Pathetic.
You claim to be a microbiologist and you can't explain your objection in your own words.
by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Pathetic.
You claim to be a microbiologist and you can't explain your objection in your own words.
From our previous conversation on this topic. See link
The objections to this theory and article are all mine (and in my own words), - Vidqun
That is a lie.
The post in question consists of 443 words. Being generous at least 336 of those are a direct copy-paste from aWiki article...
That's 75% of your post.
1 - You didn't provide a source.
2 - You dishonestly claimed the article "reveals a few flaws with the theory". It does not.
Cofty, what is wrong with you? Please follow the numbers.
You've said it and I repeat: "OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY AND ARTICLE ARE ALL MINE." I used the article and OBJECTED to some of the contents. I used the article as backbone and commented and/or objected to it. What is so difficult about that?
For the fifth time your post consists almost entirely of copy-paste. You have even double-pasted most of it.
Once again you refuse to provide a link to the source.
The last time you did this you claimed "The objections to this theory and article are all mine (and in my own words)"
I found the source and proved it was at least 75% word-for-word copy-paste.
You lied!
You claim to be a professional microbiologist and yet not only can you not explain your objections in your own words but you don't seem to understand the importance of avoiding plagiarism.
I can't believe a microbiologist would cut and paste bullcrap from Michael Behe.
And I quote: "The Wiki article reveals a few flaws with the theory symbiogenesis." Go and look it up. I could not access your article, so I used Wiki instead.
I used the Wiki-article to point out the flaws, and I wrote it out and commented on the article. No copy and paste. Makes me think: Farting against thunder, flogging a dead horse, yeah, both of you. Cantleave, is that the best you can do?
No copy and paste
Liar.
The post in question consists of 443 words. Being generous at least 336 of those are a direct copy-paste from aWiki article...
That's 75% of your post.
"The Wiki article reveals a few flaws with the theory symbiogenesis."
It did not. It discussed the positive evidence for endosymbiosis. the "flaws" were all in your imagination as I explained.
Cofty, whatever you see or say, the above are the reasons for what I believe, similar to your initial post. That's what you believe, isn't it? You are allowed to say your say, but I am not? Like it or lump it.