Search results

I see -- sort of the the "fact" of thermodynamics, and the "fact" of calculus, and the "fact" of quantum physics, and the "fact" of flight, and the "fact" of probability, etc. I stand by my statement. You are at odds with the majority of the scientific community, therefore your definition of...

I'm not repeating it for him. I'm repeating it for everyone else. I already know that Z will never get it. It is his pathology to be right at all costs, because his self esteem cannot suffer to be wrong. Whereas someone like myself, actually enjoys being wrong, because I get to learn...

I don't know -- Doubter's post is extremely well documented. Maybe I'll change my mind.

Ironically, I would love to see the scientific proofs of intelligent design. Doubter's post at the beginning of the thread makes me think, because its author has posed some nasty questions that I need to consider. This other stuff, from Z and nickelscalper is all just unsupported conclusion...

It's merely your opinion that the theory of evolution is not a fact. And your opinion differs from the majority of scientists. Therefore, you're definition of what a scientific fact is, is incorrect -- otherwise your position would be the same as the majority of the scientific community.

Why bother to post your opinion, when the entire thread is premised to avoid opinion in favor of factual arguments?

Well, apparently, the precise understanding that YOU have for what a scientific fact is, is not the same as that understanding held by the majority of the scientific community. If it were, then either you would accept evolution, or the scientific community would reject it. And, you're quite...

What you seem to think is beyond comprehension, is actually commonplace. A product liability lawsuit for a design defect does not depend on the designer's intent. All that is necessary is for the product to injure someone while being used in a manner that an ordinary consumer would reasonably...

I don't reject all things spiritual. But this thread is supposed to be about putting forth scientific evidence of intelligent design, and it has already degenerated into a bunch of unsupported opinions.

Your theology is not important to me. Evidently, having others know it is not important to you. As for your statement that you are not a Christian, this may be a fact, but I have no means of verifying it from here, so as far as I'm concerned, it's just another opinion. This is similar to...

Another conclusion unsupported by any facts. Thank you for your opinion.

Yes. You assume that the purpose of a thing cannot be assertained by examination alone. This is a ridiculous assertion. Example: Any reasonably intelligent child handed a box full of blocks will play with them and eventually start using them to build something. The child has thus discovered...

It is merely your opinion that what you see in the world is the product of intelligent design -- nothing more nor less. Re your assertion that you are not a Christian, you could be lying in order to bolster your current argument. I do not know. And, there are a number of definitions of what a...

Another conclusion, not supported by any facts. Thank you for your opinion.

In order to conclude as you do, you must have a definition of what is a satisfactory "scientific proof." If your definition of a scientific proof excludes proofs accepted by the majority of the scientific community, then your definition is not the correct definition of what is a scientific...

Every single sentence in this post is the opinion of the author, and is entirely unsupported by a single scientific fact.

In your opinion, which is not shared by the majority of the scientific community.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. You don't need to go through all that work. Just post the link to the text that you find online. FYI: I did find Mr. Deem's site and I've located the source of your content. Just trying to set some reasonable ground rules that we're not all chasing each other's...

If you really want to start a scientific battle, then please cite your sources so that opponents and supporters don't have to waste time surfing the web. Needless to say, Mr. Deems article appears to be well researched and thoughtful. If I were to use due diligence to write a rebuttal, it...

My experience is that if I'm trading more than 20x a day, I'm usually focused on one security and there's no time to analyze anything. It's all about momentum, finding a liquidity block, and/or making the spread. Either I guess right and win or I guess wrong and lose.