Apparently this mb will be troll free (or at least troll light) for a bit, so until normal service returns…
NM,
I have proved that…
First, the word “science”
has a definition. That definition entails observation, hypotheses, evidence, testing, theories, peer review, falsification tests etc. Whatever it is that you think you’re doing, it has none of these characteristics. That means that cannot be science. No ifs, not buts - it cannot be science. Call it what you like – assertion, bad poetry, personal theology, whatever – but you cannot call it science.
In the unlikely event that you actually manage to demonstrate even some of the conditions necessary for science though, then – but only then – would that term be even remotely appropriate.
Second, you’ve “proved” nothing whatever – just asserting incoherence doesn’t constitute
proof.
Third, science doesn’t deal with proofs in any case – it deals with hypotheses and theories. Those things can be amended or junked as and when further and better evidence and reasoning arises. That’s the strength of science – its methods allow for knowledge to develop and to grow over time. Your unfounded and evidence-free assertions on the other hand start wrong and stay that way.
Fourth, the attempts you make to describe the truths that science does provide are almost invariably wrong. Not slightly off, not nearly right – categorically and unequivocaly
wrong. And when torri and others take the time to explain to you where and how you go wrong it’s fundamentally dishonest of you moreover to respond with “read your holy Bible” and similar rather than to own the countless mistakes you make about cell biology, a supposed dark side of the earth, stars vanishing, earthquakes increasing etc.
Fifth, when your many mistakes are explained to you your playing the victim in response (“the Bible says people would mock” etc) just makes you look pathetic. People correct you not because they have an agenda to mock; they correct you because they’re right and you’re wrong.
Oh, and sixth when you tell me and others to “read your Holy Bible” you need to understand that it’s not
my “Holy” Bible at all. That you think it to be holy –ie, divinely inspired and therefore authoritative – is a personal conviction you happen to have, but your utter inability to mount even a scrap of an iota of a nano-argument worthy of the name to validate that claim means you've arrogated a claim on my behalf.
Apart from that though...
