(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1432366' dateline='1477994336']
What your entire thing boils down to is you do not understand science.I did a long post refuting you point by point but lost it in a windows related accident.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Tell me again how your use of this of this ad hom is not a kneejerk ritualistic act. Rather than show a descrepency in my understanding of science you just make the accusation. (watch how this next part is done sportI challenged you to go line by line, even if you did have an accident you could have at least supported any assertion you made with some kind of evidence breaking my definition of faith in science being it's own religion.

You have been repeatedly told of why your view of science is the opposite of what science actually is but fine I'll go again.

Science presents an idea.
This must be testable and is peer reviewed.
If the idea does not meet the tests presented the theory is revised or dropped.

One such idea was the concept of land bridges between continents which were introduced to explain related creatures on widely separated islands. Plate tectonics showed this was wrong and so the idea was jetisoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_bridge

There was also the idea of phlogiston which was supposed to be the mystery element that burned.
This idea was discovered to be false and so was jettisoned.

And so the world progresses and improves.

Religion holds dogmatically to ideas that resist all reason so you end up believing the same stupid shit bronze age farmers believed

It was ok for them but not or person in the twenty first century.

Quote:So let me summarize what I wrote.

Science is a method that goes out of its way to lessen the effect of the prejudices that we all have. If facts do not fit a theory then the theory is either modified or rejected.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

I don't expect you to be an expert on quantum theory I certainly am not. The people who are experts on quantum theory seem content that the Higgs is a real thing. To a certain degree you have to trust scientists to do good science. On the whole this works well. Bad science will eventually be exposed.

Bad religion however is all there is.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works.

The scientist who makes his name is the one with the new theory.

It's called Darwinian theory because he was the one who proposed it against what was believed at the time. Your argument is the opposite of the truth.

Quote:Religions, on the other hand, reject any evidence that does not fit their own narrative.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Some religions do indeed. Science or the religious following behind 'science' are no different.

Quote:Science can absolutely explain love.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: no, science can identify some of the physical aspects of eros (passionate love) but not what makes a person love meaning all aspects of love is lost on them.

Not at all. science can explain the physiology it can also explain the evolutionary driver to develop love. It can explain it in its entirety.
You are like the clergyman that demands that evolution can't explain the eye and gets all defensive when it is excplained to him it can.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Now I ask you honestly, who has a better understanding of science?

Well obviously its me isn't it!
Your view of science is completely wrong.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: they guy who holds up an idealistic pie in the sky example with no proof or did not bother to refute what was used to topple his argument. Or the person who has cited several sources that shows scientists on the highest level selling their scientific integrity to secure more funding?

Science works and bad science is found out. Which seems to be what you have claimed to discover. Science being corrected. And that is the strength of science it is self correcting. Maybe not instantly. But some people are still waiting for a fictitious returnee after two thousand years.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: I know you in your mind wants to call me a name, or attack me personally so you can dismiss what I said without doing your due diligence/looking at the topic any more closely than you did when you put your two cents in to begin with. But, again I challenge you to open your mind a little and consider what i have said. to the point rather than move to dismiss with some trivial stereotypical atheist insult, watch the video, read the articles and form a conclusion based on the EVIDENCE rather than "reject any evidence that does not fit their/your own narrative."

But what you have said is based on ignorance and your own massive prejudices. Give science a try its much better for you.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you not see your own blind faith in the purity of science makes you a devout religious nut job?

What you are trying to do is drag me down to your level and I don't think I can stoop that low.

Well downbeatplumb what's the point talking to Drich when he is obviously useless moron. Who knows maybe when his parents die there won't be anyone to pay him internet bills and he won't pollute this forum with his embarrassing stupidity.

(November 1, 2016 at 6:12 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: That's crap. Let look at the scientific method.
In step number 3 you are to formulate a hypothesis and step 4 you are develop testable predictions BASED ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS! That my friend is the definition of a self fulfilling prophesy. like it or not the whole of scientific discovery is based on faith/the honor system that your precious 'scientists' do not fudge their findings to support their theories. Which we know to be the case as theories based on the scientific method are always changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

All science offers you is a way of outside verification. Meaning a tangible object or physical phenoma can be manipulated or re-verified by this method. The problem? Not all of the universe can be made to fit those two categories. For instance besides God Science can't even be used to explain the complete nature of love.

Or are you so foolish to try and deny love exists even without a scientific explanation?

Science has it limitations, and to use the term science to bridge all the gaps in life is no different than using God to bridge gaps in knowledge.


Not according to the scientific method. Again, Facts are manipulated to fit a theory until they are so overwhelming that a new theory must be formulated. (higgs bosen particle is a good example)

You don't know the first thing about the scientific method Drich.

1) Look at the evidence.

2) Form a hypothesis.

3) Make testable predictions.

4) NOW TEST THOSE PREDICTIONS. (You conveniently forgot this bit)

Really?!?!? If only there was some way to go back to what I said, and maybe make larger or embolden the type face so you could see, that what you said here is not only wrong but by extension your conclusion based on the Idea that I forgot this part, also invalidates any future thoughts based on this conclusion.

Quote:5) If the experiments succeeded then the hypothesis is likely to be correct.

6) If the experiments failed then you have more evidence and can go back to step 1

Unless you don't have funding... you know to go back and rest the experiments because you were only given enough to make a finite number of experimental runs before the project is canned. So then what is a 'scientist' who's whole life is on the line to do?

Admit to a multi billion dollar failure and be shunned from the community or does one fudge the results?

The whole cern team thought the latter was the way to go.

Quote:What's more, the whole system is set up so that everybody is trying to find flaws in what everyone else is proposing.

On a highschool/common or core level yes, but you've got to be smart enough to see, no one is building a second Haydon supercolider, no one is putting 20 billion dollar probes on mars to verify data that has been found. No one is putting black hole telescopes in orbit to verify what the first one finds..

THAT'S MY POINT!

The origins crap you guys suckle at the teet at (the gospel big bang stuff found in the majority of your arguements) is compiled from the data mined in particle accelerators, on mars, off the space telescope findings, and you... 'smart/good people' put this on par with the science that powers your flat screens. Not the same thing. To few people have access to and can decipher the raw data.

What you are not considering is that your whole world/creation view revolves around one singular data point.

For instance have you ever seen what constitutes as proof of a 'black hole.'
One it not something that can be seen as supposedly visible light can not escape it's gravity. So they use radio telescopes and search for anomalous reading that have been deemed the 'black hole frequency range.' Then these bounced radio signals are compiled into massive data streams and then some animator gives a visual representation based on some 'scientist interpretation of what a black hole supposedly look like if infact it could be lit with viable light. hence when i say there is no proof for black holes you get moron posting pics of a painting or C/G hole and ask me what I am looking at...

-AND
This whole dog and pony show is based off of one point of data in space. Meaning from earth's orbit a hundred bazillion light years away. with maybe 30 years of data out of hundreds of trillions of supposed existence . we pretend to know enough about this phenoma to say this is this and that is that...

Again, not saying this crap is all valid or invalid. I am just point to the fact that your 'system of finding flaws and comming up with something better' is like trying to paint a HD potrate of an actual landscape with a blind guys description. Blind because he only has one point of data to describe it. Then the painter/scientist fills in the gaps with what he thinks he can "KNOW" from one point of data.

My point is all this orgins/fringe science crap bottle necks as instrumentation is limited and actual scientists on this level are severely limited. Not to mention heavily influenced by those who fund such research projects.

Science is not this pure incorruptible bastion of truth. It is only as pure as those who fund these larger grandiose projects and in conjunction with the time tables and deadline people put on them and those scientists working those projects who are all looking to make a name for themselves..

The fact that you all simply gobble up anything these guys say, and try and brow beat those who oppose you because you think you have the lock on factual truth, are just fooling yourselves. because all of what you say has been through a 'vetting process' that would be a joke in any other industry beside it's own.

It takes as much faith if not more to believe in your single perspective 'science,' that it does to believe in God. Yet you all can't/won't see it.

Quote: And when you do come up with a hypothesis that succeeds, you can then use the knowledge for practical purposes. This is why we have engineering and medicine. Things that work in practice. If the scientific method was nothing more than an honour or faith system as you claim, the modern world would not exist and we wouldn't be chatting about this on a discussion forum.

Again apples and oranges. I am an engineer who patented and sold said equipment, and developed and manufacture my own transport refrigeration systems, on a international level. I get practical science. whether you b-holes want to believe that or not. I have made a very nice life from my knowledge of practical science. I have challenged the status quo and found a better way of making my industry a little more efficient, as an off shoot of the scientific method. But again fringe science, the crap they do at the cern research facility or the crap the come up with at NASA's deep space exploration facility... None of those things can be question or reviewed objectively as all info comes in through a singular point of time and relative space. So at best all data will be heavily scewed with a singular slant. There are only a hand full of people who have access to the equipment and the knowledge or expertise to decipher the raw data they see. It is next to impossible to support something not already accepted. Or can you tell me what the cetera theory is without googling it?

That is why it was over a year later that the higgs boson discovery was debunked.

(November 1, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well downbeatplumb what's the point talking to Drich when he is obviously useless moron. Who knows maybe when his parents die there won't be anyone to pay him internet bills and he won't pollute this forum with his embarrassing stupidity.

Are you a mindless automaton?

Are you just following a program and can't deviate from your script?

I called your behaivor/how you would react, and you followed up with it anyway!

Awesome. It's like all of you robots think and process information the same way, and when someone challenges your limits you default programming has you all do the same thing.

Good job 'thinker.' you do your people proud!

Holy fuck, that was white-hot agony to read through.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 5:58 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: What your entire thing boils down to is you do not understand science.I did a long post refuting you point by point but lost it in a windows related accident.

Tell me again how your use of this of this ad hom is not a kneejerk ritualistic act. Rather than show a descrepency in my understanding of science you just make the accusation. (watch how this next part is done sport I challenged you to go line by line, even if you did have an accident you could have at least supported any assertion you made with some kind of evidence breaking my definition of faith in science being it's own religion.

Quote:So let me summarize what I wrote.

Science is a method that goes out of its way to lessen the effect of the prejudices that we all have. If facts do not fit a theory then the theory is either modified or rejected.

It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

Drich, you're such a dumb shit. Knowing nothing and understanding nothing never stopped you from running your mouth it seems. Too bad I know the scientific field in question inside out and am happy to confirm that, yes, you're a lying idiot who still wouldn't understand what the science which you claim is a fraud is even about, even if they blew it up your behind.

I can only assume that you are equally astonishingly ignorant about many of the other topics you like to pontificate about, which makes sense in hindsight.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

I did that.  Did you actually read the results of your 'fraud' search?  I rather doubt it.  The results included one story about a group of scientists who had an alternate theory to explain the Higgs data.  That story was repeated multiple times.  The rest of the hits are from crackpots and people criticizing things not directly relevant to the physics.  In short, your implied claim that the Higgs boson discovery was a fraud is based on pretty much crap.  One alternative theory and a bunch of bullshit.  So your rant below is just that: a rant, containing no substance.  Care to try again to document this 'fraud'?

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

Unsupported rant is unsupported.

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works.

Or it's just a groundless story that you happen to believe.

(November 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm)Drich Wrote: That is why it was over a year later that the higgs boson discovery was debunked.

Citation needed.

(November 1, 2016 at 5:19 pm)Alex K Wrote: Drich, you're such a dumb shit. Knowing nothing and understanding nothing never stopped you from running your mouth it seems. Too bad I know the scientific field in question inside out and am happy to confirm that, yes, you're a lying idiot who still wouldn't understand what the science which you claim is a fraud is even about, even if they blew it up your behind.

I can only assume that you are equally astonishingly ignorant about many of the other topics you like to pontificate about, which makes sense in hindsight.

I think that's the bottom line.  We have a bible idolizing crackpot who is misrepresenting the physics and the facts.

Where's your evidence that the Higgs discovery was debunked?  I see a lot of ranting with no actual support.

(November 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Holy fuck, that was white-hot agony to read through.

Yeah, I have found recently that skipping over Drich's posts all together has alleviated that sensation of undergoing a frontal labotomy without anesthesia, almost entirely.. 

I notice the more time I spend on AF the more theists avoid me.

I'm clearly scary to those with poor reasoning.

(November 1, 2016 at 5:19 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Drich Wrote: Tell me again how your use of this of this ad hom is not a kneejerk ritualistic act. Rather than show a descrepency in my understanding of science you just make the accusation. (watch how this next part is done sport I challenged you to go line by line, even if you did have an accident you could have at least supported any assertion you made with some kind of evidence breaking my definition of faith in science being it's own religion.


It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave.

I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method.

However that does not reflect the reality of it all.

There is a documentary call particle fever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg

found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014.

IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize.

What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method?

It's all pie in the sky sport.

The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity.

Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works.

But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now)

Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on?

Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative.

Drich, you're such a dumb shit. Knowing nothing and understanding nothing never stopped you from running your mouth it seems. Too bad I know the scientific field in question inside out and am happy to confirm that, yes, you're a lying idiot who still wouldn't understand what the science which you claim is a fraud is even about, even if they blew it up your behind.

I can only assume that you are equally astonishingly ignorant about many of the other topics you like to pontificate about, which makes sense in hindsight.

unsupported rant.

Take a step back 'EMH Doctor' from STV.

You are ignoring sourced material for your word your personal take. What makes you think being so close to the action, it hasn't tainted your view? If your view is not tainted then why have You followed the same protocol I have identified as the typical atheist/science character assignation and dismissal, so you do not have to address the actual talking points?

Rather you simply put forth your 'word' as your own standard. but again if you are the embodiment of the problem I am describing the wouldn't your personal feelings/rant also be out of perspective?

Look I get it, you don't want to have to legitimately establish all of the fail safes and protocols you depend on to ensure that your whole life's dedication is valid. Or maybe it's even simpler than that.. You perceive what I said as a personal attack and you are responding in kind. Which to a rational mind should be a giant red flag, because it shows that you have adopted a blind closed minded faith. Meaning you can not objectively question yourself without becoming irrational.

Whatever the case your rant is unsupported and is easily dismissed.

If you are a 'scientist' time to step up your game, or sit down mud duck.