Originally Posted by DeadChannel

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. My post was rational, thought out, and not at all a personal attack. I was merely asking for some evidence, as well as asking you to actually concretely state your thesis in a meaningful (ie. falsifiable) way so that the goalposts aren't moved later on.

If you're gonna accuse me of personal attacks for that post, buddy, you've got a whole other thing coming. You should respond better to people asking for basic evidence before they blindly follow you. You're too emotionally involved to this idea, which is a faulty position to take when searching for the truth.

Now, if you present a coherent thesis, as well as a logical, rational, argument that does not contain this type of reactionary, knee jerk responses, as well as not containing any more meaningless, external ad hominem, we can talk. Of course, you'd also have to be able to show that there aren't any obvious logical fallacies, even under harsh questioning, without breaking a sweat or getting angry. You'll also have to show that your research is from reliable sources, and that you aren't making anything up, or handwaving important parts of the equation.

Maybe your book does all of that, in which case I'd be glad to read it, and be perhaps persuaded by it, but your response to simple, polite questioning suggests otherwise. Now, throw another hissy fit or prove me wrong, your choice. But first you need a falsifiable thesis.


1) Which you have failed to supply.
2) Actually, no, that's not what a theory is, in anything other than the un-useful colloquial sense. A theory is an idea or set of ideas designed to explain something. Thusly, gravity is a theory, even though it's for all intents and purposes pretty much 100%. But let's not get into semantics here.


Wait, I'm the one asking questions here, you're the one asking for blind faith in an idea that hasn't yet been coherently defined. Yet I'm the one that's been brainwashed? You don't get to 1984 me, yo.


What?