(June 7, 2013 at 3:00 am)Godschild Wrote: So what you're saying is everyone should take what any scientist says as the truth, even when said scientist has a reputation of tampering with evidence or in this case possibly non-evidence. Real smart of you most gullible grasshopper. Can you possibly be more out of touch with reality.
No, what I'm saying is that you're a pompous, sneering douchebag.
With regards to science, my standards are the same as they've always been; I'll believe a scientist who provides peer reviewed, repeatable and falsifiable evidence for the claim he's making, while referencing the information he's using to come to the conclusions he has.
You aren't doing that. In fact, you're demanding that we accept your assertion by fiat with no evidence beyond your word, or else we're gullible. And you have a history of spinning the facts to suit your purposes whenever it suits you or your pet god.
In essence, you're asking that we indulge in the textbook definition of gullibility, in order to avoid being called gullible by... you.
A man who used the words "creation scientist" without irony in this very thread.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
