Science, or Scientists?

[PoliticalChic]

Gee whiz. Why am I not surprised at your lies and falsehoods?



And here I was trying to be helpful.




I thought that pointing out your cutting and pasting of the same edited, out of context "quotes" you dumped into a different thread would have provided you an opportunity to see how such an intentional alteration is what we can describe as lying



I would have thought that your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah would have told you what lying Is and why it's a bad thing to do. But then again, wouldn't it be a bit.... naive, to expect your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah to have the first clue at understanding what lying is?

"... Harun Yahya madrassah...
I really don't know what that is....I assume it is either one of your secret spells, or the kind of word salad one often gets from folks with your mental condition.


Want another try at being honest?

Well...OK:

Up to now you've avoided responding to the OP....

...I just thought it was because you're really stupid, and didn't understand the import....

So....let's see:

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

This is not to say that scientists aren't free to use one or the other at different times and
for different subjects.


I'll predict that you'll fail to give an honest answer, as it makes Swiss cheese out of 90% of your previous posts.
Let's see.

I saw in this pos the same naive assumptions and disregarded for facts that typifies your posts.


The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not entirely a matter of your inability to recognize your lies as precisely that, but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept in promoting those lies.


None of your edited, parsed and falsified "quotes" are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by the charlatans at Harun Yahya and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.


There is a genuine concern regarding your dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written. This is an all too common approach taken by extremists who are unable to argue from a science perspective and are thus left to tactics that simply discard integrity and honesty as their only avenue to promote their lurid conspiracies in an attempt to lie and deceive.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just like post #26 took the wind out of your sails.

Of course it didn't, you dolt.

I merely refused to let you change the subject.


Now....as you are on the same mental level as Halloween....perhaps you'd like a shot at post #30.


Or...did I overestimate you.

I couldn't help but notice that you're so completely befuddled that you're left with nothing but lashing out like a petulant child who has been scolded and sent for a time-out.


Your juvenile name-calling makes you all of what, 12 years old?


You continue to dodge and sidestep any accountability for cutting and pasting the exact same phony "quotes" you dumped in this thread that were exposed as frauds in another thread you started.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it

This is so silly.


You abandoned the other thread when your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya was shown to be a hapless attempt to vilify science.


Your fraudulent "quotes" were exposed as lies.


What would Jimmy Swaggert do?

LOL. A better question is who would Jimmy Swaggert do?

 

[Hollie]

"... Harun Yahya madrassah...
I really don't know what that is....I assume it is either one of your secret spells, or the kind of word salad one often gets from folks with your mental condition.


Want another try at being honest?

Well...OK:

Up to now you've avoided responding to the OP....

...I just thought it was because you're really stupid, and didn't understand the import....

So....let's see:

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

This is not to say that scientists aren't free to use one or the other at different times and
for different subjects.


I'll predict that you'll fail to give an honest answer, as it makes Swiss cheese out of 90% of your previous posts.
Let's see.

I saw in this pos the same naive assumptions and disregarded for facts that typifies your posts.


The issue, which you are unwilling to come to terms with, is not entirely a matter of your inability to recognize your lies as precisely that, but the utter lack of reasonable or rational standard you accept in promoting those lies.


None of your edited, parsed and falsified "quotes" are either reasonable or even intuitive. You simply accept what you are fed by the charlatans at Harun Yahya and you spend not a moment being concerned by the blatant lies, falsehoods and propaganda they disseminate. It's a complete lack of any ethical standard, yet you blithely proceed on, unaware and unconcerned that you are an accomplice to lies, falsehoods and propaganda.


There is a genuine concern regarding your dishonestly parsing entire paragraphs of what was written. This is an all too common approach taken by extremists who are unable to argue from a science perspective and are thus left to tactics that simply discard integrity and honesty as their only avenue to promote their lurid conspiracies in an attempt to lie and deceive.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

You neglected item c.

c. "Creation science". One that bases it's "twoofs" on fear and superstition.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science often relies on crutches to hobble on until someone tires of hobbling..
And Darwinisn is neither right or wrong.. It's simply an insufficient crutch.

It is void of 150 years of revelations about mutations, gene activation, and environmental pressures as an environmental accelerator. The fact that mankind developed in a "peaceful and calm" time portal in the historical record explains why we tend to believe that "gradual adaptation" is the PRIME explanation for every form of life on the planet.

A few continental drifts, meteor impacts as big as Manhattan and a couple hundred years of Cosmic Ray superstorms would set our asses straight about "Darwinian survival and adaptation"..

Nature has ways of genetic engineering that Darwin couldn't even imagine..
Nobody should be wasting their time expecting to find "missing links"..

Oh for God's sake. Don't you and PC ever get tired of displaying your massive ignorance? Ever hear of Punctated Evolution? Ever read any of Ernst Myer's books?

Of course our knowledge of genetics has advanced since Darwin's time. And that knowledge has confirmed most of the ideas Darwin had concerning evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.

I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.





1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.

There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.





2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been taught that, haven't you?

Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)

a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
“If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”







3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now




4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.

a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.



5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'






6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-

a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...

b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.

c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.







Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.

See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?



Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.

To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology.


Your suggestion that the fosill record compiled by the relevant science community simply doesn't exist and therefore must be part of some vast, global conspiracy is concerning.


While your conspiracy theories are in concert with, and a promotion of what you scour from Harun Yahya, there are means and methods to extricate people from cult organizations.


Here is another source for data regarding transitional fosills


CC200: Transitional fossils

"To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology."

I'll bet you've had a lot of experiences that involve the word 'pathology.'


OK...here are a few more nails in your coffin:

1. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



I'm gonna suggest that pathology should probably be reserved for you folks who won't admit what these experts avow.


True?


Are you hurtin'?

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course it didn't, you dolt.

I merely refused to let you change the subject.


Now....as you are on the same mental level as Halloween....perhaps you'd like a shot at post #30.


Or...did I overestimate you.

I couldn't help but notice that you're so completely befuddled that you're left with nothing but lashing out like a petulant child who has been scolded and sent for a time-out.


Your juvenile name-calling makes you all of what, 12 years old?


You continue to dodge and sidestep any accountability for cutting and pasting the exact same phony "quotes" you dumped in this thread that were exposed as frauds in another thread you started.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

No, there are not two forms of science.

But there is a form of lying that depends on a false sophistication on the part of the liar, and ignorance on the part of those being lied to. And you do very well in that venue, PC.

People like you do not get to decide what science is accurate, and what is not. You have not the scientific knowledge or training even to participate in the conversation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist.

Oh yes and we're all thoroughly impressed, too.

Just imagine our very own PC has managed to cow the entire scientific community simply with the power of her sheer intellect.

​

Hey.....did you see post #46?

Looks like it's not the "the entire scientific community," doesn't it.



Wanna recalculate?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I couldn't help but notice that you're so completely befuddled that you're left with nothing but lashing out like a petulant child who has been scolded and sent for a time-out.


Your juvenile name-calling makes you all of what, 12 years old?


You continue to dodge and sidestep any accountability for cutting and pasting the exact same phony "quotes" you dumped in this thread that were exposed as frauds in another thread you started.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

No, there are not two forms of science.

But there is a form of lying that depends on a false sophistication on the part of the liar, and ignorance on the part of those being lied to. And you do very well in that venue, PC.

People like you do not get to decide what science is accurate, and what is not. You have not the scientific knowledge or training even to participate in the conversation.

So....'deniers' shouldn't be allowed to "participate in the conversation"?

What are you so afraid of?

Why would you be getting so angry if you actually believed what you are saying?


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


I must be gettin' through to you, huh?
Some doubts?

 

[Hollie]

Well, after several threads in which the so-called 'experts' and self-anointed science wonks have lied, clouded the issue, and attacked, let's get to the truth.

I've proven that the actual physical evidence necessary to verify Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't exist. I proved it by simply demanding that they produce it.
There is no fossil evidence of serial changes from the simple early life to the advanced trilobites and brachiopods so prevalent in the Cambrian period.

I've challenged the other side dozens of times to present it....and nothing but lies, hot air, and vituperation.





1. Look, biases aside, scientists are simply people. I know, we love to invest folks with quasi-divine characteristics...doing only good, wanting only what is best for others, or for all mankind.....not the case.
Scientists are just people with careers to advance, with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay.

There is the implication that scientists only report, conclude, what the data tells them.
The Global Warming scam should disabuse any of that notion.





2. Yet, as one put it...Darwin's theory is "robust." That's true.
Want the explanation?
OK.
Here's what science was:
"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.."
Empiricism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been taught that, haven't you?

Philosopher Michael Devitt explains that “there is only one way of knowing, the empirical way that is the basis of science.”
Discuss. (An interesting quote from Michael Devitt)

a. This echoes David Hume, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:”
“If we take in our hand any volume; ... let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”







3. But Richard Feynman, of quantum mechanics fame, attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now




4. Here comes the hermeneutical key that will unlock the puzzle.
While religion provided the conclusions in science early on, by the late 19th century, methodological naturalism took over:
Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, excluding appeal to the divine for explanations. Many concur, i.e., science has been a success because it eschews pointing to some sort of creative intelligence.

a. So....science is either empirical, requiring evidence....or, it can rely on logic and a philosophical basis for truth.



5. Those scientists who either refused to accept Darwin's theory due to the absence of physical evidence, or who relied on a theological explanation for the sudden appearance of species, i.e., with no fossil trail transitional evidence leading up to the species, were the era's version of 'Global Warming deniers.'






6. But...what explanation did the 'consensus' guys give? After all, they were denying the empiricism basis of science! Well, the honest ones- not the variety that I've been able to entice into making fools of themselves in previous threads-

a. Openly admit that the physical evidence doesn't exist....no fossil proof, and no observations of one species changing into another...

b. But, no matter what, no supernatural basis will be admitted! OK.

c. Instead, their faith rests on the belief that evidence will be found....or, that the theory just plain makes sense!!
And....and this may be the most important aspect....Darwin's theory is elegant. The logic, even without physical evidence, is unassailable.







Generally, when the less astute attempt to field questions about the absence of fossil evidence, it is answered with anger.

See what I mean about 'scientists' being just like other folks?



Well, then....there are two versions of science.
Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalism vs. Empiricism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Darwin's theory support is populated with the former, the rationalists.
And lots of 'em are simply outraged if you don't agree with them.

To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology.


Your suggestion that the fosill record compiled by the relevant science community simply doesn't exist and therefore must be part of some vast, global conspiracy is concerning.


While your conspiracy theories are in concert with, and a promotion of what you scour from Harun Yahya, there are means and methods to extricate people from cult organizations.


Here is another source for data regarding transitional fosills


CC200: Transitional fossils

"To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology."

I'll bet you've had a lot of experiences that involve the word 'pathology.'


OK...here are a few more nails in your coffin:

1. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



I'm gonna suggest that pathology should probably be reserved for you folks who won't admit what these experts avow.


True?


Are you hurtin'?

You're so befuddled, it's causing you to stutter and mumble by cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you found on Harun Yahya.


How desperate are you?

 

[Hollie]

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus

No, there are not two forms of science.

But there is a form of lying that depends on a false sophistication on the part of the liar, and ignorance on the part of those being lied to. And you do very well in that venue, PC.

People like you do not get to decide what science is accurate, and what is not. You have not the scientific knowledge or training even to participate in the conversation.

So....'deniers' shouldn't be allowed to "participate in the conversation"?

What are you so afraid of?

Why would you be getting so angry if you actually believed what you are saying?


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


I must be gettin' through to you, huh?
Some doubts?

You're getting panic stricken.


You're free to participate and to cut and paste all the phony "quotes" you find at Harun Yahya.


Others are free to point out your lies and desperate attempts to deny the rational world.


I would suggest that you PM me with your "quotes" prior to posting them. As we saw in your other thread, you were shown to be a liar with so many of your phony "quotes".

 

[PoliticalChic]

To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology.


Your suggestion that the fosill record compiled by the relevant science community simply doesn't exist and therefore must be part of some vast, global conspiracy is concerning.


While your conspiracy theories are in concert with, and a promotion of what you scour from Harun Yahya, there are means and methods to extricate people from cult organizations.


Here is another source for data regarding transitional fosills


CC200: Transitional fossils

"To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology."

I'll bet you've had a lot of experiences that involve the word 'pathology.'


OK...here are a few more nails in your coffin:

1. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



I'm gonna suggest that pathology should probably be reserved for you folks who won't admit what these experts avow.


True?


Are you hurtin'?

You're so befuddled, it's causing you to stutter and mumble by cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you found on Harun Yahya.


How desperate are you?

Ohhhh....did I cause you to perseverate....or is it the schizophrenia?

The same word salad.....?



Is that because you're afraid to answer the oh-so-simple question?

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus




I know why you are afraid to answer...but I am surprised that you don't simply retreat to your default: lying.


Go ahead.....go for it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, there are not two forms of science.

But there is a form of lying that depends on a false sophistication on the part of the liar, and ignorance on the part of those being lied to. And you do very well in that venue, PC.

People like you do not get to decide what science is accurate, and what is not. You have not the scientific knowledge or training even to participate in the conversation.

So....'deniers' shouldn't be allowed to "participate in the conversation"?

What are you so afraid of?

Why would you be getting so angry if you actually believed what you are saying?


"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


I must be gettin' through to you, huh?
Some doubts?

You're getting panic stricken.


You're free to participate and to cut and paste all the phony "quotes" you find at Harun Yahya.


Others are free to point out your lies and desperate attempts to deny the rational world.


I would suggest that you PM me with your "quotes" prior to posting them. As we saw in your other thread, you were shown to be a liar with so many of your phony "quotes".

"Others are free to point out your lies..."

Is that because you can't find any lies?

 

[Hollie]

"To be in abject denial of the fosill record suggests you're suffering from a pathology."

I'll bet you've had a lot of experiences that involve the word 'pathology.'


OK...here are a few more nails in your coffin:

1. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



I'm gonna suggest that pathology should probably be reserved for you folks who won't admit what these experts avow.


True?


Are you hurtin'?

You're so befuddled, it's causing you to stutter and mumble by cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you found on Harun Yahya.


How desperate are you?

Ohhhh....did I cause you to perseverate....or is it the schizophrenia?

The same word salad.....?



Is that because you're afraid to answer the oh-so-simple question?

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus




I know why you are afraid to answer...but I am surprised that you don't simply retreat to your default: lying.


Go ahead.....go for it.

Your sweaty, fist-clenching tirades are an indication of just how desperate you are to avoid addressing the conspiracy theories that are required to maintain you in your alternate reality.


Come on. Cut and paste a few more phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

 

[Hollie]

So....'deniers' shouldn't be allowed to "participate in the conversation"?

What are you so afraid of?

Why would you be getting so angry if you actually believed what you are saying?
U

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."


I must be gettin' through to you, huh?
Some doubts?

You're getting panic stricken.


You're free to participate and to cut and paste all the phony "quotes" you find at Harun Yahya.


Others are free to point out your lies and desperate attempts to deny the rational world.


I would suggest that you PM me with your "quotes" prior to posting them. As we saw in your other thread, you were shown to be a liar with so many of your phony "quotes".

"Others are free to point out your lies..."

Is that because you can't find any lies?

I found many in the other thread you abandoned. You bailed because your phony "quotes" were exposed as frauds.


Here you are in a new thread, cutting and pasting the same phony "quotes".


You're just a fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're so befuddled, it's causing you to stutter and mumble by cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you found on Harun Yahya.


How desperate are you?

Ohhhh....did I cause you to perseverate....or is it the schizophrenia?

The same word salad.....?



Is that because you're afraid to answer the oh-so-simple question?

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus




I know why you are afraid to answer...but I am surprised that you don't simply retreat to your default: lying.


Go ahead.....go for it.

Your sweaty, fist-clenching tirades are an indication of just how desperate you are to avoid addressing the conspiracy theories that are required to maintain you in your alternate reality.


Come on. Cut and paste a few more phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

Answer the question, you coward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're getting panic stricken.


You're free to participate and to cut and paste all the phony "quotes" you find at Harun Yahya.


Others are free to point out your lies and desperate attempts to deny the rational world.


I would suggest that you PM me with your "quotes" prior to posting them. As we saw in your other thread, you were shown to be a liar with so many of your phony "quotes".

"Others are free to point out your lies..."

Is that because you can't find any lies?

I found many in the other thread you abandoned. You bailed because your phony "quotes" were exposed as frauds.


Here you are in a new thread, cutting and pasting the same phony "quotes".


You're just a fraud.

Yet you never seem able to post one.....

....hmmmm.......

 

[Hollie]

"Others are free to point out your lies..."

Is that because you can't find any lies?

I found many in the other thread you abandoned. You bailed because your phony "quotes" were exposed as frauds.


Here you are in a new thread, cutting and pasting the same phony "quotes".


You're just a fraud.

Yet you never seem able to post one.....

....hmmmm.......

Yet I pointed them out to you.


......hmmmmm.......

 

[PoliticalChic]

I found many in the other thread you abandoned. You bailed because your phony "quotes" were exposed as frauds.


Here you are in a new thread, cutting and pasting the same phony "quotes".


You're just a fraud.

Yet you never seem able to post one.....

....hmmmm.......

Yet I pointed them out to you.


......hmmmmm.......

Well, then....should be easy for you to grab one, and throw it out here....



Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're so befuddled, it's causing you to stutter and mumble by cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you found on Harun Yahya.


How desperate are you?

Ohhhh....did I cause you to perseverate....or is it the schizophrenia?

The same word salad.....?



Is that because you're afraid to answer the oh-so-simple question?

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus




I know why you are afraid to answer...but I am surprised that you don't simply retreat to your default: lying.


Go ahead.....go for it.

Your sweaty, fist-clenching tirades are an indication of just how desperate you are to avoid addressing the conspiracy theories that are required to maintain you in your alternate reality.


Come on. Cut and paste a few more phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya.

True or not, there are two distinct forms of science:
a. one that bases it's truths on physical evidence
b. and one that bases it's truths on conclusions arrived at by consensus


Want me to answer for you?