I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

So when are you going to pay the licensing fee?  And why did you use it after it was clear it was theft?

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah, dave.  You're really scoring some points on the science front. 

But, hey! You can always score on the bluster & bravado front.
Nobody does bluster & bravado like you, dave! 

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

You pretty much lose on all fronts, Dave. Just saying.

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Dave,
When did "do the right thing" become "holier than thou"?

You have been exposed for lying, cheating, and stealing, and have no signs of understanding that they are bad things.  I think your Bible is missing pages.

Nah. He just hawkinsed it.

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

You pretty much lose on all fronts, Dave. Just saying.

Wait. How th hell does this make you win on the holier than thou front?

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Looking for you in the lake K thread, oh science loser.

Run, run as fast as you can.

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Nah. He just hawkinsed it.

Lol

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Not very good given the dearth of information.

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Not very good given the dearth of information lack of easily franoogled predigested nuggets from my guru du jour.

Fyp

Nah. He just hawkinsed it.

Lol

"Temple prostitutes"

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Not very good given the dearth of information.

Nothing to find on AiG, huh?

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Not very good given the dearth of information.

Standard science seems to explain the data just fine.

Dearth means lack of.

I guess when you are losing on the science front, you can always win points on the "holier than thou" front.

Yeah I've noticed that seems to be your strategy.

How is your model for the lower 6,000 varves of Lake Kalksjon coming on?

Not very good given the dearth of information.

There is plenty of information, Dave.  Just no information that would support any theory other than the straightforward interpretation that the reason that the 9,000 varves have the same thickness and composition and have varve count dates that match their radiocarbon dates is that because the lower 6,000 are annual varves just as the upper 3,000 are.

You are right that there is a "dearth of information" that would support any other conclusion.  So why are you drawing any other conclusion?

Remember ANY OTHER explanation for the lower 6,000 varves has to:

Explain why they look just the same as the 3,000 above them that we know (and you agree) are annual.
Have dates that correspond to the radiocarbon dates they would have if they were annual
Show no trace of a major ice age, even though they are in Sweden, which would have been under ice, year round, throughout.
Show no trace of the major melt that would have followed the ice age

You have produced nothing so far.  In other words, right now YOU are "losing on the science front".  Cue for the next round of but at least I'm doing something to save the world and you aren't.

You just HAVE to post about your preferred topic in EVERY thread don't you?  It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when you were a child.

You just HAVE to post about your preferred topic in EVERY thread don't you?  It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when you were a child.

You were the one who brought up "losing on the science front".

You do this repeatedly, Dave - you bring up extraneous topics as poo to fling at other posters, then complain about the topic being extraneous when people defend themselves against the charge.

The main reason YEC topics come up on your goat thread is because you bring them up as ways of denigrating your critics: "Darwin Club" members or whatever.

Then you get all self-righteous - "holier than thou" even - about the subsequent discussions.  Which you then attempt to park on a differen thread.   And ultimately abandon.

You just HAVE to post about your preferred topic in EVERY thread don't you?  It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when you were a child.

This thread is about your ethics.

Have you paid NCSE the $100 you promised a year and a half ago?

Yes I paid them. They apparently don't like YEC money

Yes I paid them. They apparently don't like YEC money

You mean you re-sent the check? 

Or you contacted them and they told you they had rejected it because you are a YEC?

I did my part. I wrote the check. I mailed it.

Besides it's charity bc I'm a nice guy ... not "paying up" of a debt ... I won