Reduce Spending and Raise Taxes?

[One Brow]

Hand waving

You apparently don't understand what that phrase means. Any detailed, referenced explanation can be speculative, but it is not hand-waving.

If it is possible pathway it hasn't been proven to be.

Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians. Scence deals with evidence. Evidence can disprove, but not prove.

By that logic there are no Mormons since I don't know one of them who holds to everything Joe Smith thought.

As I pointed out, no one thinks everything Darwin was proposed is correct, so there are no Darwiniacs, according to your definition of "... one who refused to accept that Darwin's theory was disproved and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience ...". Parts of Darwin have been disproven, and are nearly universally accepted as such.

 

[PearlWatson]

You apparently don't understand what that phrase means. Any detailed, referenced explanation can be speculative, but it is not hand-waving.

Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians. Scence deals with evidence. Evidence can disprove, but not prove.

As I pointed out, no one thinks everything Darwin was proposed is correct, so there are no Darwiniacs, according to your definition of "... one who refused to accept that Darwin's theory was disproved and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience ...". Parts of Darwin have been disproven, and are nearly universally accepted as such.

Like I said Darwinism is nothing but ridiculous speculation.

As I pointed out, no one thinks everything Joe Smith "was proposed" is correct, so there are no Mormons.

So the evidence has disproved Darwin's theory. Thanks for conceding that.

 

[One Brow]

Like I said Darwinism is nothing but ridiculous speculation.

So, you think one reconstruction by one person of one historical event is indicative of the whole field? How amusingly typical of you.

As I pointed out, no one thinks everything Joe Smith "was proposed" is correct, so there are no Mormons.

Did anyone define a Mormon as "... one who refused to accept that Joseph Smith was fallible and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience ..."? If not, why d yo think the copmparison is apt?

So the evidence has disproved Darwin's theory. Thanks for conceding that.

Absolutely. That's why modern biologists follow the Theory of Evolution, which is much larger than Darwin's theory, and does not contain all of it. Anyoe who gets wedded to the theory of one long-dead individual will cease to be a scientist.

 

[PearlWatson]

So, you think one reconstruction by one person of one historical event is indicative of the whole field? How amusingly typical of you.

He is one of many Darwiniacs making ridiculous speculations about the history of life.

Did anyone define a Mormon as "... one who refused to accept that Joseph Smith was fallible and turned it into a non-disprovable pseudoscience ..."? If not, why d yo think the copmparison is apt?

I said nothing about "fallible" or "holds to everything Darwin thought" or "thinks everything that he proposed is correct" either. Those were all your strawmen.

Absolutely. That's why modern biologists follow the Theory of Evolution, which is much larger than Darwin's theory, and does not contain all of it. Anyoe who gets wedded to the theory of one long-dead individual will cease to be a scientist.

This undefined dogmatic "Theory of Evolution" is the continuing revelation from the cult leaders that makes it a nondisprovable pseudoscience.

 

[One Brow]

He is one of many Darwiniacs making ridiculous speculations about the history of life.

By te definition you offered, he is not a Darwiniac. You should stop lying. Also, you obviously don't have the background to characterize any particular speculation as ridiculous or reasonable, and it only makes you look silly when you do characterize them.

I said nothing about "fallible" or "holds to everything Darwin thought" or "thinks everything that he proposed is correct" either. Those were all your strawmen.

I was merely translating your comments on a scietific thought into the equivalent comments about a source of religious revelation. If you think the theories of Darwin and the teaching of Smith are not so comparable, then you should not compare them. What else would "Darwin's theory" be but the sum of what Darwin proposed?

This undefined dogmatic "Theory of Evolution" is the continuing revelation from the cult leaders that makes it a nondisprovable pseudoscience.

That at least six distinct errors in one sentence. Very nice work.

 

[PearlWatson]

By te definition you offered, he is not a Darwiniac. You should stop lying. Also, you obviously don't have the background to characterize any particular speculation as ridiculous or reasonable, and it only makes you look silly when you do characterize them.

I was merely translating your comments on a scietific thought into the equivalent comments about a source of religious revelation. If you think the theories of Darwin and the teaching of Smith are not so comparable, then you should not compare them. What else would "Darwin's theory" be but the sum of what Darwin proposed?

That at least six distinct errors in one sentence. Very nice work.

LOL! Don't cry. Of course I think Smith and Darwin are comparable. They are both religious founders, with religious texts. Darwinism has its little missionary Darwiniacs like you, its priesthood of biology teachers, and its apostles like Dick Dawkins. If we want to keep religion out of our schools Darwinism should be banned.

 

[One Brow]

LOL! Don't cry. Of course I think Smith and Darwin are comparable. They are both religious founders, with religious texts. Darwinism has its little missionary Darwiniacs like you, its priesthood of biology teachers, and its apostles like Dick Dawkins. If we want to keep religion out of our schools Darwinism should be banned.

Since you have given up on serious conversation in this vein, I'll let you have the last word here.