ChemiCat
Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
|
| Quote | | At least the theory with my name on it is still doing very well standing "the test of time". |
Yet it has never reached the status of a theory. It is still without evidential support for its many assertions. There are no repeatable tests that can be carried out on it which makes it a non-scientific mish-mash of pseudoscience with a dash of theism thrown in.
| Quote | | I'm also not experiencing the uncertainty problems Charles Darwin had. |
That is because your mind is closed to the many, many flaws in your rubbish. Start to address the various errors in physics, chemistry and biology in your POS and then you may possibly have a reason to brag about how you are "sciencing". A scientist would take on board the many criticisms of his basic science and either reject his hypothesis or do research to correct his errors. Something a closed mind will never do.
| Quote | | In twenty something years I have not had to change a single thing in its core model. |
Which again shows that you cannot be advancing science in any shape or form. Such a closed and religion-addled mind cannot see beyond its worship of an unproven supernatural entity.
Your tagline, stolen from the IDC movement, is trivial in the extreme and easily dismissed without even beginning to take it apart in detail. Who said "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? You have no evidence for any of the claims you make. They are just assertions moulded around a doubtful theology.
Your VB model is nothing but a kiddy-code without any biological significance to researchers in either biology or neurology.
In short, you do not understand science and your assertions are lifted straight from the cargo-cult science of the ID movement which is in reality a twisted theology. That you disparage them at every chance you get is a result of your being rejected even by them.
|
