Invalid Arguments

[Justatruthseeker]

Did I say I had explained any errors? Or did I say others have explained your errors? You have a nasty habit of reading what you want to read, not what is actually written. I wonder if that is part of the reason you consider yourself to be so much more knowledgeable than others? Try reading what people write and respond to the points they actually make, not the points you think they make.

They haven’t explained them either. Like you they just keep claiming everyone is wrong but them. And then like you say it’s been explained, when it’s yet to be shown at all.

More knowledgeable? Oh no. I just accept emperical data for what it says.

So tell me, when you look at those stars forming on a filliment, contrary to standard theory, do you see falsification of theory or confirmation of it? We are both looking at the same evidence, so what do your preconceived beliefs lead you to see?

Or is it you just lack any knowledge of how they claim stars are formed and so are unable to form any judgement based upon observation?

Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the observations and believe they know what they are talking about despite the observations falsifying everything they claimed?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because evidence precedes acceptance. I have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s going to stay that way until you explain using evidence.

You just had the evidence presented. That plasma which behaves in space unlike it does on earth, had qualitatively flat rotation curves, which they understood could be used to study galaxy formation. And not a speck of dark matter needed. Just plasma physics in a plasma medium, of which 99.9% of the universe is. It wasn’t gravity which was causing it, but electromagnetic forces that dominated in the micro-gravity condition in space.

You understand, you just choose to pretend not to so you don’t have to consider the evidence. Presented in detail in the papers attached which you never read. And then ask for the evidence you didn’t bother to peruse the first time.

Why bother to present more at this time, you’ll just not read it then ask for the evidence you just didn’t bother to read in the first place.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They haven’t explained them either. Like you they just keep claiming everyone is wrong but them. And then like you say it’s been explained, when it’s yet to be shown at all.

More knowledgeable? Oh no. I just accept emperical data for what it says.

So tell me, when you look at those stars forming on a filliment, contrary to standard theory, do you see falsification of theory or confirmation of it? We are both looking at the same evidence, so what do your preconceived beliefs lead you to see?

Or is it you just lack any knowledge of how they claim stars are formed and so are unable to form any judgement based upon observation?

Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the observations and believe they know what they are talking about despite the observations falsifying everything they claimed?

Cosmology was not even mentioned when we started this back-and-forth. We were talking about genetics, paleontology, geology all of which, if you care to go back through the thread, you have been corrected on multiple times. But in your delusional arrogance you still need to claim that nobody who knows more about those subjects than you ever will has a) understood even the basics of the subject or b) explained your errors.

For obvious reasons I will not bow down to your superior knowledge, but I will give you credit for your monumental hubris. The Dunning-Kruger is extremely strong in you.

 

[gaara4158]

You just had the evidence presented. That plasma which behaves in space unlike it does on earth, had qualitatively flat rotation curves, which they understood could be used to study galaxy formation. And not a speck of dark matter needed. Just plasma physics in a plasma medium, of which 99.9% of the universe is. It wasn’t gravity which was causing it, but electromagnetic forces that dominated in the micro-gravity condition in space.

You understand, you just choose to pretend not to so you don’t have to consider the evidence. Presented in detail in the papers attached which you never read. And then ask for the evidence you didn’t bother to peruse the first time.

Why bother to present more at this time, you’ll just not read it then ask for the evidence you just didn’t bother to read in the first place.

Ah, so it's not a valid form of argument to ignore the other side's argument and continue to demand things of them? I find that very interesting coming from you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've added another invalid argument to the OP