island Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Uncle Martin: If you condense some of Einsteins vacuum energy over a finite region of space, thenyou will achieve postive mass-density and gravitaional curvature. So virtual particle pair production affects vacuum expansion by way of the real holes that get left in the vacuum via rarefaction of the energy, but the vacuum *does not* run-away since this effect is immediate offset by the increase in massenergy. The main difference between this and Dirac's hole theory is that *both* particlesleave real holes in the vacuum, so that long term surviving electrons will maintainthe effect indefinitely. In terms of the Entropy of a Black Hole, the emmited anti-electron has the same gravitational properties as an electron and the electron has a greater chance forsurvival, since it might be a long time before it meets an antiparticle if its counterpartantiparticle gets sucked into the black hole. There will be a contribution -e for each occupied state of positive energy and acontribution -e for each unoccupied state of negative energy, because negative pressureincreases in proportion to the holes that the departures represent. It is clearly indicated that negative energy solutions more practically apply toGeneral Relativity using Einstein's own original abandoned version of the cosmologicalconstant: E=mc^2 and E^2=m^2*c^4 are only different if there is a physical meaningto negative mass and negative energy values, where the second equation allows forboth positive and negative mass-energy solutions. If, as with Einstein's model, the negative pressure component reflects -rho and gravitational curvature, then negative mass-energy must necessarily be expressedvia negative density, as well. In order to make a real massive particle from thisenergy, you must condense enough of it over a finite region of space to achieve positve mass, density and curvature. In Einstein's static model, if you condense vaccum energy, then you necessarily increase negative energy and pressure, as well, by way of rarefaction, so the vaccumnecessarily expands during pair production. Somebody dropped the ball when they leaped to conclude that an expanding universewill necessarily run-away.
Freethinker Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by: islandAgain, cutting WHOMEVER off at their first false statement, or in this case, their willfully ignorant effort to avoid attaching contextual meaning to the terminology.Ya and claiming a god at the outset should not require proof of that god! Get an education in logic and you won't make such glaring errors! You are pretending to refute an extremely well established reference source. What credentials do you have to validate it? Your random illogical claims? That doesn't mean that I can't eat the rest of it alive, tho!... Like chum eating a shark. ``Purpose'' has to do with some thought-out plan, like trying to get a particular candidate elected---it is a human thing. *says the politically motivated Kennedy worshiping liberal tree-huggin whale-kissin gay-lovin fanatical enviromentalist atheist activist chaosionist relativist democrat?*... not to be confused with their equally fanatical conservative counterpart.WOW, such overwhelming evidence, how utterly convincing! NOT!!!! LOL!My usage of "purpose" is analogous TERMINOLOGY for an object seekingEXACTLY, and just like "purpose", "seeking" requires INTENTIONAL EFFORT. It REQUIRES an intellectual intervention. No matter how aimlessly you ramble to the contrary, it does not change this. Until you can PROVE an agent that exists to provide this "purposeful seeking", it is meaningless and rejected.The purpose of a seed is to produce offspring.Actually a "seed" IS the undeveloped offspring. But we know that facts have little to do with your posts. The purpose of sex is to produce offspring.Thus condoms, IUDs and "The Pill" don't exist! The purpose of the survival instinct is survival.The only thing so far that doesn't seem to have a purpose is your posts! Oh let me change that. The "purpose" of your posts is clearly self promotion over factual science. There is a biologist out there somewhere that has proven that the purpose of the evolution of plant photosynthesis and other organic process' is entropic efficiency.and if not you will be happy to invent one. Microbiologists have recently proven that this is evident in the AGGREGATIVE selection process,Please provide names of peer reviewed Microbiologists that specifically promote the requirement of "purpose". Oh why do I bother asking YOU for PROOF? You never have any. You don' even seem to grasp the concept. as well and and there is a brand spanking new usage of evolutionary theory to devise "NATURAL STREAMLINING" of race cars, of all things. I see, so now race cars validate assertions of some first intellectual agent that supplies "purpose" to particles. The only way we could even begin to STRETCH things that far would be on a medieval torture rack! It is observationally proven that the purposeProve P.... Oh why bother!
Freethinker Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by: islandSomebody dropped the ball when they leaped to conclude that an expanding universe will necessarily run-away.Yes YOU did!
island Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Prove P.... Oh why bother! Exactly, because you will not accept anything that I say, regardless of the validity of any and all of about a dozen form of acceptable proof, whch others don't have a problem with. I knew this right from the start, as I stated at the time. I generally don't bother, myself, for long, anyway, but I'm hoping that sticking around will have the sensicle effect on other interested parties that is enabled by the physics, that you can't understand. For anyone that is interested, The three camps on this are typically: 1) Politically motivated Creationists, will attack with silence, since their's is of a higher supernatural purpose. 2) Politically motivated Chaosionists will inevitably attack with insanity... "Chaos" There is a huge battle going on in all across the country between religously motivated politicians and Evolutionists concerning the insertion of creationism into the school system. MANY scientists have sided with the evolutionists, Kramer and Gross are two of the most reputable. It's quite natural for them to do this, due to the perceived threat, but the fact is, that the long and heated debate and the constant misuse of the anthropic principle, has caused many to automatically reject any and all teleological arguments, out of hand without any consideration for the fact that the universe is not perfectly symmetrical, rather it projects a distinct bias toward the future as this is depicted by the arrow of time. 3)Neutral interested observers say nothing, as they will recognize the term "purpose" as it is defined within the teleology of Aristole and Hericlitus, where all things move toward equilbrium due to a clearly defined "Final Cause", via a higher "cosmic force". In this case, the over-riding entropic tendency of the universe. They understand that this is what Dirac meant when he said that, 'a physicsist expects that there will be a grand scale reason for the cosmic coincidences'... and they understand that's what Einstein meant when he said that "God", (presumably meaning, Nature), does NOT throw dice. Einstein was the one that was proven to have the first real clue about nature, and yet, they still over-rode him in Copenhagen, opting instead to worship their true god, Chaos. Neutral interested observes generally say nothing, unless they have questions, but they don't usually have a problem following once they catch on to the logic. Also, to anyone that's interested, the philosophy is observationally and empirically defined in a similar fashion to the manner in which Hericlitus thought that Good and Evil, Chaos and Order, where reconcilled by a higher "Cosmic Force". These are good subjects to study if you want to get an idea of how the philosopy works, but just make sure that it works without absolutes... Instead, as a manifestation over-riding entropic nature of nature, this philosophy derives that, there are some things which are more absolute than others, like it is a historic fact that "killing" is GENERALLY considered to be "wrong", regardless of whatever exception to the GENERAL RULE that the purist relativsts and rightous moralists will use to say that the right or wrong of killing is relative, and can be good. As if that somehow changes the fact that this doesn't change the general rule which has arisen independently in many places around the globe. Nature says that "Balance is Good"... even if you can't get there from here. This defines whatever system as manifestations of opposing forces, where an imperfectly balanced, but successful system, like our government manifests itself into a working system via the two major opposing ideologies, where Libs and Neocons represent the most extreme and LOUDEST of the crowd. The more fanatical are what you typically run into on the net, because these people are the ones that are most INCLINED to fight for their rightous cause. The poor lost puppies don
Freethinker Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Gotta love it. Really do. The total lack of disconnect between things as discussed and the weak occasional attempt at PROOF! Originally posted by: islandAlso related... The Zeno "Hoax" http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&... (cut off to stop destruction of page width) The link which here is claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax"" is to an open discussion group, perhaps similar to this. Remember, I was using the analogy of an arrow's momentum compared to it's physical existance to explain the Uncertainty concept of not knowing both the momentum and the location of a particle at the same time. But let's see what outside reference is being used to DISPROVE this specific Zeno's Paradox. <center>"Won't the arrow actually hit the target when distance and time falloff into oblivion when half the distance between the arrow and thetarget becomes less than the Planck length?"</center> So how did it do? 1) It is a QUESTION, not a PROOF2) It did not even address the same issue3) the "outside reference source is From: island ([email protected]) So now he is claiming himself as an outside reference, instead of just posting the same question here! This really is just too funny! Also... It's been my experience that the fact that the author of the rebuttal is attempting to nitpick terminolgyHEY IRISH! You been coaching this guy? :-) Ya them nasty people! Actually expecting someone to use correct termonolgy in their theories! What does he know about writing papers on Particel Physics theories? What does he think he is? A peer reviewed Particle Physics Prof with over 30 years of tenure or something? Oh ya, that's right, he IS! LOL!
Freethinker Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by: islandFor anyone that is interested, The three camps on this are typically: 1) Politically motivated Creationists, will attack with silence, since their's is of a higher supernatural purpose.You just can't get ANYTHING right can you? How absurd! If there is one group that is NEVER SILENT, it is "Politically motivated Creationists"!3)Neutral interested observers say nothing,Thus obviously NOT YOU!
island Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Okay, this is the last thing that I'm going to say concerning this person: OverTheDeepEnd wrote:Gotta love it. Really do. The total lack of disconnect between things as discussed and the weak occasional attempt at PROOF! The link which here is claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax"" Gotta love the way that this bigoted poster cannot make any form of disassociation between a hole in the ground and his rear-entry. Anybody following along will know that this is pure context manipulation, as nowhere can it be shown that I've claimed to have resolved the zeno hoax, which fits in sequential order and context with the other link... Course, you'd have to be able to read more than a paragraph at a time to know that. You just can't get ANYTHING right can you? How absurd! If there is one group that is NEVER SILENT, it is "Politically motivated Creationists"! I'm doing just fine, but you have yet to get anything right... I was and always have been talking about how these camps relate to my theory, not the debate in general, as this is very clearly indicated to any normal person that can read. Except when I clearly differentiated in order to distinguish the two, that is. You are totally gone now. Note: The loudest and most out of control fanatic has been a chaosionist. I did not have this problem with the creationist. PROOF!!!... *duh* ByeBye now.... have a nice fantasy.
Freethinker Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Originally posted by: islandOriginally posted by: FreethinkerYou just can't get ANYTHING right can you? How absurd!I'm doing just fine, but you have yet to get anything right...08/23/2004 01:01 PMOriginally posted by: islandOriginally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: islandI prefer "willful ignorance", to "stupid". To me, stupid implies that someone can't learn, which is different from ignorant.Comprehension a serious problem for you? I WROTE and you QUOTED"Stupid" is when you have access to the knowedge and can't comprehend"My mistake....You just can't get ANYTHING right can you? How absurd!
Freethinker Posted August 28, 2004 Report Posted August 28, 2004 On 8/27/2004 at 2:15 PM Glenn Branch <[email protected]> wrote: >Dear Friends of NCSE,>>A paper by Stephen C. Meyer, Project Director of the Discovery Institute's>Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, recently appeared in the>journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (2004; 117 [2]:>213-239). PBSW is a small legitimate scientific journal, specializing>mainly in taxonomical articles. But Meyer's "The origin of biological>information and the higher taxonomic categories" is a review article (as>opposed to a research article) arguing, in usual "intelligent design">fashion, against the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for>life's history and diversity. The article is supposed to be available>shortly on the Discovery Institute's web site:>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177>>The crew at the Panda's Thumb blog has already posted a preliminary>critique of the paper, under the title "Meyer's Hopeful Monster":>http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html>The critique identifies a large number of errors, confusions, and omissions in>the paper, concluding: "There is nothing wrong with challenging>conventional wisdom -- continuing challenge is a core feature of science.>But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically>rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely>construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective>quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious>interpretations. Unless and until the 'intelligent design' movement does>this, they are not seriously in the game. They're not even playing the same>sport.">>NCSE has already heard from a number of members of the Biological Society>of Washington (which has about 250 members in all), who are concerned about>the reputation of the society and its journal after the publication of such>a piece of substandard work in the apparent service of a non-scientific>ideology.>>As always, be sure to consult NCSE's web site:>http://www.ncseweb.org>where you can always find the latest news on evolution education and>threats to it.>>Sincerely,>>Glenn Branch>Deputy Director>National Center for Science Education, Inc.>420 40th Street, Suite 2>Oakland, CA 94609-2509>510-601-7203 x305>fax: 510-601-7204>800-290-6006>[email protected]>http://www.ncseweb.org>>Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism is now available:>http://tinyurl.com/25tcf >
Uncle Martin Posted August 29, 2004 Report Posted August 29, 2004 Although Island's assertions have some sound physics interspersed throughout his posts and the websites he references,... I can find nothing that even points me toward the anthropic principle in any of its forms. Weak,... strong or even what I assume Island would like to call moderate anthropomorphism. I have given this as much consideration as I could and still reject the anthropic principle. To imply that humans are somehow on a par with black holes and supernovae in importance regarding entropy of the universe is just too much. This is a leap of faith that I for one am not willing to take. Sorry Island,... you may find some comfort in believing that humans are somehow necessary for the existence of the universe, I just don't see any reason to assume that.
island Posted August 29, 2004 Report Posted August 29, 2004 Well, UncleM you couln'a looked too hard, or you'd have found this: <a href=http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/EntropicAP.html>The Entropic Anthropic Principle</a> ... which gives both the strong and weak forms.... Anyway, it's a fact that it requires no leaps of faith to note that humans are one of only three systems in the universe that is capapable of producing real particle from the energy of the vacuum, (unless of course, we find another one). And it is a fact that it requires no leap of faith to say that this is COMPARITIVELY impressive, as it compares to the contribution of Dung Beetles or even our own Sun in terms of high energy entropic efficiency. It' also a fact that it requires no leaps of faith to know that this process works by way of <a href=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html>Asymmetric Transitions,</a> (assuming that the physics that you think is so sound, is correct, because asymmetric transitions is what you get when you make real particles from negative energy)... And so it is a fact, as well, that requires no leaps of fath to note that this is the EXACT SAME MECHANISM that governs human evolution, as well, (assumining that the<a href=http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html> process of self-organising systems</a> is also correct), since the principle implies a fundamental asymmetry in evolution that leads to an increase in tension between opposing evolutionary tendencies, [On a grand scale, this is defined by the opposing matter/antimatter, gravity/antigravitational tendencies]... ...whose inherent asymmetry will eventually and inevitably enable this DIRECTIONALLY PREFERRED system to leap to a higher level of entropic efficiency, via what is otherwise known as a "Metasystems Transition"... where the physical process defines the physical logic which points out that... A big bang is to an evolutionary leap... What punctuated equilibria is to a "near" static univese... NOTE: "Directionally Preferred" : Arrow of Time : Second Law : Over-riding entropic tendency of an expanding universe : <a href=http://www.geocities.com/naturescience/AnthropicBias.html>Anthropic BIAS</a> ~ I'm going to try a new tack on this, and I'll even ignore the UNINFORMED third party personal attacks to let FT bring in outside help from his favorite politically motivated liberal buddy... or even his bible stompin grandmother... if he can stay honest. I say "UNINFORMED" because the "third party" automatically leaped to assume that I am a religiously motivated creationist, and a link to my site would have informed him one hell of a lot better than a quoted response made to translate to someone that was having great difficulty communicating, thereby justifying everything that I said about him, because he was dead wrong, and there's nothing scientific about that kind of method from either party. But, I'll stick by what I said: Anybody that THINKS that they can dispute me, please start here... or don't bother to continue, because I will not respond, except to Uncle Martin for the statements that I just made to him: Please disprove... or you will be admitting willful ignorance if you cannot do so, and yet still insist that there is no REAL plausibility when I say: Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particletheory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairlyaccurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfoundedleap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presumethat all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward thesatisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropictendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment ofthe BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANTtendency or PURPOSE of the universe. Use your friend's reply to dispute the above, point
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinAlthough Island's assertions have some sound physics interspersed throughout his posts and the websites he references,...Yes Unc, that is always a well worn trick uesed by people trying to refute established theories. pretend to use the very science they are actually tryiing to dispel. Creationsts do it all the time. Same here.I can find nothing that even points me toward the anthropic principle in any of its forms. Weak,... strong or even what I assume Island would like to call moderate anthropomorphism. I have given this as much consideration as I could and still reject the anthropic principle. To imply that humans are somehow on a par with black holes and supernovae in importance regarding entropy of the universe is just too much. This is a leap of faith that I for one am not willing to take. Sorry Island,... you may find some comfort in believing that humans are somehow necessary for the existence of the universe, I just don't see any reason to assume that.Awe Unc, you were his last hope. He has even taken to pretending I am a 3rd party perhaps not even on this site as I have so thoroughly exposed his fallacies. And he tried to pretend he was not thoroughly trashed by a well established outside authority on the subject. Island can't even give us the first credible support for his claims on a personal level. He has nothing to show us to give substance to his personal claims. Just as you and I can post whatever we individual support, so can Island. But just like you and I, Island is just pushing personal assumptions while each of us lack any stance on the issues. The difference is that you and I, Unc, admit it. Island tried to hide it. You and I have each acknowledged that we are just personally interested in the topics discussed here while lacking anything even close to peer reviewed credentials. While the reference I brought in IS a peer reviewed, credentialled authority. Island? he does neither. He neither shows any reason why his personal views should be given any credibility nor provides any outside resources which meet even the simplest of credible authority. But Island keeps hoping you will sucker for his wanting to personalize the Universe. But you keep doing the nasty to him. You keep asking for PROOF. His failure to do so isn't getting past you. One just has to wonder how long he will keep targetting you after failing so many times? Perhaps he hopes some new voice will show up to allow him to start pumping his fallacies to a new listener.
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Interesting. In catching up on things here, I started to read this one again. I had missed, or perhaps didn't bother to even read this attack part the first time. But I thought it offered a good indicator of how poorly this poster does in understanding context. Originally posted by: islandOkay, this is the last thing that I'm going to say concerning this person:Being me, it is obviously a lie. Every one of his messages contains attacks against me. but not there yet...Originally posted by: islandOverTheDeepEnd wrote: Gotta love it. Really do. The total lack of disconnect between things as discussed and the weak occasional attempt at PROOF! The link which here is claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax""Gotta love the way that this bigoted poster cannot make any form of disassociation between a hole in the ground and his rear-entry. Anybody following along will know that this is pure context manipulation, as nowhere can it be shown that I've claimed to have resolved the zeno hoax, which fits in sequential order and context with the other link... OK, so Island says that I was wrong because I stated the "The link which here is claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax"". He says I am wrong because HE never "claimed to have resolved the zeno hoax". But if he had the ability to comprehend context, it would have been obvious to him that *I* stated "The link" was what claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax". In fact that was actually the NAME of the thread for the link he provided. All I did was COPY the link title from THE LINK HE SUPPLIED! So yes Island, for once you are right. You did not claim "to have resolved the zeno hoax". But then you are the only one here that suggested that you had.
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 FT rambles on as usual without any relevant content:He says I am wrong because HE never "claimed to have resolved the zeno hoax. *I* stated "The link" was what claimed to expose "The Zeno "Hoax". Then show me in the title where it says that the zeno hoax was resolved if you weren't implying that the claim was mine. Where is it stated by ANYBODY that the zeno hoax is resolved??? Go ahead, read the whole 30 article thread and find where SOMEBODY said that the zeon hoax has been resolved. Surely somebody said it, somewhere... Oh that's right, you can't read more than one paragraph at a time, so you'd never be able to find out that the OP was asking the experts whether it was a hoax or not, and NOT claiming to resolve it. If mine was a mistake, then it was an honest one, unlike the vast multitude of misrepresentations that have been presented in this thread by you. But Uncle Martin... I ONLY asked him to prove that the second law applies, because that would mean that the universe is closed LOL... Okay FT... now's your chance, since you can't manage to handle my latest challenge to you. Since the second law doesn't require a closed universe, as you claimed, then we now know the second law apples, which is what you asked, right??? So, then we should have been able to continue from there, right?... Right after you admitted that you were wrong, and I was right, and so the second law applies. We should have been able to get to the next point from there if you were straight up about it, rather than fanatically grasping at straws. Did you admit that you were wrong, FT? Did you admit that you were wrong when you incorrectly pronounced that a teleological theory is NECESSARILY the same thing as the religious usage of teleological arguments. NOPE... you sure didn', but that's no surprise consdidering how stereotypical you are of a willfully ignorant fanatic. I like how FT nitpicks stuff that has nothing to do with science and then claims to have successfully refuted me... "as I have so thoroughly exposed his fallacies. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... thanks, I needed a good laugh So, FT... doesn't the arrow actually hit the target when space and time falls off into oblivion when the distance between the arrow and the target falls to less than the planck length? Doesn't it, FT?... Surely there is some grammar flaw that you can find that will "thoroughly expose" me... since you've clearly demonstated that physics isn't your bag... LOL
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: island I'm going to try a new tack on this, and I'll even ignore the UNINFORMED third party personal attacks to let FT bring in outside help from his favorite politically motivated liberal buddy... or even his bible stompin grandmother... if he can stay honest. I say "UNINFORMED" because the "third party" automatically leaped to assume that I am a religiously motivated creationist, and a link to my site would have informed him one hell of a lot better than a quoted response made to translate to someone that was having great difficulty communicating, thereby justifying everything that I said about him, because he was dead wrong, and there's nothing scientific about that kind of method from either party. But, I'll stick by what I said: Anybody that THINKS that they can dispute me, please start here... or don't bother to continue, because I will not respond, except to Uncle Martin for the statements that I just made to him: Please disprove... or you will be admitting willful ignorance if you cannot do so, and yet still insist that there is no REAL plausibility when I say: Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe. Use your friend's reply to dispute the above, point, by point, FT, because that's where I got it. We won't move forward until each point is agreed upon as settled, and I won't dismiss your points out of hand, while giving you all due respect, but expecting the same. Total honesty is required. In other words, you can't just assume that the first cause isn't the final cause if the first cause is always predominant in an expanding universe. That doesn't mean that you can't make that leap, but it does mean that you cannot exclude it from whatever supported rationale that you use to show exception, since the predominant entropic bias of the first cause is always constant in an expanding universe. I have to qualify this or someone will lose it: 1) Purpose=Final Cause - purely physical - no religious implications. 2) Big Bang theory is supported by all vald theories to the degree that particle theory intersects with the physics of all of the cutting-edge and mainstream theories at the beginning of time in n-dimensional space, including stringy theories, Loop Quantum Gravity, Relativity, or even Guth's universes.
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandThen show me...Tell ya what. I have asked you many questions in order to try and get valid support for your claims and oyu have failed to even respond quite often. When you start answering questions, I will do the same.
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandAnybody that THINKS that they can dispute me, please start here... Great trick, Let's ignore all the other times you have failed completely to support your claims and start all over! Maybe this time we won't find the same holes that were so obvious the first time in the same claims. Maybe the more critical members of this site will not expose your fallacies this time, instead just giving up trying to get you to use actual SCIENCE. What the heck. It's always worth the shot isn't it?
Recommended Posts