Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Uncensored2008]

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

Science is a process, not a result; and certainly not a faith. The creation of life has little to do with the scientific method. It has little to do with evolution. The concept that life adapts to it's environment and that better adapted species survive has nothing to do with the initial spark of life.

Your position is a red herring.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Creationism is based on faith, not science.

Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming!

 

[Steven_R]

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

Science is a process, not a result; and certainly not a faith. The creation of life has little to do with the scientific method. It has little to do with evolution. The concept that life adapts to it's environment and that better adapted species survive has nothing to do with the initial spark of life.

Your position is a red herring.

No, my position is that someone who claims that no one in their right mind would accept abiogenesis should maybe talk to a few Biology departments and see what they think. Again, sarcasm doesn't always flow through the electrons.

 

[konradv]

Creationism is based on faith, not science.

Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming!

How is the fact that CO2 and other gases can absorb IR radiation, not science? In this aspect of the discussion you have more in common with the creationists by ignoring scientific fact that doesn't fit your bias.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, my position is that someone who claims that no one in their right mind would accept abiogenesis should maybe talk to a few Biology departments and see what they think. Again, sarcasm doesn't always flow through the electrons.

Ah, I understand.

I should have known you wouldn't take such a position.

 

[itfitzme]

Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but behind closed doors do they really. They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. The important question is why ?

Why is it, with these guys, that beneath it all, *the fallback position is always that people are lying?

AWG, the economy and economic measures like CPI and uneployment, now evolution... there is this typical belief that proponents are lying to keep their jobs.

I have had this experience with enough chronic liars to recognize that they are the people that say others are lying. *

I rejected the behavior of lying early on. I did so because I realized I was simply setting myself up for confusion as the consistent reality is enough to tweeze out of experience without compounding the issue by trying to keep track of bullshit. *It led, naturally to an ungrounded assumption that others had the same character, an assumption that has since been abandoned.

There is this mangling of the use of theory amd hypothesis, though that seems to be fairly common. Though, a theory and law are within the context to which the theory and law apply, not any more. *It is of absolute significance to use a concept like biogenisis within the context to which is has been demonstratex and can therefor be applied.

They hold their belief in absolute certainty and expect that all knowledge must be with absolute certainty. *A hypothesis' failure to be absolutely certain to the point of eliminating even the blacl swan stands as proof, to them, that the hypothesis is false. This then leads to their belief, based on no evidence, is therefor true.

I don't think that the mangling of "theory" is exclusive to this character. It seems to be more of a more common misuse of terminology. *This happens, words aren't written in stone.

There seems to be this inability to differentiate philosophical musings from measurable scientific demonstration. *They seem to believe that stringing together words and phrases can lead to some inescapable truth. *And yet, it strongly appears, that it is more of a set theory game where overlapping sets are taken to be equivalent.

For example, "Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view". *

Words and definitions are used to express ones view, not support it. *The definition chosen doesn't support anything. *What support something is the physical evidence of either objects or changes to objects.

There are these curiously common characteristics among the adherents to certain perspectives.

 

[itfitzme]

Naturalism is a philosophy as well,you're taking this to personal.

Now, of all possible things you could have chosen to say, why would you choose to turn the object of conversation to me and whether I am "taking this to personal"?

It is an unmeasurable emotional assesment of my personal motivation and says, specifically, that my motivation is wrong.

So, I am sure you have read my signature regarding the use of the second person pronoun. Let me then reply.

You are an asshole that has no regard for the well being of others beyond what you can get out of it. You have always beem this way, since childhood. You are, for all purposes, a learned sociopath. Your entire focus of mind is not on seaking the objective truth but, rather, to manipulate words to the end of manipulating your own feelings, reality not withstanding. And, your presence on this forum is simply for the purposes of pursuing that behavior.

You're not here to learn and discover by communicating with others. You are here to find opportunities to trigger an internal sense of reward by stringing together words that trigger a little kick of neurotransmitters.

It is, as I call it, mental masturbation. You're just jerking yourself off in public.

 

[westwall]

You avoid the question again and again. Just provide rationale how learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. The only thing I am afraid of about creationism is that time would be spent on something that is apparently useless or you would have provided an adequate response by now.

There is indeed a practical use for art. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I've not avoided it at all. I stated quite clearly there is none. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It also doesn't matter one iota. There are LOTS of classes that are taught that have no practical use. They are still taught in our colleges.

If you feel there is no use to it then it should not be taught. If there are other classes that are useless then that's irrelevant to this subject. As far as I know, there are no science classes that are useless.

Some people wish to learn about it because they wish too. Who are you to tell them they can't?

 

[daws101]

Really ! so you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

in reality you're talking out your ass ...

 

[daws101]

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

bullshit
Louis Pasteur stated the law of biogenesis, that life originates from life. This was meant not as a comment on the origin of all life, but instead as an overturning of the belief in spontaneous generation, that is, that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria could appear fully formed. The statement of his law also advanced his germ theory.
Origin of Life
Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.



Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow


Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow
once again ywc gets his ass handed to him.

oh and btw isn't creationism that yammers on about lifeforms being poofed into existence?

 

[daws101]

I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.





Edit page | Page history | Printable version
Dictionary » L » Law of biogenesis
Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Law of biogenesis - definition from Biology-Online.org

law of biogenesis
Web definitions
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

Law Of Biogenesis
Search for Law Of Biogenesis With 100's of Results at WebCrawler
law.webcrawler.com/

biogenesis /bio·gen·e·sis/ (-jen´ĕ-sis)
1. origin of life, or of living organisms.
2. the theory that living organisms originate only from other living organisms.

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now would you like to produce that evidence for nonliving material producing life.

and you say you're not delusional and irrational....you've just proven otherwise,slapdick..

 

[daws101]

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

I'm not aware of any school syllabus that includes "naturalism". You should spend some time to understand terms and definitions.

You are likely confusing "naturalism" with courses in chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc. It seems you personally find study in those aforementioned topics as an infringement upon bible study time.

So are you now saying life did not arise through natural processes ?


nat·u·ral·ism
[nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
noun

4.
Philosophy .
a.
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.
the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!

 

[daws101]

Hollie did you notice one source was biology online. It is a law and has so much evidence backing it,it can't be denied. You are really looking silly trying to spin your way out of the stupor you're in.

So, you were scouring Harun Yahya.

In your stupor, did you happen to notice that Harun Yahya is a laughable joke?

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

I hope you realize that every time you use that false accusation it's just more proof you have no real argument.

 

[daws101]

I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.





Edit page | Page history | Printable version
Dictionary » L » Law of biogenesis
Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Law of biogenesis - definition from Biology-Online.org

law of biogenesis
Web definitions
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

Law Of Biogenesis
Search for Law Of Biogenesis With 100's of Results at WebCrawler
law.webcrawler.com/

biogenesis /bio·gen·e·sis/ (-jen´ĕ-sis)
1. origin of life, or of living organisms.
2. the theory that living organisms originate only from other living organisms.

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now would you like to produce that evidence for nonliving material producing life.

Interesting that you left off the Supplement..... You do yourself no credit when you selectively edit my friend. It shows weakness and a unwillingness to debate fairly or properly. The same go's for the name calling.

The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity.

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're reasonable the others not so much.

another one of your classic subjective, judgmental false declarations...

 

[daws101]

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

As far as science is concerned there is EVERY shred of evidence that refutes it because therd is NO shred of evidence that supports is.

This is the philosophical, axiomatic difference between faith and naturalism. Faith is a probability of future occurance based on past experience of zero may be taken an not proven false. Science says it is proven false. You say "It could be true" I say, I don't care if "it could be", I don't perscribe medicine, pay my mechanic, or start up a manufacturing facility unless it IS TRUE.

You say true until proven false. I say false until proven true. You say hypothetically true without any proof contrary. I say hypothesis only if evidence provides some reason to pursue it.

I don't need to prove it false. It is false because it isn't true. It isn't true until it is true.

(On a side note, I was considering the planets, and their moons, particularly Jupiter, the other day. And I thought, now what good are those things anyways? What purpose could those ridiculous balls of gas and rock, orbitting some small star in the vast emptyness of space. And it struck me. They have no purpose. No intelligent being would have created them. That alone is "proof". The shear absurdity of it is proof enough.)

Naturalism is a philosophy as well,you're taking this to personal.

that's TOO...
overmedicated are we?

 

[daws101]

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.

What have I posted from their site other than the page on living fossils ? we know living fossils blow a hole wide open in the fossil record.

ywc last line is false
and who the fuck is "WE" ?
I'm highly certain that no other believers gave you the authority to speak for them..
to do so with out consent is extreme hubris...

 

[Youwerecreated]

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

in reality you're talking out your ass ...

You're a dumbshit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

bullshit
Louis Pasteur stated the law of biogenesis, that life originates from life. This was meant not as a comment on the origin of all life, but instead as an overturning of the belief in spontaneous generation, that is, that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria could appear fully formed. The statement of his law also advanced his germ theory.
Origin of Life
Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.



Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow


Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow
once again ywc gets his ass handed to him.

oh and btw isn't creationism that yammers on about lifeforms being poofed into existence?

slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow&#8221. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.

What have I posted from their site other than the page on living fossils ? we know living fossils blow a hole wide open in the fossil record.

ywc last line is false
and who the fuck is "WE" ?
I'm highly certain that no other believers gave you the authority to speak for them..
to do so with out consent is extreme hubris...

Living fossils refute that everything is still evolving and it refutes gradual evolution,another term gradualism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Interesting that you left off the Supplement..... You do yourself no credit when you selectively edit my friend. It shows weakness and a unwillingness to debate fairly or properly. The same go's for the name calling.

The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity.

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're reasonable the others not so much.

another one of your classic subjective, judgmental false declarations...

It's simple,provide the evidence that refutes the claim.