Santorum 2002 on intelligent design

[Inthemiddle]

General relativity stands apart, unreconciled with the Standard Model...which fails to incorporate gravity.

So....what the heck is your point?

"For physicists who routinely use both quantum laws and Einstein's ideas, this contradiction can be almost embarrassing to dwell on. Yet Einstein was one of the founders of quantum physics and he spent many years preaching the quantum's revolutionary importance."
Boles, "Einstein Defiant."

Well now I'm wondering what is YOUR point, and whether you actually know or understand anything more than what you picked out of a book just now. Are you trying to allege that my previous statement was untrue, based on the fact that Einstein's work was the basis from which quantum physics arose? Because that really highlights just how much you don't know anything about the matter. Yes, Einstein's work was what paved the way for quantum theory. But Einstein himself ultimately rejected the field that emerged from it. As he insisted, "God does not play dice." Einstein simply could not accept a universe where everything was dictated by chance, as opposed to the mechanical universe of necessary reactions and consequences, upon which he built his theories of relativity. It is perhaps the most famous irony in all of science that the work for which he received the Nobel Prize was precisely the work that lead to realms that he could not himself believe, and spend the remaining days of his latter life trying to disprove.

 

[Gadawg73]

well besides humans becoming less hairy and our average height rising..

neo-marxist? are you mentally retarded?

This discussion is way over your head, paint-boy.

Be sure to jump right in when it focuses on subjects with which you have more
cache...
....like favorite Crayola...
....or what you'll do if you graduate junior high.

i've been watching this thread and you have just been having your ass handed to you.

But feel free to explain why you feel Neo-Marxist is a well reasoned term for this topic.

There is no scientific evidence to prove what she says so she can not cut and paste anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Natural selection is not based on faith, it's easily demonstrable and has been for ages now in the actual study of evolution.

"it's easily demonstrable"

Don't you mean easily disseminated to the gullible....?

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

It's not the desire for comfort that has produced the theory of Evolution;

it's the desire for comfort that has produced the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution.

"...the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution."

1. See, here is the irrationality from my perspective: offering a perspective that you are unequipped to handle.

Too nuanced, I suppose.

2. But, I'll frame it once again. Evolution is as valid as are many a theory.
Those cognizant in this area realize the reason it is no more than a theory, largely due to the lack of evidence.

3. Those, and this is where you come in, who have the tiniest bit of understanding, but are deathly afraid of being thought 'gauche,' leap onto the train and stamp their little feet when others suggest that one should doubt its veracity.

a. Advice from Alexander Pope:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

4. So, I'm fine with you having FAITH in the theory, and wonder why you are not equally fine with the theory proposed by religious folks.
What are you afraid of?
Oops...did I just end that sentence with a preposition??? A sin!!!

Can I paraphrase another poet?
You doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If life doesn't or hasen't evolved how do you explain the explosion of various life forms after each extinction event the earth has seen?

I never argued that life has either evolved, or not.

I've said that you have no proof, and therefore, are as guilty of basing your 'weltanschaung' on FAITH as any of the religious folks you decry.

You are simply a victim of neo-Marxist mind numbing.
Try to question more than accept.

Er, no. There is proof that life has evolved at a micro level, and plenty of evidence (although not bona fide proof) that is has done so at macro level too. No faith involved at all..

Honest....but you kinda weakened your argument, didn't you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"it's easily demonstrable"

Don't you mean easily disseminated to the gullible....?

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

It's not the desire for comfort that has produced the theory of Evolution;

it's the desire for comfort that has produced the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution.

You can deny God and evolution all you want.

I'm cool with it.

Leather festival in SF vs hummingbirds in my garden.

We have differences. You can preach to me. Go for it.

And there's the rub – they are soooooo incensed that some of us don't march in lock step.

Consistent with the Liberal political view replete with perspectives that result in a narrowing uniformity, whether in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas.
And, it seems, the belief in the theory of evolution.


What is amusing is that as long as America remains free, they will lose, and continue to be frustrated with folks like us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

well besides humans becoming less hairy and our average height rising..

neo-marxist? are you mentally retarded?

This discussion is way over your head, paint-boy.

Be sure to jump right in when it focuses on subjects with which you have more
cache...
....like favorite Crayola...
....or what you'll do if you graduate junior high.

i've been watching this thread and you have just been having your ass handed to you.

But feel free to explain why you feel Neo-Marxist is a well reasoned term for this topic.

I'm going to take your conclusion and give it the consideration it deserves...

.....but I have a couple of quarters left to flip....

 

[PoliticalChic]

General relativity stands apart, unreconciled with the Standard Model...which fails to incorporate gravity.

So....what the heck is your point?

"For physicists who routinely use both quantum laws and Einstein's ideas, this contradiction can be almost embarrassing to dwell on. Yet Einstein was one of the founders of quantum physics and he spent many years preaching the quantum's revolutionary importance."
Boles, "Einstein Defiant."

Well now I'm wondering what is YOUR point, and whether you actually know or understand anything more than what you picked out of a book just now. Are you trying to allege that my previous statement was untrue, based on the fact that Einstein's work was the basis from which quantum physics arose? Because that really highlights just how much you don't know anything about the matter. Yes, Einstein's work was what paved the way for quantum theory. But Einstein himself ultimately rejected the field that emerged from it. As he insisted, "God does not play dice." Einstein simply could not accept a universe where everything was dictated by chance, as opposed to the mechanical universe of necessary reactions and consequences, upon which he built his theories of relativity. It is perhaps the most famous irony in all of science that the work for which he received the Nobel Prize was precisely the work that lead to realms that he could not himself believe, and spend the remaining days of his latter life trying to disprove.

OK...two cookies.

Now...go practice penmanship.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again PC uses the term theory in the layman's sense to describe the term that scientists use.

No, ID has never been presented as a theory in the scientific sense. Not even to the level of a hypothesis. More like a half assed proposal.

PC, you definately need to take a least a basic level science course in college. You haven't the least understanding of the term 'theory' when used by a scientist.

Evolution is probably the most robust scientific theory that we have. We understand the means by which it works at the molecular level, we have observed it working, we even use the rules it works by to engineer traits into organisms.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another point, by making this a political football, you are destroying the political ideology that you espouse. For when people see you denying reality in science, such as evolution and AGW, they cannot help but wonder what reality you are also denying in political science. Sad that conservatives are being so poorly served by 'Conservatives' like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another point, by making this a political football, you are destroying the political ideology that you espouse. For when people see you denying reality in science, such as evolution and AGW, they cannot help but wonder what reality you are also denying in political science. Sad that conservatives are being so poorly served by 'Conservatives' like you.

Ironic that due to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I was reviewing my notes from his book "Righteous Indignation," and came upon the following...which pertains both to you and your silly infatuation with the global warming scam...


a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


"...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

Do you understand that?
Do you understand how it indicts warmists, and paints you as a pawn, a dupe....?


Do you understand why is is essential to doubt until proven, global warming and certain other 'theories'?
Do you understand that post-modern science is a construct of neo-Marxism?


No, I guess you don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"it's easily demonstrable"

Don't you mean easily disseminated to the gullible....?

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

It's not the desire for comfort that has produced the theory of Evolution;

it's the desire for comfort that has produced the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution.

You can deny God and evolution all you want.

I'm cool with it.

Leather festival in SF vs hummingbirds in my garden.

We have differences. You can preach to me. Go for it.

You do realize don't you that if it weren't for mimes, unpublished poets would be the number one most loathed creatures in the world of the 'arts'...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another point, by making this a political football, you are destroying the political ideology that you espouse. For when people see you denying reality in science, such as evolution and AGW, they cannot help but wonder what reality you are also denying in political science. Sad that conservatives are being so poorly served by 'Conservatives' like you.

Ironic that due to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I was reviewing my notes from his book "Righteous Indignation," and came upon the following...which pertains both to you and your silly infatuation with the global warming scam...


a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


"...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

Do you understand that?
Do you understand how it indicts warmists, and paints you as a pawn, a dupe....?


Do you understand why is is essential to doubt until proven, global warming and certain other 'theories'?
Do you understand that post-modern science is a construct of neo-Marxism?


No, I guess you don't.

You know for someone who has in this thread categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,

you sure do put a lot of effort into trying to support your own claims with what you believe is 'evidence'.

In fact that has been the essence of your notoriety since you've been here, that tsunami-esque flooding of a thread with 'evidence' to attempt to support your arguments.

And yet, here, the overwhelming evidence for Evolution is immaterial, and the overwhelming lack of evidence for Intelligent Design, aka Creationism let's remember,

is also immaterial.

Perhaps your next effort should be to show us overwhelming evidence that overwhelming evidence should be deemed worthless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another point, by making this a political football, you are destroying the political ideology that you espouse. For when people see you denying reality in science, such as evolution and AGW, they cannot help but wonder what reality you are also denying in political science. Sad that conservatives are being so poorly served by 'Conservatives' like you.

Ironic that due to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I was reviewing my notes from his book "Righteous Indignation," and came upon the following...which pertains both to you and your silly infatuation with the global warming scam...


a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


"...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

Do you understand that?
Do you understand how it indicts warmists, and paints you as a pawn, a dupe....?


Do you understand why is is essential to doubt until proven, global warming and certain other 'theories'?
Do you understand that post-modern science is a construct of neo-Marxism?


No, I guess you don't.

You know for someone who has in this thread categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,

you sure do put a lot of effort into trying to support your own claims with what you believe is 'evidence'.

In fact that has been the essence of your notoriety since you've been here, that tsunami-esque flooding of a thread with 'evidence' to attempt to support your arguments.

And yet, here, the overwhelming evidence for Evolution is immaterial, and the overwhelming lack of evidence for Intelligent Design, aka Creationism let's remember,

is also immaterial.

Perhaps your next effort should be to show us overwhelming evidence that overwhelming evidence should be deemed worthless.

"... categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,"

Once you have to make things up out of your imagination, you become the evidence for everything I've posted.

But you probably don't understand that any more than you've been able to comprehend the veracity of my posts....

Although we have particularly low standards for logic on the board, you have consistently failed to achieve them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"it's easily demonstrable"

Don't you mean easily disseminated to the gullible....?

Or, perhaps to those who purchase intellectual comfort cheaply?

It's not the desire for comfort that has produced the theory of Evolution;

it's the desire for comfort that has produced the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution.

"...the irrational denial of the validity of the theory of Evolution."

1. See, here is the irrationality from my perspective: offering a perspective that you are unequipped to handle.

Too nuanced, I suppose.

2. But, I'll frame it once again. Evolution is as valid as are many a theory.
Those cognizant in this area realize the reason it is no more than a theory, largely due to the lack of evidence.

3. Those, and this is where you come in, who have the tiniest bit of understanding, but are deathly afraid of being thought 'gauche,' leap onto the train and stamp their little feet when others suggest that one should doubt its veracity.

a. Advice from Alexander Pope:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

4. So, I'm fine with you having FAITH in the theory, and wonder why you are not equally fine with the theory proposed by religious folks.
What are you afraid of?
Oops...did I just end that sentence with a preposition??? A sin!!!

Can I paraphrase another poet?
You doth protest too much, methinks.

1. The religious folks believe the earth is 6000 years old. That is factually untrue. That the age of the earth is nowhere near only 6000 years is not a 'theory' it is a fact.

That is ONE reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

2. There is NO evidence for intelligent design. Even if, to the extreme, there were but a handful of pieces of evidence for evolution,

there would thus be IN FACT more evidence for evolution than for intelligent design.

That is ANOTHER reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

3. Lastly, the religious folks consider the existence of God to be a certainty. There is NO evidence of the existence of God. I cannot as a rational thinking human being accept as a certainty the existence of something whose existence cannot be substantiated by any evidence whatsover.

That would be a THIRD reason I am not equally fine with the theories of the religious folks.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sane people here have judged the veracity of your posts, and found them lacking.

I doubt that you have ever read real science on either evolution or global warming.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[PoliticalChic]

The sane people here have judged the veracity of your posts, and found them lacking.

I doubt that you have ever read real science on either evolution or global warming.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Got ya,' didn't I.

A professor of 'climate chage' let the cat out of the bag...boasts how the fall-in-line folks, that would be you, missed the change from science to Leftist 'truth'...and you bought it like it was on sale.

Again?
sure....

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

Carby never appeared too bright...but now you have to be put into the same group.

Trade truth??? Science???
So, you subscribe to science sans truth...

Got ya'.

So, don't go pretending that this is about 'science'....

I just proved it isn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironic that due to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I was reviewing my notes from his book "Righteous Indignation," and came upon the following...which pertains both to you and your silly infatuation with the global warming scam...


a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf
Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

d. Ideology represents the power over truth. The French Revolution introduced secular ideology to the Western world. Sir Isaiah Berlin, of the University of Oxford, stated that the 18th century “saw the destruction of the notion of truth and validity in ethics and politics, not merely objective or absolute truth but subjective and relative truth also…”


"...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."

Do you understand that?
Do you understand how it indicts warmists, and paints you as a pawn, a dupe....?


Do you understand why is is essential to doubt until proven, global warming and certain other 'theories'?
Do you understand that post-modern science is a construct of neo-Marxism?


No, I guess you don't.

You know for someone who has in this thread categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,

you sure do put a lot of effort into trying to support your own claims with what you believe is 'evidence'.

In fact that has been the essence of your notoriety since you've been here, that tsunami-esque flooding of a thread with 'evidence' to attempt to support your arguments.

And yet, here, the overwhelming evidence for Evolution is immaterial, and the overwhelming lack of evidence for Intelligent Design, aka Creationism let's remember,

is also immaterial.

Perhaps your next effort should be to show us overwhelming evidence that overwhelming evidence should be deemed worthless.

"... categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,"

Once you have to make things up out of your imagination, you become the evidence for everything I've posted.

But you probably don't understand that any more than you've been able to comprehend the veracity of my posts....

Although we have particularly low standards for logic on the board, you have consistently failed to achieve them.

You can deny what you've said, but that doesn't change what you've said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know for someone who has in this thread categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,

you sure do put a lot of effort into trying to support your own claims with what you believe is 'evidence'.

In fact that has been the essence of your notoriety since you've been here, that tsunami-esque flooding of a thread with 'evidence' to attempt to support your arguments.

And yet, here, the overwhelming evidence for Evolution is immaterial, and the overwhelming lack of evidence for Intelligent Design, aka Creationism let's remember,

is also immaterial.

Perhaps your next effort should be to show us overwhelming evidence that overwhelming evidence should be deemed worthless.

"... categorically rejected the value of evidence in determining the merits of a theory,"

Once you have to make things up out of your imagination, you become the evidence for everything I've posted.

But you probably don't understand that any more than you've been able to comprehend the veracity of my posts....

Although we have particularly low standards for logic on the board, you have consistently failed to achieve them.

You can deny what you've said, but that doesn't change what you've said.

I could demand you prove same, but, jeeez...who has any fun slapping around a three year old...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe we could start over by establishing the fact that there are theories, and there are scientific theories, and,

1. All scientific theories are in fact theories, but,

2. Not all theories are scientific theories.

Any objection to that premise?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe we could start over by establishing the fact that there are theories, and there are scientific theories, and,

1. All scientific theories are in fact theories, but,

2. Not all theories are scientific theories.

Any objection to that premise?

Is this another indication of your ADD?

I don't care if you accept any theory at all...my point is that the lack of evidence means that you are accepting it on FAITH.

Fine with me.