Well, he was arguing against this "2000-year old book created by a bunch of middle-easter shepards", as you put it (though it's inaccurate), with few real arguments. I was, therefore arguing for the book and science not being opposites, but the book and a number of scientists (big difference). There was indeed a lot of pseudo-science in his links, though, some was anti-science (some of these I agreed with him about), some was anti-religion (pro-atheism, pro-darwinism) etc. I don't know about the more recent vids he posted, as I felt we were not getting anywhere. As to nn_step's character and/or intelligence, I'd guess he may simply be like most of us: reasonable about most things, but with a few things he considers being above questioning, becoming unreasonable only when debating such topics. I know I do it from time to time, so I can hardly blame him for it. As to us being somewhat alike, or far and few, perhaps. In any case, have a good day
Find latest posts