Enoch2021

No Problem, Please provide a Time Machine...? 1. This is Incoherent, could you rephrase...? 2. Creation Myth? What else is there besides CREATION?? 'evolution'?? What's that...? Define evolution...? a. Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? b. Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...? c. Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...? d. Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...? Huh?? You're somewhat confused... My Point 3: "Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...?" <--- This is a request for SUPPORT. Is in response to "YOUR" Claim: "Science doesn't support Adam and eve". <--- This is a CLAIM. "YOU" made the Claim. So How in the World can I be Shifting the Burden of Proof, Pray Tell...? So now "YOU" are Shifting the Burden of Proof (Fallacy). I didn't make a Claim (SEE: directly above). Nope, not this one (or any one). I must Presuppose the Definition of Gas Pressure. So again... How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When... "The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER". http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) x7. You have the prevailing "Narrative"; Ergo...You Scientifically Validate EACH: a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? 1. I don't have a 'model'. WHY, Well... 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science... Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...? "A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066 Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes *FROM* Experiments --- ( Hypothesis TESTS ). A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !! 2. God states that Stars are Angels. I have No Idea. Factually Incorrect: You can't see 3 dimensionally into the night sky... "You don’t notice any depth to the night sky because your depth perception only works for a distance of about 6 meters (20 feet)." https://briankoberlein.com/2015/08/04/how-we-see-the-stars-in-3d/ "Since we totally lack depth perception when we look at the night sky, it is impossible to tell the distance to stars just by looking at them.' http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/79-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/distances/359-how-can-i-measure-the-distance-of-a-star-beginner Don't need it. We already have the Evidence (that you WHOLESALE DODGED): Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure), Remember? I don't have a Hypothesis. Why?? Well because this isn't "Science"... Flat/Sphere (or any other shape) is OUTSIDE the Purview of The Scientific Method. Ya see professor... The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests). The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". "The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;" http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) . It's a classic: "If" this "Then" that, motif. "A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning. A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related. Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010 Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect' -- How/Why questions. Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking: How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False?? i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis; Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; Ergo...This isn't "Science"!! It's quite clear you don't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is . It's High Time you start answering questions in SUPPORT of your 'Spinning-Ball' Religion... Flat: 1. "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans." Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full This is a Geometrical Flat Plane. You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ... "A Geometrical Flat Plane" And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!* Therefore, how can you Blindly Adhere to a Sphere that has one of it's Foundational Tenets "Vertical Drop" and yet at the SAME TIME have a FLAT PLANE with less than *1 METER VERTICAL DROP* over 9000 km2, pray tell?? ** The Entire Globe Charade is actually OVER right here. 2. Sea Sparrow (NATO): "Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ). The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature. Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!). So Either ... A. The NATO Sea Sparrow Exists, OR... B. The Spinning-Ball Religion Exists. BOTH can't be TRUE !!! Savvy? 3. Flight: Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference... radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!! 500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude. 166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude. A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity(!!) in comparison. The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff. 4. Not "Spinning": For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)... "CC.12 The Coriolis Effect: When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY. Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth." Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007. http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'. 2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'. So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*) Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph. So in my example: 1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE. The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila. The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then: 1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...? 2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....? 3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...? (Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?) btw, These are Contradictory Statements: 1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth. 2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds. Which do you think is FALSE? MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!! AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People. ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow? Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion. 5. Vacuum of Space: 1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When... "The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! 2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ?? a. In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time?? b. Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...? c. Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....? 3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance? Why is that...? If you can't provide Coherent/Substantive Falsifications of the 5 PROOFS above then your Globe Earth Position is UNTENABLE. It's just that simple. Capisce? regards

1. What is "Scientific Understanding"? 2. Plants were created on the Third Day. The Sun on the Fourth Day. Are you saying plants can't survive 1 Day without the Sun? What about "Night Time"?? lol 3. Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? It's not that I don't like them; it's more of a LOL-ing at them. How can this be Physics "Science" (i.e., The Scientific Method) ...when the First Step of The Scientific Method is "Observe A Phenomenon" and your appeal is that they came BEFORE observations "PRE OBSERVATIONS", por favor...? 1. Appeal to Motive/Intent (Fallacy). 2. Actually it's because black holes, like it's fairytale sisters... (big bangs, evolution (Whatever that is??), multiverses, dark energy/matter, ect ect) are all Pseudo-Science Fairytales. Yes, it surely does. Really?? So there's no DOME/Firmament?? OK... How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When... "The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER". http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! That's what I keep telling you but apparently it's falling on deaf ears. regards

They do... "Did you know that flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls and many other creatures living today, including numerous types of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and arthropods are found in supposedly 65-plus-million-year-old rock layers, when dinosaurs and other “pre-historic” beasts once roamed the earth?" http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/living_fossils.html Show...? regards

You're confused. I'm not summarily dismissing "YOU", I'm summarily dismissing "YOUR CLAIMS". You don't have to be a "King" to summarily dismiss UNSUPPORTED Claims. Just have the ability to Reason. It's akin to somebody claiming the existence of 3 Toed Gnomes. Then challenging that individual to SUPPORT that claim; when they can't, well...the claim can be summarily dismissed. It's not Supernatural and you surely don't have to be Royalty to adjudicate it. regards

Then as I said, your PARROTED claims can therefore be summarily dismissed. You Captured the Essence of your Claims. regards

There are no "PLANETS" mentioned in Scripture either. However, I will accept Scientific Evidence (you Wholesale DODGED that part ) ... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? regrads

Then your PARROTED claims can be summarily dismissed. Correction: you PARROTED the article. It is "YOU" that need to contact "Eduardo". Again, it's not "MY" job to track down SUPPORT for "YOUR" PARROTED claims. ps. Requesting SUPPORT for claims is not being "rude", for goodness sakes. You bring "Eduardo" here and I'll not only tell him, I'll SHOW him. regards

I recall some years ago that I was listening to a Bible Scholar teaching on these passages (I'll try and track it down)... (Genesis 2:1-3) "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. {2} And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. {3} And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." That it wasn't God that rested or needed rest it was that God gave a repose to Creation; It doesn't come thru in the English Translations all that well. Say What? Man was Created on the Sixth Day. regards

Really? Well since the OP can't SUPPORT their existence, how bout you... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? If you can't answer those (and you can't because they don't and NEVER EXISTED) how bout pointing out 'black holes' in Scripture...? And if you can't accomplish either, THEN...What on Earth are you talking about? regards

That's interesting, I wasn't aware. There really isn't much of a debate. Yes, I know. Is there plenty of "Wishing you a Merry Christmas" Threads? regards

Hasn't yet. And it's been a very LOOOOOONG Time with innumerable subjects. ps. Love the Analogy No problem with posting things you think are interesting. It's when those things are 'portrayed' as fact and/or are masquerading under the guise of a surrogate that denotes some kind of Veracity. I don't think asking people to SUPPORT their claims is ludicrous, especially from 'alleged' Professionals. A few years ago I was on a forum where a poster was touting the Formation of DNA/RNA Naturally. That 'Naturally' caught my attention ... where I then proceeded to PUMMEL it into the Incoherent Oblivion. Turned out, that he was a student and was PARROTING his Professor's Research. Next thing I knew, the Professor jumped on the forum and began defending his Study. I was like "THANK YOU LORD !!!" ... it didn't turn out too well for him; However, I was impressed that he stood up for it. Ever since, if someone posted a study...I always ask the PARROTERS to contact any of the 'researchers' to come and defend it. regards

It's most assuredly not. Understand the sentiment and gesture here...but this "Christmas" thing is quite troubling (Just a Couple): 1. Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that we should celebrate Christ's Birth. 2. The 25 of December isn't Christ's Birth Day anyway. (It's 11 September 3 BC; SEE Revelation 12. And obviously opens up a whole other can of worms) 3. (Jeremiah 10:1-4) "Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: {2} Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. {3} For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. {4} They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." These ^^^^^ are just the 'Tip of the Iceberg'. Not gonna happen... (Matthew 10:34) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." regards

No. I "KNOW" the Earth is Flat/Stationary/Domed/Geocentric and I'm SHOWING that this 'research' is Pseudo-Science. Then please 'Cease and Desist' from PARROTING other's fairytales as fact. I understood that you couldn't SUPPORT this from the beginning. Well, I've done my homework. Well TRUTH doesn't change. For instance...? i.e., SUPPORT...? Again: "YOU" contact her. "YOU" PARROTED her claims. It's not "MY" Job to track down SUPPORT for "YOUR" Claims. What is particularly confusing about this ^^^^^^ ?? Tell ya what...just for you: YOU contact her and bring her here and Introduce her to the Thread... and I'll take it from there. mmm K? Fair? regards

I've been there for Decades. regards

"YOU" contact her. "YOU" PARROTED her claims. It's not "MY" Job to track down SUPPORT for "YOUR" Claims. Well then, Stop PARROTING that which you can't SUPPORT. Simple. I already know the entire charade is Pseudo-Science. I keep requesting for SUPPORT to enable you to find out it's Pseudo-Science rather than just telling you it's Pseudo-Science. Rather than just catch fish for you, I'm teaching you to catch fish. Follow? regards

Yes, that's correct. To Refute, simple: show how it does...? Physical Laws aren't "Science" . They are mere 'descriptions' of Natural Laws; whereas "Science"--(The Scientific Method) 'explains' Cause and Effect Relationships and elucidates mechanisms. Well you have to understand the basic fundamentals of what "Science" is first...then your mind will be "Un-boggled". regards

I didn't say I didn't "understand" them either. Again: I asked you to SUPPORT the tenets of the article...? Ok, but the answers to these questions are nowhere to be found... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates the claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? regards

Globe-Earth theory is one of the most ludicrous CT's out there. Well mainly, Flat or Sphere Earth isn't a Physics or Science Topic. (Which has been explained and illustrated to you personally well over 25 times now ) 1. Appeal to Intent/Motive (Fallacy). 2. What's a "CT"? Then, how is it "Tired"? Repeating Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacies over and over won't convince anyone of anything...cause they're "Baseless". regards

Electrons don't "ORBIT" anything or have "Orbits". "Electrons are 'said' to occupy orbitals in an atom. The term orbital is somewhat 'erroneous' as electrons DO NOT 'ORBIT' around a nucleus. These orbitals, also, DO NOT REALLY EXIST. They are mathematical constructs which make use of a wavefunction, y, that describes the motion of an electron." http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/chemistry/carey/student/olc/ch01atoms.html "These discrete energy levels are frequently represented in high school and college textbooks as circular orbits. They compare the Electrons around the nucleus with planets going around the sun in well defined orbits, that is a misconception. For sure, they are Not Orbits." Walter Lewin (Professor Physics, MIT): Quantization and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. God most assuredly holds all things together. regards

What does the Clock in England or the Pittsburgh Steelers QB have to do with this discussion? Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania. Are you gonna CITE this appropriately or leave this as Plagiarized? Well the First Step of the Scientific Method is: "Observe A Phenomenon". So, this isn't "Science". It's a "Just-So" Story. Well, Scientifically Validate... a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...? Begging The Question (Fallacy): 'black hole'. You can't use what your attempting to prove as a premise, until you've VALIDATED IT. Begging The Question Fallacy (x2). 'Hubble Telescope' and 'Space' (Vacuum of Space). Please Validate...? Rinse/Repeat for the rest of this Treatise. regards

What in the World are you on about now?? I didn't ask you to "EXPLAIN" the article, I asked you to SUPPORT the tenets of the article. regards

Say again?? Ya Think? Ad Hom Fallacy. Have you read the Terms of Service by chance? Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy. regards

"You" PARROTED them "YOU" SUPPORT them. simple The 'researchers' are posting "Just-So" Stories they have not SUPPORTED them. You posted an article that was a Fairytale. You agree with the Fairytale, SO... SUPPORT IT ?? Requesting SUPPORT is not bloviating. Requesting SUPPORT is not bullying. As I've mentioned many times, I have...they just call me names. However, that doesn't relieve "YOU" of SUPPORTING what "YOU" PARROT as Truth. regards

Really?? Where...? So you post a Prima Facie Red Herring Fallacy then charge me with Posting a Red Herring Fallacy? Nobody. Mostly Bread Ties. Well we all have our Opinions. Post the "Twisting of Words Around" Sin...? Well... you did post a Red Herring Fallacy which was defined and illustrated. Do you have a 'coherent' substantive argument or position for the black hole fairytale trainwreck in lieu of this Carpet Bomb Barrage of Diversions (Red Herring Fallacies)...? regards

1. Your question was a Red Herring Fallacy Diversion. 2. How did you know?? What Method did you use...? So let me get this straight, you post a Red Herring Fallacy...A DIVERSION, then accuse me of Diversionary Tactics, eh? I don't 'believe' in "Sciences"...they either follow The Scientific Method --"Science" or they don't -- Not Sciences. regards