Can I comment on subjects not related to the current article but to an archived one?
For example I would like to react to the disapproval of the antics of Mr. Mastropaolo in the article "No, I will not ever debate Joseph Mastropaolo" .
There was an objection raised to his attempt to disprove abiogenesis in an experiment lasting no more than 14 hours. I think he should not be faulted for taking only 14 hours but for screwing around too long. After all I have witnessed Richard Dawkins in YouTube videos proving that wings and eyes were evolved instead of designed.
He was done with the wings in under 30 seconds and the eye did not take much longer either. He, a scientist beat the inept creationist by a long mile. One more nail in the coffin of clueless creationists.
Aw, this was a really fantastic post. In concept I'd prefer to create like this also taking time and genuine energy to produce a great post... but what can I say... I procrastinate alot and by no means seem to get a thing carried out.
Can I comment on subjects not related to the current article but to an archived one?
For example I would like to react to the disapproval of the antics of Mr. Mastropaolo in the article "No, I will not ever debate Joseph Mastropaolo" .
There was an objection raised to his attempt to disprove abiogenesis in an experiment lasting no more than 14 hours. I think he should not be faulted for taking only 14 hours but for screwing around too long. After all I have witnessed Richard Dawkins in YouTube videos proving that wings and eyes were evolved instead of designed.
He was done with the wings in under 30 seconds and the eye did not take much longer either. He, a scientist beat the inept creationist by a long mile. One more nail in the coffin of clueless creationists.
Aw, this was a really fantastic post. In concept I'd prefer to create like this also taking time and genuine energy to produce a great post... but what can I say... I procrastinate alot and by no means seem to get a thing carried out.