You guys have become insufferable boors.
Your 'discussions' have degenerated into nothing more than juvenile flame fests. You vie with one another to deliver the most insulting set down possible.
To understand uniface, you must remember that he is a Neo Nazi, White Supremacist, aluminum foil hatted conspiracy theorist & hate monger. If you understand his ideology, you understand why he keeps spewing all that nonsense.
Good job uni...
Your misogynistic drivel compliments your white supremacist ethos quite well.
Even a charlatan, if he makes enough 'predictions' will have a small percentage appear to 'come true'. It's called the shotgun approach...
Case in point: Edgar Cayce.
One of your heroes uni?
Should we allow the pseudo stuff to go unchallenged ?
uniface wrote:T -- everybody purports to worship at the shrine of Logic. But then most of them turn right around and ignore it without missing a beat.
Is it logical to write off the possible value of information/ideas that are found in other-than-current-mainstream venues because they are out of step with the current parade ?
By 1900 the possibility of manned, heavier-than-air flight had been lumped with perpetual motion machines and discussion of it banned by the serious journals (Scientific American included).
A great many more could be adduced. Like Continental Drift . . .
The problems Denton outlined more than thirty years ago are still there.
First, the pattern of life is discontinuous. Organisms can be grouped according to their defining characteristics, with groups like classes and phyla having no fossil intermediates. There is no partly limbed fish, with half-formed feet (see the book for a thorough discussion of this -- I know some of you are thinking, "ButTiktaalik!"), no hairy reptile, and no partly placental marsupial.
The second reason for holding this view is the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to account for anything other than small-scale change. Extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution cannot be observed and is merely a hypothesis . . .
uniface wrote:T : my point is that they were so cocksure that their assumptions & calculations were correct that the major publications did ban the topic as feebleminded daydreaming.
It isn't about what they should have done. It's one example of them doing exactly what I'm citing. In their view, upholding the integrity of "science." In retrospect, being pompous idiots.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest