Into the Night
Verified User
how many were fundamentalist Christ stains . zero
Try English. It works better.
how many were fundamentalist Christ stains . zero
YOU are the one who doesn't know what science is... The moment that you start blathering about "consensus" is the moment that I know that you are completely clueless about what science is and the purpose of it.FFS. Everyone knows what science is except for you.
Nope. There is no consensus in science. Science is not anyone's (or any group's) opinion. You are now speaking of religion, politics, etc...Science very much relies on consensus. It's an integral part of the process.
Satan is real.Global warming is real.
Indeed, it was created in a lab in Wuhan. A Chinese whistle-blower has since corroborated this.COVID-19 is real.
The Christian God is real.Evolution is real.
Burn in hell.Stop being a twat.
YOU are the one who doesn't know what science is... The moment that you start blathering about "consensus" is the moment that I know that you are completely clueless about what science is and the purpose of it.
Nope. There is no consensus in science. Science is not anyone's (or any group's) opinion. You are now speaking of religion, politics, etc...
Satan is real.
Indeed, it was created in a lab in Wuhan. A Chinese whistle-blower has since corroborated this.
The Christian God is real.
Burn in hell.
No valid argumentation presented....deleted Mantras 13, 4b, 39f...
No valid argumentation presented.
Wikipedia summarily dismissed. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source in discussions with me.
Who is Fuck and why is his sake important?FFS.
... the feeling is mutual.You're one annoying person,
Inversion Fallacy.and this has nothing to do with your science denial.
Who is Fuck and why is his sake important?
... the feeling is mutual.
Inversion Fallacy.
I'm noting some of them as you commit them... Instead of choosing to whine about it, you could choose to learn about what they are, how you are committing them, and how to avoid committing them...Rattling off a few fallacies doesn't mean I'm using them,
If you wish to learn about the logic, science, mathematics, etc. behind the statements that I make, then just ask me instead of whining...nor does stating something make it true.
Agnostics! The religion of science is Agnosticism.I have a question...
In the last 300 years which group / society that predominately follows which religion, has made the most scientific advances on the planet?
I'm noting some of them as you commit them... Instead of choosing to whine about it, you could choose to learn about what they are, how you are committing them, and how to avoid committing them...
If you wish to learn about the logic, science, mathematics, etc. behind the statements that I make, then just ask me instead of whining...
I'd rather not waste top notch Wisconsin cheese on your low quality whine...
I have a question...
In the last 300 years which group / society that predominately follows which religion, has made the most scientific advances on the planet?
Agnostics! The religion of science is Agnosticism.
Atheism isn't a religion.
It’s another joke, you really need to lighten up.Agnosticism isn't a religion. It refers to the state where one hasn't made a decision on religion.
Yes it is. It is the religious belief there is no god. Atheists can't prove their position any more than Theists can. Both have to have a religious belief they are correct.
Calling atheism a "religion" is like calling "not collecting coins" a hobby.
Wrong analogy. It would be more like denying coins exist.
You know nothing about critical thought or about science. You're not fooling anyone.
You are not thinking critically. Now you are grabbing shit out of Wikipedia as your argument. Wikipedia summarily dismissed as a source. It's articles are too often incomplete, biased, or just plain wrong.Maybe you didn't reach high school. Maybe all the Sunday school hindered your ability to think critically.
Nope. Wikipedia does not define science. Science uses no consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no voting bloc in science.
Nope. You cannot define 'climate change' with 'climate change'. You cannot define a word with itself. Circular definition. Try again.