Search results

Here it is again: Darwinism has failed the entropy test. There it is right there. It would take some kind of insane conspiracy theorist to deny that. You just assert stuff that veers from the ridiculous to bizarre and it's gotten beyond boring. The "screeching" is simply yours as are the...

Of course it has. As luck would have it, I provide reasons for what I believe. Oh, no. No. You never call anyone names. :LOL: :LOL: Your beliefs about whales don't mean much when they aren't here to protect you. The screeching is all yours. Naw. Address the issues sensibly. Stop...

Remember that time Blablaman thought he had refuted a point I made because I quoted an author and he had a signed copy of the author's book? I do. His argument was the author's words did not mean what they said because he had attended a lecture and gotten a scrawled message in a book. He dined...

Well, yes, I do. Darwinism failed the entropy test. Reason. Maybe. But you offer nothing to support your assertions. I guess you think people will change their minds because you can shout? Darwinism failed the entropy test. That you can call me names doesn't refute nothing. No link. No...

Reasons, remember? I justify my ideas with reasons. Evolution failed the entropy test. All we have from you is your insistence that I'm a "moron." No reasoning. No logic. No content. All fluff. You're 100 percent spam. You get asked to explain things, but you routinely ignore the invitations...

By all means, present this not vague theory of evolution.

All of that drivel can be boiled down to: "I disagree," which can simply be assumed for any response you ever write. Nothing you post adds anything of value to a discussion. Darwinism failed the entropy test. So science throws things out that don't hold up, but that's not the same as...

No argument there. :D

:LOL: Did someone claim that "science is one man's opinion"? Answer: No. Nobody claimed any such thing. "The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified...

Of course it does. "A theory that has withstood rigorous testing should be deemed to have received a high measure of corroboration. and may be retained provisionally as the best available theory until it is finally falsified and/or is superseded by a better theory." Another clear example of...

Karl Popper: Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper’s view, is prohibitive, because the theories of natural science take the form of universal statements. “All As are X” is equivalent to “No A is not-X” which is falsified if “Some A is not-X” turns out to be true. For example, the law...

Golly, I hope not.

That's right. It's not about "establishing theories." Scientists hold onto their ideas lightly, as the scientific process is to attack them, expose them and eradicate them. They must hold firm to the laws of physics, logic and maths, while eschewing any attachment to theories.

Nope. Theories never become established. Science is the process of throwing theories out. If you've got an "established theory," what you have is a cult. You know nothing about the philosophy of science.

Your uninformed opinion is of no relevance. The thread that someone else started seeking examples of me being shown up in science discussions, but which quickly filled with numerous examples of me explaining scientific points to people? Heck, there were even quotes such as: "I have to give you...

Nope. You've gotten it completely backward. No surprise there. The scientific process begins with ideas. Ideas are tested against evidence, logic and reason. The sources of the ideas are an irrelevant consideration. You have it entirely backward, but are going to keep insisting that things...

And yet there it is. Your uninformed opinion of it is irrelevant. More significantly, your tirades have been exposed as empty of any value. Oh, you want to pretend to talk about the law now? Very well: What is the law? Define it. That's right. I don't live in a poisonous snake.

Blaming Democrats is counterproductive.

Here are prime examples of the difference between constructive, sensible contributions to a debate and the nonsense, dissembling and invective that are the limit of the input from Darwinists. Election integrity? Examples, reasonable disagreement and straight up facts. The response? Denial of...

Except that there is ongoing litigation. You're free to live in the make-believe, conspiracy theory world you've invented, but you don't get to force your ignorant, foreign ideas on us. :LOL: We'll take that as a tacit admission of utter incompetence when it comes to issues science...