So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[tas8831]

I Love the acronym in your signature!

Cool - he claims that Adam and Eve mated and eventually produced Asians, Africans, Nordic, Pygmy, etc. - all races from an identical-raced breeding pair. He claims that the mechanism is hybridization. He is the top purveyor of fairey dust on this forum. But you love it.

 

[tas8831]

The forensic reports say "inflammation response" and "trauma"
Its why you should look at the source forensic reports.
Its how you avoid misunderstandings.
Science is what I trust.

Seemingly I am the only one on this forum.

I really am wasting my time here!

You love N=1 science, and unrepeatable hoax/miracles. Got it.

 

[Mountainmike]

You love N=1 science.

Rather absurd, since I quoted at least FOUR independent eucharistic miracles for which there is similar forensic evidence. And might I remind you "big bang" is what you call N=1 science!

And No - actually, I love science in general: enough to have actually read "origin of species" and to be able to quote from it. Do I get an apology for (a) the fact you seemingly dont know what Darwin said and (b) you are willing to insult those that do know, before even look it up?

I remind you of yesterdays defamatory post.

The 'science lover' wrote this in the now closed thread:

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory!​

No, he really didn't. If that is indicative of the level of care you put into your arguments, then you are in worse shape than I concluded from your other posts.

And the fact I told you to locate it in Chapter 6

Now unless you have something to contribute to the question as to a "definition of supernatural" - a word you have used and - the subject of this thread.

If you have a definition, lets hear it. Otherwise butt out of my thread.

And that goes for others too: please keep to definitions of supernatural.
The problems is defining it in such a way that does not capture a subset of mainstream science! I think it is just a subjective term.

 

[tas8831]

Origin of species chapter 6
Look it up.
You really dont check anything do you?
Ill bet youve never read that either , before decide what is and is not in it!

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

He was referring to speciation. And it wasn't in Chapter 6. And he didn't write what you pretend he did. Libel much? Here are the topics in Chapter 6:

Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification — Transitions — Absence or rarity of transitional varieties — Transitions in habits of life — Diversified habits in the same species — Species with habits widely different from those of their allies — Organs of extreme perfection — Means of transition — Cases of difficulty — Natura non facit saltum — Organs of small importance — Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect — The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection.​

You ignorantly, yet confidently, wrote:

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory!​

Bolding mine.

'Origin of life' is not mentioned in the topic list of Chapter 6. Why the fibbing, mike?

YOU are referring to 'life from no life' (bread to blood with no DNA, which you seem unwilling to address).

Darwin was referring to new species from old ones. And that wasn't even in Chapter 6!

Did YOU even look it up? Did YOU even read it? It seems pretty obviously not. The closest I cold find to what your were wrong about was in Chapter X:

"This gradual increase in number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with my theory; as the species of the same genus, and the genera of the same family, can increase only slowly and progressively; for the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual,—one species giving rise first to two or three varieties, these being slowly converted into species, which in their turn produce by equally slow steps other species, and so on, like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large."​

But that is not about "life from non-life", is it? It is pretty cool - that site puts the entire book in one window, so it is easy to search. "Progressive" only occurs twice in the entire book (and once as "progressively"), and neither case was in a sentence referring to 'life from non-life.'


I suspect you conflated and distorted his statement on the eye from Chapter 6 - creationists just love to lie about that one - wherein he wrote:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. "​

Starting with the very next sentence, he then went on for nearly 2 pages (when pasted into Word) explaining how it is NOT actually absurd, if your consider the different kinds of eyes in nature, etc.

You really should read it once, and not just for ripping quotes out of context , misrepresenting them later, and pretending to be better read than you actually are.

Surely a science expert like you can see how inept your extrapolation and false reference was? Only to try to cover your dishonesty by insults and accusations... WWJD?

As for forensic labs not needing robust chain of custody of samples....that is ridiculous. ITs the first thing a defence attorney checks. Contract test labs are obliged to be accredited to GMP which demands traceability too.

So, what was the crime committed in the wafer chronicles? You said they were sent to labs. Seems voluntary. Why was there a "defence" attorney with the miracle wafers and DNA-less WBCs? Do you even check the things you wrote for internal logic and consistency?

I give up! you are beyond hope!

Suggestion for life. Do not make base attacks on others without checking your soruces first. It will land you in the libel courts.

Right... Says the documented Darwin misrepresenter.

LOL! Libel courts.

SEE ABOVE!!

I prefer evidence and science to atheist prejudice!

"Indeed whilst confirming human origin cells, there was no reproducible DNA."

From the thread you had closed.

No 'reproducible' DNA, no "white cells." A white blood cell with no DNA is not a white blood cell at all.

You like fabricated hoax miracles and fringe loony supernatural hoaxes.

Libel courts.... Indeed!


Now back to your echo chamber, where accuracy and honesty are secondary to propping up phoney miracles and fringe pseudoscience.

 

[Kaon]

Why are you using a computer? Why are you using cell phones?

Because it is a tool.

Or, do you mean in the [erroneous] context that I am a science hater (despite my stated academic pedigree) and therefore I should be a hypocrite because I am using instruments of science?

Science ≠ academia. The two are very different, and in fact are often misunderstood by laypersons because of the artificial culture set up to keep everyone in their respective intellectual class. I am not about that game; I have seen and tested too much to subscribe to academics as the sole source for truth. But, you are free to critique based on the knowledge you are exposed to.

The physics necessary for those cannot be understood by a layman.

Of course it can. I teach the physics necessary to understand these things - from classical physics to general relativity and field theory. I have seen with my own eyes the intellectually "lame" ascend to the intellectually astute (and, sometimes ultimately the intellectually judgmental - if they lose their philosophical way).

The GPS in your cell phone relies on Einstein's General Relativity.

And, any quantum physicist understands that general relativity is wrong on many aspects, which is why there is (for now) quantum field theory.

There is no duty at all to do the very restricted science that you are proposing.

Yes there is, that is why my students, and all physics/science students write a laboratory report for their experiments. It isn't for show; their laboratory notes should be so good that a layperson can pick up their notebook, follow their procedure, and reproduce the same results (or, critique the former results and improve on it). That is real science vs. academia.

If the lay person wants to underrstand higher level physics he is going to have to invest in an education.

Or, s/he can come to me and I will teach them canonical formalization, as well as the truth about academia. The day of "you aren't smart enough to know the truth" is over; the veil is being lifted on all things. People are tired of being told they aren't elite enough to know the truth.

The pedestrian game is that you have to pay for knowledge, when there is a God of everything that will teach you for free. This Most High God certainly taught me my specialties, and even made me an autodidact on other subjects. Everyone is a genius; the individual, and their peers are the ones who limits it.

 

[tas8831]

Rather absurd, since I quoted at least FOUR independent eucharistic miracles for which there is similar forensic evidence. And might I remind you "big bang" is what you call N=1 science!

Right, N=4. Well, not really. Each 'study' was N=1, just like Sheldrake's sisters hoax.
A student gave a presentation yesterday. It covered several papers re: fat intake heart disease. None of the papers he referred to had greater than N=39. Even this undergraduate student cited this as being 'too low to draw conclusions' from.

And No - actually, I love science in general: enough to have actually read "origin of species" and to be able to quote from it. Do I get an apology for (a) the fact you seemingly dont know what Darwin said and (b) you are willing to insult those that do know, before even look it up?

I just documented your error re: Darwin. Now I can document your unwarranted hubris.

I eagerly await your expression of Christian humility, but I am guessing I won't actually see it.

I remind you of yesterdays defamatory post.

Before you go accusing others of writing 'defamatory' posts, I suggest you look in the mirror.
"I prefer evidence and science to atheist prejudice!"

And the fact I told you to locate it in Chapter 6

I did. What you claimed is not there. You are not a reliable source.

Awaiting retraction and apology.

 

[Mountainmike]

For those who actually care about truth
Here is what Darwin actually said:

"if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed whcih could not have been formed by successive slight modificaton my theory would absolutely break down"

So if evidence shows that heart myocardium came where once there was bread it clearly triggers that clause. It seems Tas is too lazy to read more than headings which has been same experience on all of this thread. Refusal tolook at detail.

See it here in the middle of the page:
Origin of Species Variorum

Now unless you have something to contribute to the thread on "definitions of supernatural"

Butt out.

I will not answer any other off topic or ad hominem posts, I will just report them as such. Play the ball, not the man. And ONLY about definitions of supernatural.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

He was referring to speciation. And it wasn't in Chapter 6. And he didn't write what you pretend he did. Libel much? Here are the topics in Chapter 6:

Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification — Transitions — Absence or rarity of transitional varieties — Transitions in habits of life — Diversified habits in the same species — Species with habits widely different from those of their allies — Organs of extreme perfection — Means of transition — Cases of difficulty — Natura non facit saltum — Organs of small importance — Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect — The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection.​

You ignorantly, yet confidently, wrote:

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory!​

Bolding mine.

'Origin of life' is not mentioned in the topic list of Chapter 6. Why the fibbing, mike?

YOU are referring to 'life from no life' (bread to blood with no DNA, which you seem unwilling to address).

Darwin was referring to new species from old ones. And that wasn't even in Chapter 6!

Did YOU even look it up? Did YOU even read it? It seems pretty obviously not. I suspect you conflated and distorted his statement on the eye from Chapter 6 - creationists just love to lie about that one - wherein he wrote:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. "​

Starting with the very next sentence, he then went on for nearly 2 pages (when pasted into Word) explaining how it is NOT actually absurd, if your consider the different kinds of eyes in nature, etc.

You really should read it once, and not just for ripping quotes out of context , misrepresenting them later, and pretending to be better read than you actually are.

Surely a science expert like you can see how inept your extrapolation and false reference was? Only to try to cover your dishonesty by insults and accusations... WWJD?



So, what was the crime committed in the wafer chronicles? You said they were sent to labs. Seems voluntary. Why was there a "defence" attorney with the miracle wafers and DNA-less WBCs? Do you even check the things you wrote for internal logic and consistency?

Right... Says N=1 hoax believer and documented Darwin misrepresenter.

LOL! Libel courts.

SEE ABOVE!!



"Indeed whilst confirming human origin cells, there was no reproducible DNA."

From the thread you had closed.

No 'reproducible' DNA, no "white cells." A white blood cell with no DNA is not a white blood cell at all.

You like fabricated hoax miracles and fringe loony supernatural hoaxes.

Libel courts.... Indeed!


Now back to your echo chamber, where accuracy and honesty are secondary to propping up phoney miracles and fringe pseudoscience.

 

[Kaon]

Thanks. And that Fairie Dust is thick in cosmology and evolution....

It has to be; you cannot reproduce and model the DYNAMIC cosmos in the laboratory.

That would also include making humans in a lab unique to the cosmos itself. While we have made strides in several facets of what is needed, not even black ops have the tools to make the cosmos in a laboratory - with precision with respect to the dynamics.

The truth is much of academia states up front a comfort of error, and then after that it is fair game. For example,

Q: what mathematician would assume and extrapolate data over millions of years without proof or uniqueness?

A: a physicist.

 

[Kaon]

I wonder how many last posts and goodbyes we will get this time?

You are right, I did make a promise of sorts to never again post on this sub again. You actually did a good thing through your [however marginal] sarcastic post - which I actually appreciate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it is a tool.

Or, do you mean in the [erroneous] context that I am a science hater (despite my stated academic pedigree) and therefore I should be a hypocrite because I am using instruments of science?

Science ≠ academia. The two are very different, and in fact are often misunderstood by laypersons because of the artificial culture set up to keep everyone in their respective intellectual class. I am not about that game; I have seen and tested too much to subscribe to academics as the sole source for truth. But, you are free to critique based on the knowledge you are exposed to.



Of course it can. I teach the physics necessary to understand these things - from classical physics to general relativity and field theory. I have seen with my own eyes the intellectually "lame" ascend to the intellectually astute (and, sometimes ultimately the intellectually judgmental - if they lose their philosophical way).



And, any quantum physicist understands that general relativity is wrong on many aspects, which is why there is (for now) quantum field theory.



Yes there is, that is why my students, and all physics/science students write a laboratory report for their experiments. It isn't for show; their laboratory notes should be so good that a layperson can pick up their notebook, follow their procedure, and reproduce the same results (or, critique the former results and improve on it). That is real science vs. academia.



Or, s/he can come to me and I will teach them canonical formalization, as well as the truth about academia. The day of "you aren't smart enough to know the truth" is over; the veil is being lifted on all things. People are tired of being told they aren't elite enough to know the truth.

The pedestrian game is that you have to pay for knowledge, when there is a God of everything that will teach you for free. This Most High God certainly taught me my specialties, and even made me an autodidact on other subjects. Everyone is a genius; the individual, and their peehrs are the ones who limits it.

You contradict yourself time after time here so that I is very hard to believe any of your claims. Even aspects of Newtonian physics cannot be replicated in the laboratory, much less relativity. How would you test the physics of an orbit in the laboratory?

Second, relativity is no more wrong than quantum dynamics is. Both explain part of the world that the other cannot. We know that they are incomplete, but each can be tested and verified in ways that the other cannot.

In my experience anyone that claims to be an autodidact in physics is not. Quantum field theory is not one overarching theory and still cannot explain gravity. And the math involved is far beyond what the pay person can handle.

 

[Kaon]

You contradict yourself time after time here so that I is very hard to believe any of your claims. Even aspects of Newtonian physics cannot be replicated in the laboratory, much less relativity. How would you test the physics of an orbit in the laboratory?

Second, relativity is no more wrong than quantum dynamics is. Both explain part of the world that the other cannot. We know that they are incomplete, but each can be tested and verified in ways that the other cannot.

In my experience anyone that claims to be an autodidact in physics is not. Quantum field theory is not one overarching theory and still cannot explain gravity. And the math involved is far beyond what the pay person can handle.

\

Oh, ok. Whatever you think.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True.

But the problem is if all you have is correlation, as yet no conjectured mechanism. (Eg does a rock cloud aphotographic film prior to curie, or do you know who is ringing) you cannot be certain of what are significant or trivial changes.

On sheldrake.
Do time intervals matter?
Are sisters critical?
Distance?
Location?
Fatigue on length of trial?
And it's hard to test even a subset of variables and still have a statistically significant population in each subgroup.

So the first advisable test is pure duplication, on bigger scale , and that is what funding and journals prevent .

Sure a few variables, but make sure a subset is duplication. To confirm the original correlation. The 1000 trials I understand Sheldrake used are already a problem for participant fatigue and duration even with 2 minutes per test.

It's been awhile since I looked at Sheldrake's stuff, but IIRC, the problems were many - he only published his results in his own books, not in peer-reviewd journals, so his detailed methodology wasn't available. However, Wiseman's group replicated to the extent of the available methodology, using the same dog subject, and failed to get any significant indication of anomalous behaviour (i.e. telepathy). When they published their results, Sheldrake claimed they showed the same telepathy patterns that his original had. Wiseman showed that these were explicable as expected or predictable behaviour.

This seems to be a consistent pattern with Sheldrake - making exotic claims based on studies with minimal methodological data, without peer review, which give inconclusive results on attempted replication. The problem appears to be that he goes looking only for data that will support his 'pet'(!) theory, and fails to recognise or acknowledge alternative mundane explanations for his results (ISTR these include errors in experimental design, methodology and data analysis). That he consistently find support for his theory where others cannot, suggests confirmation bias.

Now it's possible that he's right and everyone else who's failed to replicate his results are wrong, but a major problem with his greater hypothesis on which all these experiments and claims are based (i.e. morphic resonance) is that it is not 'conservative', i.e. it isn't in any way consistent with the existing well-established body of knowledge (not least, the Standard Model tells us that if there were any such 'morphic fields' that were both strong enough and long range enough to be significant at everyday scales, we'd have detected them in our particle physics experiments). Normally, the conservatism of hypotheses isn't an issue, but when it is, the other abductive criteria must be satisfied and the data must be clear and unequivocal. This isn't the case with Sheldrake's claims.

The experimental difficulties you highlight only emphasise the problems Sheldrake has in making his case. He may be convinced that his theory is correct, but the lack of clarity, experimental difficulties, lack of repeatability, etc., suggest that he's working backwards - trying to pick and fit the data to his theory. This is pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those who actually care about truth
Here is what Darwin actually said:

"if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed whcih could not have been formed by successive slight modificaton my theory would absolutely break down"

So if evidence shows that heart myocardium came where once there was bread it clearly triggers that clause. It seems Tas is too lazy to read more than headings which has been same experience on all of this thread. Refusal tolook at detail.

See it here in the middle of the page:
Origin of Species Variorum

Now unless you have something to contribute to the thread on "definitions of supernatural"

Butt out.

I will not answer any other off topic or ad hominem posts, I will just report them as such. Play the ball, not the man. And ONLY about definitions of supernatural.

What makes you think that the heart myocardium cannot be explained by evolution? Please don't complain about details to your thread when you are the one starting many of them. If you want this thread to be about superstition you need to follow your own rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

\

Oh, ok. Whatever you think.

Please, it is what I can demonstrate and what you cannot. Why not start a thread on this topic?

 

[Kaon]

Please, it is what I can demonstrate and what you cannot. Why not start a thread on this topic?

I participated in one like this, and when I presented the physics and differential topology from my own work, the thread was deleted without warning or notice.

You are highly myopic in your judgments about me; you don't know what you are talking about with me personally. But, you are entitled to you opinion. And, you certainly do not know enough about me to comment on my academic, or scientific experience/knowledge/degrees - except for ad hominem. I have seen your posts on this forum too; we don't converse for a reason (until now... this rare time which will be the last time.)

This is why I said I would not post on this sub anymore - although I have broken that promise. People like you - who speak without knowledge, and only inspect what is superficial - are the reason why information gets diluted, and paradigms stay around decades longer than they should. I see it every day in academia.


And, you are absolutely wrong about autodidacts, and about layperson knowledge. I have taught quantum mechanics to 10th graders, as well as adults changing careers. You, human, put a limit on what can be known.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am far from convinced with all sheldrakes claims

However the "do you know who is ringing you" is conceptually very simple - easy to measure significance and to make procedure tight. And some experiments he did on that subject (like Nolan) do seem to show massive significance.


I was using this subject not to raise it for its own sake, but an example that is definitely polarizing in terms of apriori belief (Dawkins is not impartial , a definite non believer in it - and he uses the word "supernatural" to ridicule it)
But it is also an area in which there are results way beyond chance.

The point I make is -

If and only assuming the data is good and no holes are found in method - as a matter of definition it is "natural" not "supernatural" behaviour because it happened in nature. Whether or what the mechanism is.

The problem then is , without even a postulated cause it is hard to know what is important, so easy to make a change that could remove significance.

So I think it is vital that first repetitions are exact. Is the data good, before trying to explain it? And funding has problems then (althoughh I hasten to add, sheldrake has repeated variants of this)
When another tried to repeat it, they did not get the same results, but by their own admission changed a number of factors, which is the problem of new vs repeat for funding and publishing.

(As an aside sheldrake remarks that it is not even "extraordinary" because he claims that a significant proportion of popluation believe it true I assume he polled)

It's been awhile since I looked at Sheldrake's stuff, but IIRC, the problems were many - he only published his results in his own books, not in peer-reviewd journals, so his detailed methodology wasn't available. However, Wiseman's group replicated to the extent of the available methodology, using the same dog subject, and failed to get any significant indication of anomalous behaviour (i.e. telepathy). When they published their results, Sheldrake claimed they showed the same telepathy patterns that his original had. Wiseman showed that these were explicable as expected or predictable behaviour.

This seems to be a consistent pattern with Sheldrake - making exotic claims based on studies with minimal methodological data, without peer review, which give inconclusive results on attempted replication. The problem appears to be that he goes looking only for data that will support his 'pet'(!) theory, and fails to recognise or acknowledge alternative mundane explanations for his results (ISTR these include errors in experimental design, methodology and data analysis). That he consistently find support for his theory where others cannot, suggests confirmation bias.

Now it's possible that he's right and everyone else who's failed to replicate his results are wrong, but a major problem with his greater hypothesis on which all these experiments and claims are based (i.e. morphic resonance) is that it is not 'conservative', i.e. it isn't in any way consistent with the existing well-established body of knowledge (not least, the Standard Model tells us that if there were any such 'morphic fields' that were both strong enough and long range enough to be significant at everyday scales, we'd have detected them in our particle physics experiments). Normally, the conservatism of hypotheses isn't an issue, but when it is, the other abductive criteria must be satisfied and the data must be clear and unequivocal. This isn't the case with Sheldrake's claims.

The experimental difficulties you highlight only emphasise the problems Sheldrake has in making his case. He may be convinced that his theory is correct, but the lack of clarity, experimental difficulties, lack of repeatability, etc., suggest that he's working backwards - trying to pick and fit the data to his theory. This is pseudoscience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

(As an aside sheldrake remarks that it is not even "extraordinary" because he claims that a significant proportion of popluation believe it true I assume he polled)

That pretty much speaks for itself... He may have had a PhD, but he seems to have forgotten the fundamental principles of science.

 

[Heissonear]

Rather absurd, since I quoted at least FOUR independent eucharistic miracles for which there is similar forensic evidence. And might I remind you "big bang" is what you call N=1 science!

And No - actually, I love science in general: enough to have actually read "origin of species" and to be able to quote from it. Do I get an apology for (a) the fact you seemingly dont know what Darwin said and (b) you are willing to insult those that do know, before even look it up?

I remind you of yesterdays defamatory post.


And the fact I told you to locate it in Chapter 6

Now unless you have something to contribute to the question as to a "definition of supernatural" - a word you have used and - the subject of this thread.

If you have a definition, lets hear it. Otherwise butt out of my thread.

And that goes for others too: please keep to definitions of supernatural.
The problems is defining it in such a way that does not capture a subset of mainstream science! I think it is just a subjective term.

Many on CF are not open to change.

Many on CF are firmly bias in their views. Talking to them is like a brick wall, unfortunately.

You have presented great information for those open to Life from Above events on Earth. And how the Life Above is available for whosoever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I participated in one like this, and when I presented the physics and differential topology from my own work, the thread was deleted without warning or notice.

You are highly myopic in your judgments about me; you don't know what you are talking about with me personally. But, you are entitled to you opinion. And, you certainly do not know enough about me to comment on my academic, or scientific experience/knowledge/degrees - except for ad hominem. I have seen your posts on this forum too; we don't converse for a reason (until now... this rare time which will be the last time.)

This is why I said I would not post on this sub anymore - although I have broken that promise. People like you - who speak without knowledge, and only inspect what is superficial - are the reason why information gets diluted, and paradigms stay around decades longer than they should. I see it every day in academia.


And, you are absolutely wrong about autodidacts, and about layperson knowledge. I have taught quantum mechanics to 10th graders, as well as adults changing careers. You, human, put a limit on what can be known.

Then start another thread. Usually if a thread is deleted there was a reason for it. Sop far your posts have contradicted your claims. Start a thread and perhaps you can convince someone.

By the way, like most creationists, you appear not to understand the concept of an ad hominem. Now you have made all sorts of false accusations again me, why not justify your claims. I can justify mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many on CF are not open to change.

Many on CF are firmly bias in their views. Talking to them is like a brick wall, unfortunately.

You have presented great information for those open to Life from Above events on Earth. And how the Life Above is available for whosoever.

And there goes another irony meter. When I find that people that claim to understand the sciences will not even discuss the basics so that they can see their errors that puts them in the class that you just mentioned.