Re: Lots of Christian Atheists here, ain't they?

W dniu 04.11.2024 o 17:17, kazu pisze:

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 04.11.2024 o 10:21, J. J. Lodder pisze:

Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

On 2024-10-31 18:54:56 +0000, kazu said:
>

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

Dawn Flood: "solitary cranks" is only a case of ad populum fallacy.

>
>
as much as i would like to believe there is a super genius rebel among
us who is decades ahead of his peers, good will is not hunting here.

>
There are several self-proclaimed super geniuses among us: not only
LaurenceClarkCrossen, but also "Dr" Hachel, Arindam Banerjee (otherwise
known as bertietaylor), Wozniak (the greatest logician humanity has
ever known), rhertz, the Starmaker. All crackpots. Why is this group
such a magnet for nutters? Not even talk.origins has so many.

>
Indeed, the regulars in t.o. are even complaining
about a lack of nutters.
>
This is understandable. Unlike the nutters here,
who are merely against it all, the t.o. nutters
had a more or less coherent alternative theory.
(Intelligent Design)
>
With the collapse of intelligent design much of the nuttery collapsed.
(as you well know)
The nutterdom here has no such claim at respectability.
They don't have an alternative to teach.
So, beig pure nuttery, it is less prone to collapse.

>
It would be sure much better and easier
for relativistic doggies to fight me if I
had some  idiocies comparable to theirs.
>
>

 what is it about relativity that you disagree? speed of light constant in all reference frames?

That wouldn't be disagreeing; even your insane guru
was unable to stick  to such an absurd for a long time
and his GR has withdrawn from it.
And what I disagree? First - pretending that
desynchronized clocks are somehow better  than
synchronized ones, because of some moronic symmetry;
second - rejecting basic [Euclidean] math.
Third - last but not least - your mad, fanatic
arrogance.