oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006
|
Upright
| Quote | Gaz,
Restating your position does not change it.
Once again you simply assert that QM has changed the law without any proofs of it, then ask if others would care to prove the law still exists.
You are ass backwards on this.
- – - – - –
By the way, couching your comments as if this mirrors the addition of Einstien to Newton is patently incorrect. The idea that Einstien would have demanded acceptance of his ideas without demonstration is simply ludicrous.
Cheers… |
TARD.
Don't mess with Upright's law. The law he asserts exists.
Irony meters calibrated? Then we'll continue with more Upright, a few comments later:
| Quote | Random decay events and spontaneous transitions demonstrate a lack of predictability by human observation, they do not demonstrate that they occur without cause or reason.
And as before, it is for you to either support that claim or modify it reflect the facts which (by your own words) are not even in dispute. |
Yes! Support your claim!
TARD.
Gaz now asks :
| Quote | | OK – then why can’t we predict when an individual nuclei will decay or a sponatneous electronic transition will occur? |
We'll see what happens. :)
No doubt Upright will just repeat himself:
| Quote | | Random decay events and spontaneous transitions demonstrate a lack of predictability by human observation, they do not demonstrate that they occur without cause or reason. |
--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings
|
