Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I guess there have to be people like in every Internet forum...and on behalf of the group, I thank you for being ours.

How do you think the rate of expansion applies to the 3 laws of thermodynamics?

Now you are just deflecting more and not answering the question of which law is violated.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I guess there have to be people like in every Internet forum...and on behalf of the group, I thank you for being ours.

     No, no F., nothing can outperform you ... on any forum.

Ahhh...you were wrong...so rather than acknowledge that you were wrong...you change what you "meant."

I guess there have to be people like in every Internet forum...and on behalf of the group, I thank you for being ours.

Nothing manic or denialist about it

You came here attacking science without taking the time to logically analyze your own position first.

Had you done so with intellectual honesty, you would see that you have nothing more substantial than blind faith at the foundation of your god hypothesis.

If you've got something better than the scientific approach, bring it. Still waiting.

1. The hypothesis of God is not mine - it is 12 500 years old.

Now, when you can tell me how you think the rate of expansion applies to the 3 laws of thermodynamics.

Hey, if you are going to use absurd nonsense like that

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hey, if you are going to use absurd nonsense like that

     The legend of Osiris dates back to 24th century BCE - and He is not the first God. So you have at least 45 centuries for sure (4500 years).

especially in connection with a theory that is denying the laws of thermodynamics.

     It is denialist because it denies a priori the existence of God, and it is absolutely manic because it is set as a pre-condition for becoming 'a member of the Club'.

 What 'scientific' approach you are talking about? Your fake theory is light years away from any reasonably justified approach, let alone scientific. ...

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 2-4 First published online: 21 January 2009

Black is white and white is black
HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media.

The consequences of policies based on views such as these can be fatal...The rejection of scientific evidence is also apparent in the popularity of creationism, with an estimated 45% of Americans in 2004 believing that God created man in his present form within the past 10 000 years.2 While successive judgements of the US Supreme Court have rejected the teaching of creationism as science, many American schools are cautious about discussing evolution. In the United Kingdom, some faith-based schools teach evolution and creationism as equally valid ‘faith positions’. It remains unclear how they explain the emergence of antibiotic resistance...
...
The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.
...

Misconceptions about science
Many students have misconceptions about what science is and how it works. This section explains and corrects some of the most common misconceptions that students are likely have trouble with. If you are interested in common misconceptions about teaching the nature and process of science, visit our page on that topic.

Misinterpretations of the scientific process
...
Misunderstandings of the limits of science
...
Misleading stereotypes of scientists
...
Vocabulary mix-ups
Fact
Law
Observation
Hypothesis
Theory
Falsifiable
Uncertainty
Error
Prediction
Belief/believe

MISCONCEPTION: Science is complete.

CORRECTION: Since much of what is taught in introductory science courses is knowledge that was constructed in the 19th and 20th centuries, it's easy to think that science is finished — that we've already discovered most of what there is to know about the natural world. This is far from accurate. Science is an ongoing process, and there is much more yet to learn about the world. In fact, in science, making a key discovery often leads to many new questions ripe for investigation. Furthermore, scientists are constantly elaborating, refining, and revising established scientific ideas based on new evidence and perspectives. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how scientific ideas lead to ongoing research.

Each misconception or other error is linked to a correction.

Only some use the term to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence

There are people like that in every Internet forum...and you ARE ours.

Do you see any difference between 4500 years...and 12,500 years?

Frank Apisa wrote:

There are people like that in every Internet forum...and you ARE ours.

     I have a question: isn't the boldface enough to express your deep and profound thoughts that you have to use also capitals in the middle of the sentence?