March 19, 2004

(R.Schenck) wrote in message :

ok, i didn't know that you don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry, my mistake. Diagenisis is unrelated to fossilization. The
only structures in the spherules are the result of diagenesis, not the
fossilized structure of an organism.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

You are an confirmed idiot. Everything else you say is suspect.

[snip nonsense]

I notice Rio Tinto is in Spain, of Earth.

then why did you post it if its entirely irrelevant.

Did I say that? You are also an absolutist. The papers were posted for
you to read, no claims of their relevance was made pro or con, reading
them would have made that self evident.

I have
no reason to take any of your claims seriously as you have no
demonstrated scientific credibility whatsoever.

However, I can test
that, with evidence :
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=im...=d&lr=&hl=e n

That's pretty laughable from a scientific point of view.
The hypothesis that you are a crackpot is confirmed.

wow, thats pretty impressive. in a post about your inability to
present information that supports your assertions, you do just that.

No, I search your usenet posting history and notice that you have
endlessly trolled talk.origins for the last few years. Welcome to my
filter file.

So, basically, you couldn't answer any of my questions about your
hypothesis and the papers you thought supported it.

It wasn't my hypothesis.

The only
exception to this is where you said that haematite forms in alkaline
environs, and the martian site had an acidic deposition envrionment.

You are also a liar.

Of course, you also maintain that the spherules are formed by
microorganisms, and the papers talked about microorganisms being the
factor responsible for the environ -having- an alkaline environ.

Again you lie to make some kind of pathetic point.

Wow, I am spectacularly underwhelmed by your argumentative and
rhetorical style, along with your inability to understand basic
science, and the amazing statement that 'skepticism is bad'. I wish
that we could about the evidence involved, but you don't seem to have
any.

None that you could grok with your simpleton mind.

You are good at debating crackpots, though.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net