Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.
No, I don't think it's a miracle. Thanks for asking.
I know you think looking at those equations is evidence of your version of god. No need to repeat yourself. "Just look around". Yes, okay, we get it, zzzzzzzzzzzzz
You, sir, are no skeptic. Skepticism is not "doubt". Skepticism involves a gathering and examination of the evidence, and application of critical thought to its ideas.
You have said patently false things about evolution... things a young person might say on their first day learning the topic.
Your 1% "critical thoughts" presented belie complete misunderstanding of fundamental principles of evolution, and the other 99% are parlor trick talking points ("you are worshiping science; we can't know 'cause we weren't there, man!; scientists conspire to fool us! blah blah blah) so i find it impossible to believe you have engaged in any process of skepticism whatsoever.
Secondly, science doesn't set out to "irrefutably prove" anything.
You chose the wrong word, there.
Scientific ideas are scientific ideas precisely because there does exist a way to refute them.
So your misunderstanding of evolution is no doubt tied to this deep, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Even the most fundamental theories could be disproven tomorrow, if empirical data yielded enough surprising, contrary results and unpredicted results.
Only those wielding unyielding dogma think their ideas are irrefutable.
Scientists are proud that their ideas have merit precisely because they can be refuted, but nobody has been able to do so. They invite any and all challengers to these ideas. Step up to the plate, my man! Do some research!
Science does not owe you "irrefutable proof", nor does it possess any on any topic.
Your demand for it is nothing but a ruse by you. You don't fool me. You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory.
You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period.
Else you would be jumping off of your house, convinced you may "fall up" this time.
You would stick forks in toasters, and handle plutonium with your bare hands.
You would be a barely functioning idiot.
"Sorry my being a skeptic and want irrefutable proof"
You, sir, are no skeptic. Skepticism is not "doubt". Skepticism involves a gathering and examination of the evidence, and application of critical thought to its ideas. You have said patently false things about evolution... things a young person might say on their first day learning the topic. Your 1% "critical thoughts" presented belie complete misunderstanding of fundamental principles of evolution, and the other 99% are parlor trick talking points ("you are worshiping science; we can't know 'cause we weren't there, man!; scientists conspire to fool us! blah blah blah) so i find it impossible to believe you have engaged in any process of skepticism whatsoever.
Secondly, science doesn't set out to "irrefutably prove" anything. You chose the wrong word, there. Scientific ideas are scientific ideas precisely because there does exist a way to refute them. So your misunderstanding of evolution is no doubt tied to this deep, fundamental misunderstanding of science. Even the most fundamental theories could be disproven tomorrow, if empirical data yielded enough surprising, contrary results and unpredicted results. Only those wielding unyielding dogma think their ideas are irrefutable. Scientists are proud that their ideas have merit precisely because they can be refuted, but nobody has been able to do so. They invite any and all challengers to these ideas. Step up to the plate, my man! Do some research!
Science does not owe you "irrefutable proof", nor does it possess any on any topic. Your demand for it is nothing but a ruse by you. You don't fool me. You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory. You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period. Else you would be jumping off of your house, convinced you may "fall up" this time. You would stick forks in toasters, and handle plutonium with your bare hands. You would be a barely functioning idiot.
View attachment 153313
Yes! Yes! Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?,,, You have consensus and the almighty power of the consensus must prevail!
*****CHUCKLE*****
"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"
Let's unpack the stupidity here:
First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".
Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.
I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...
...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.
*****CHUCKLE*****
That's yet another shameless lie by you. He said the models predicted it as possible, which was accurate to say. One of these days, you cackling deniers are going to come to the realization that your own ignorance and misunderstanding of simple words and scientific topics is not everyone else's fault.
So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. It would appear that the only ignorance here is your inability to believe that you can not sway the masses with your theology of global warming when the untruths of your dogma are uncovered. I'm sure that as you kneel to the great alter of scientific consensus one of these days you'll have a prophesy that might even come true... After all even a clock is right two times a day.
*****CHUCKLE*****
"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "
No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.
I cannot prove to you that God exists but you cannot prove to me that he does not. I believe in God because of my faith. If you have no faith you will most likely not believe in God.
"it was the similarity of methods of forcing things such as scientific consensus. "The point wasn't who likes, it was the similarity of methods of forcing things such as scientific consensus. Sure at different levels of force, but that was the point there.As if who "likes" any scientific idea has any bearing on the truth of it... it doesn't get any dumber than this, folks.Ironically Stalin was a denier of evolution too. He supported Lamarck. I guess that makes you a Stalinist.You know nothing of actual science, but you are a dedicated and obedient Stalinist.
Lysenko, Comrade. Stalin would be a perfect advocate of AGW, his thugs completely ignored evidence and fact, favoring instead "consensus." Stalin ensured 95% of "scientists" agreed with Lysinkoism. (by butchering the rest - such is the way of the left)
And how is this relevant to the scientific consensus on, say, evolution? the data says what it says. No, I reject your rhetoric as simply a way for anyone to deny any scientific consensus at any time, as you do not qualify it nor tie it to any of today's accepted scientific theories.
The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.
.People are going to have to face the reality that there is a God in heaven. Eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. In the not too distant future, God will make bear his Holy arm and even the wicked and unbelieving will know that God lives and that he is the Almighty.
People are going to have to face the reality that there is a God in heaven. Eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. In the not too distant future, God will make bear his Holy arm and even the wicked and unbelieving will know that God lives and that he is the Almighty.
"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"
Let's unpack the stupidity here:
First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".
Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.
I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...
...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.
*****CHUCKLE*****
That's yet another shameless lie by you. He said the models predicted it as possible, which was accurate to say. One of these days, you cackling deniers are going to come to the realization that your own ignorance and misunderstanding of simple words and scientific topics is not everyone else's fault.
So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. It would appear that the only ignorance here is your inability to believe that you can not sway the masses with your theology of global warming when the untruths of your dogma are uncovered. I'm sure that as you kneel to the great alter of scientific consensus one of these days you'll have a prophesy that might even come true... After all even a clock is right two times a day.
*****CHUCKLE*****
"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "
No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.
Your lack of self-awareness is astounding
Your religion is ridiculous. The forte of mindless cultists who seek to shore up the deficiency of their own ignorance by bleating mantras from the leaders of your cult.
Gravity is scientific fact that is supported by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist is free and encouraged to test gravity.
Evolution is scientific fact that is supported by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist is free and encouraged to test evolution.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud that is refuted by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist who speaks against the church will be black balled and persecuted by your obscenely stupid religion.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud that is refuted by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist who speaks against the church will be black balled and persecuted by your obscenely stupid religion.
.Not so with the cult you follow, this Gaia worship of AGW. Your religion stands on the ability of the church to black ball and persecute those who dare point out just how devoid of evidence your cult is.
I have faith in science. Those with little faith in their God, deny science.I cannot prove to you that God exists but you cannot prove to me that he does not. I believe in God because of my faith. If you have no faith you will most likely not believe in God.
You, sir, are no skeptic. Skepticism is not "doubt". Skepticism involves a gathering and examination of the evidence, and application of critical thought to its ideas.
Show me how my God doesn't exist.
You have said patently false things about evolution... things a young person might say on their first day learning the topic.
What 'things' would those be? (Are you still pissed about your transitional unicorn?)
Your 1% "critical thoughts" presented belie complete misunderstanding of fundamental principles of evolution, and the other 99% are parlor trick talking points ("you are worshiping science; we can't know 'cause we weren't there, man!; scientists conspire to fool us! blah blah blah) so i find it impossible to believe you have engaged in any process of skepticism whatsoever.
I believe evolution happens. On the other hand there's no irrefutable proof for a lot of what some scientists propose happened to a lot of different species. All you have to do is come up with the irrefutable proof to convince me. Until then it's simply a theory as to how they evolved and I will remain a skeptic.
Secondly, science doesn't set out to "irrefutably prove" anything.
*****ROFLMAO*****
You chose the wrong word, there.
*****ROFLMAO*****
Scientific ideas are scientific ideas precisely because there does exist a way to refute them.
Is this one of those 'fill in the gap' thingees?
So your misunderstanding of evolution is no doubt tied to this deep, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Really?
*****CHUCKLE*****
Even the most fundamental theories could be disproven tomorrow, if empirical data yielded enough surprising, contrary results and unpredicted results.
Only those wielding unyielding dogma think their ideas are irrefutable.
You mean like the faithful running around screaming the habitats will be gone in five years and they're still there?
*****CHUCKLE*****
Scientists are proud that their ideas have merit precisely because they can be refuted, but nobody has been able to do so. They invite any and all challengers to these ideas. Step up to the plate, my man! Do some research!
Not if I have to manipulate data to make it fit my theoretical model.
Science does not owe you "irrefutable proof", nor does it possess any on any topic.
So you're back to 'filling in the gaps' eh? What makes your almighty alter of scientific consensus any better than other people religious beliefs? Sounds like they're pretty much the same to me.
Your demand for it is nothing but a ruse by you. You don't fool me. You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory.
Yes I do. If you knew anything about science and skepticism then you would understand.
That's how theories are disproved.
You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period.
What dogma is that?
Else you would be jumping off of your house, convinced you may "fall up" this time.
Only if something happens to the gravitation field.
*****CHUCKLE*****
You would stick forks in toasters, and handle plutonium with your bare hands.
Are you pissed?
You would be a barely functioning idiot.
You must be considering you're now relying strictly on abuse to drive your point home. Do you need the thumbscrews and hot irons to enforce your will? Are you one of the high priests of scientific consensus or a mere lackey? Do you have to study long to be such a pathetic lemming or does it just come to you naturally?
*****CHUCKLE*****
I should also throw in here that taxonomic categories are very arbitrary. Some genera are much different from other genera. Not a lot of sponges, but tons of chordates (vertebrates), so with vertebrate, we smash a lot into a little name. Even then we add super, sub, infra, etc. Old taxonomy was by looks only and wow did they get it wrong.If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.
The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.
Nonsense. I believe it's possible for a species to undergo changes due to environmental pressures and natural selection to form new species over time. The species are still in the same genus taxon. I see no evidence that anything has ever leaped to a new genus in the evolution process. The fossil record doesn't show this.
Now if you want to fall back on the argument that "just because" science can't explain it today, doesn't mean they won't be able to explain it tomorrow, that's fine but it's a faith based argument no different than "God Did It!"
We are also dealing with time. We kinda assume a new fossil of let's say homo erectus is a real species meaning we could not breed with it. We really do not know this. We don't even know we could breed with archaic home sapiens.
There is nothing special about your "genus"
You, sir, are no skeptic. Skepticism is not "doubt". Skepticism involves a gathering and examination of the evidence, and application of critical thought to its ideas.
Show me how my God doesn't exist.
You have said patently false things about evolution... things a young person might say on their first day learning the topic.
What 'things' would those be? (Are you still pissed about your transitional unicorn?)
Your 1% "critical thoughts" presented belie complete misunderstanding of fundamental principles of evolution, and the other 99% are parlor trick talking points ("you are worshiping science; we can't know 'cause we weren't there, man!; scientists conspire to fool us! blah blah blah) so i find it impossible to believe you have engaged in any process of skepticism whatsoever.
I believe evolution happens. On the other hand there's no irrefutable proof for a lot of what some scientists propose happened to a lot of different species. All you have to do is come up with the irrefutable proof to convince me. Until then it's simply a theory as to how they evolved and I will remain a skeptic.
Secondly, science doesn't set out to "irrefutably prove" anything.
*****ROFLMAO*****
You chose the wrong word, there.
*****ROFLMAO*****
Scientific ideas are scientific ideas precisely because there does exist a way to refute them.
Is this one of those 'fill in the gap' thingees?
So your misunderstanding of evolution is no doubt tied to this deep, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Really?
*****CHUCKLE*****
Even the most fundamental theories could be disproven tomorrow, if empirical data yielded enough surprising, contrary results and unpredicted results.
Only those wielding unyielding dogma think their ideas are irrefutable.
You mean like the faithful running around screaming the habitats will be gone in five years and they're still there?
*****CHUCKLE*****
Scientists are proud that their ideas have merit precisely because they can be refuted, but nobody has been able to do so. They invite any and all challengers to these ideas. Step up to the plate, my man! Do some research!
Not if I have to manipulate data to make it fit my theoretical model.
Science does not owe you "irrefutable proof", nor does it possess any on any topic.
So you're back to 'filling in the gaps' eh? What makes your almighty alter of scientific consensus any better than other people religious beliefs? Sounds like they're pretty much the same to me.
Your demand for it is nothing but a ruse by you. You don't fool me. You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory.
Yes I do. If you knew anything about science and skepticism then you would understand.
That's how theories are disproved.
You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period.
What dogma is that?
Else you would be jumping off of your house, convinced you may "fall up" this time.
Only if something happens to the gravitation field.
*****CHUCKLE*****
You would stick forks in toasters, and handle plutonium with your bare hands.
Are you pissed?
You would be a barely functioning idiot.
You must be considering you're now relying strictly on abuse to drive your point home. Do you need the thumbscrews and hot irons to enforce your will? Are you one of the high priests of scientific consensus or a mere lackey? Do you have to study long to be such a pathetic lemming or does it just come to you naturally?
*****CHUCKLE*****
No, it was probably created by selection, which is nonrandom. Is this an epiphany for you? All this time you have been calling it "random", and "an accident". Now you know you were ass backwards wrong the entire time.Sooo, DNA code was created just by accident? Riiight! LOL
Dale, you are an anti-science freak asking everyone to believe a bit of garbage science. The irony is spectacular."Sorry my being a skeptic and want irrefutable proof"
You, sir, are no skeptic. Skepticism is not "doubt". Skepticism involves a gathering and examination of the evidence, and application of critical thought to its ideas. You have said patently false things about evolution... things a young person might say on their first day learning the topic. Your 1% "critical thoughts" presented belie complete misunderstanding of fundamental principles of evolution, and the other 99% are parlor trick talking points ("you are worshiping science; we can't know 'cause we weren't there, man!; scientists conspire to fool us! blah blah blah) so i find it impossible to believe you have engaged in any process of skepticism whatsoever.
Secondly, science doesn't set out to "irrefutably prove" anything. You chose the wrong word, there. Scientific ideas are scientific ideas precisely because there does exist a way to refute them. So your misunderstanding of evolution is no doubt tied to this deep, fundamental misunderstanding of science. Even the most fundamental theories could be disproven tomorrow, if empirical data yielded enough surprising, contrary results and unpredicted results. Only those wielding unyielding dogma think their ideas are irrefutable. Scientists are proud that their ideas have merit precisely because they can be refuted, but nobody has been able to do so. They invite any and all challengers to these ideas. Step up to the plate, my man! Do some research!
Science does not owe you "irrefutable proof", nor does it possess any on any topic. Your demand for it is nothing but a ruse by you. You don't fool me. You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory. You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period. Else you would be jumping off of your house, convinced you may "fall up" this time. You would stick forks in toasters, and handle plutonium with your bare hands. You would be a barely functioning idiot.
"You do not hold this standard for every accepted scientific theory. You reserve it only for the ones that clash with your dogma. Period."
You mean like when I point out the geo-engineering program of stratospheric aerosol injection spraying program of heavy metal nano-particulates? The program that has been proven by water and soil samples that you claim do not exist?
Listen, dipshit, you are THE last pseudo "science believer" that should be preaching to others as to what they should or should not believe. You are a poseur and your lame arguments are easily shot down because you are exactly what you lamely attempt to "rail against". You are a propagandist that swallows what you are told by mostly Jesuit trained spewers of bullshit like those in the IPCC that work at the leisure of the U.N. Your "lame shame game" is laughable and ironic in ways I doubt that you could fathom due to your limited intellect......but please, by all means.....continue to swing your little cyber purse because it amuses the ever lovin' shit out of me.........
