User talk:Scottm

Interesting. So who are you that you can persuade Don Batten to knock something off his list? Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm nobody (well I'm a physicist); if you comment on any of his articles he reads them. Remember that this isn't Ken Ham or Andy Schlafly, these are real, accomplished scientists. It's great that there is a page here that serves as a well-organized counter argument, but no one should be afraid of engaging in a real discussion to advance the conversation. At the very least (in a epistemological sense), you can't know you know that rational wiki is correct and CMI is wrong; a lot could be learned I think from talking about it. Seriously, though, my real motivation comes from things like this. I feel like we should be asking questions like, "How can we finally resolve a damaging 150 year-old argument?" As opposed to just laughing at how funny some of this stuff is. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Scottm / talk / contribs
 * I must be arguing with the wrong lot then. BTW, in side-by-side articles like 101 evidences you need to remember to put your comments inside the "}}" that ends the template. Peter tanquam ex ungue leonem 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ya I'm a n00b. Sorry about that. Anyways, even the ICR--although the leaders are devious--employs real scientists who you can actually talk to. The theory is that showing these scientists the light would help out the cause somehow. At any rate that's what I have been trying--because I have a soft spot for scientists and I assume that their careers are suffering because of this BS--and I just wanted to put it out there if other people thought they might want to reach out as well.

Blessed with suck
You probably won't actually set anything on fire - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)