NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2015,14:28) | | Quote (NoName @ Jan. 11 2015,13:17) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2015,14:16) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 11 2015,12:30) | | So, any evidence of calcium atoms guessing? |
Show the readers where I supposedly discuss "atoms" with a tiny brain that somehow allows each to take a guess, etc..
Your inability to quote such a thing ever having been said by me will show how full of manure you are. |
"Molecular Intelligence", from your "theory".
'Nuff said. |
If you cannot handle the scientific terminology that is required for a coherent scientific theory then your opinion is just more of the usual scientifically worthless garbage from just another political hack promoting their religious agenda. |
Epic fail.
Terminology needs to mean something. The user of the terminology must be able to specify what is meant.
To all appearances, you wouldn't recognize a 'coherent scientific theory' if it painted itself blue and danced on the piano singing "I'm a coherent scientific theory."
You certainly have no ability to judge whether any given candidate does or does not meet the criteria because you do not know what the criteria are.
We know this because despite being challenged to do so countless times you have never been able to lay out any sort of definition, let alone formal specification, for what counts as coherent or as scientific theory.
Worse, we know this also because no one in the entire world agrees with you on your self-assessment of having a 'coherent scientific theory'. This despite 6+ years of trotting your effluent around the web and desperately ignoring the devastating criticisms it has met at every turn.
As to your attempts at insulting me, well, you're no better at that then you are at making a living, managing a budget, or conceptualizing what does and does not count as a 'coherent scientific theory' in the only world that matters -- the one outside the chorus of voices in your head. (Do they echo? I'll be they echo.)
|
