still waiting for you to explain the context of your post talking about fraud in science and women in science. What was the point of this post if not to diss the scientific process? Are you unwilling to discuss this issue because you are now embarrassed by what you had written?