The Forum > Article Comments > Scientific heresy > Comments
Scientific heresy : Comments
By Matt Ridley, published 4/11/2011How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience using global warming as an example.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Page 32
-
- All
Posted by one under god, Monday, 5 December 2011 2:54:59 PM
| |
how do they sell us on all these lies ?
by fear and spin then selling it preferably with a womans name or female upfront...at the media levels here is a poster posted mainly on global warming over 3 years interseting is the times she [or he]...posts again between posts...as well as the next new 2 or three is there a pattern http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4893&page=0 who gives a damm just give me the gifts you got from the new tax i riduculed someone i couldnt possable beat in any other way thats just how some thing say anything so we can make you do..what we want if you think the union is sacred well the fox is in the hen house running the party http://whatreallyhappened.com/ but dont worry they dont need your help they just makeing it up as they go just like the rest of you..[ok us] go back to sleep ya sleepers sheep Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 7:27:14 AM
| |
There only a very few immutable facts or scientific rules connected with genuine science! i.e., matter can neither be created or destroyed; merely transformed, suggesting that before the universe manifested itself as the physical matter we can discern today; it had to exist in another form, and be transformed!
Another is, for every reaction there is an equal opposite reaction. i.e., throw a stone into a pond and you will always get ripples. Everything else not bound by immutable law; and or, is based on opinion or belief; including the holy gospel of Darwinian evolutionism; is open to debate and evidence based revision! Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 2 January 2012 12:23:12 PM
|
whale refuted
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&start=20
silence signifies they got nuthin
lacking even the basaic comprihention
ludwig showed at a previous posted topic
i had hopes for the professing pro=fessor
but it seems even himself has gone dumb..[regretfully he no dousdt contuinues to teach it as fact..yet when called on to confirm the refuting of it failed badly
anyhow no doudt in time he too will be a peer
and so the lies continue..without the lies..what have we got
a theory no one can name..that cant replicate..and has only delusion not faulsifyables
but the words are soo clever
the first thinkg they think to ask is define this define that
lol so much for a per..ignorant thus teaching convoluted spin by rote