- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,003
- 12,545
- 136
there is really no point in continuing to respond to him. He's just degenerated into troll mode.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Math doesn't tell us anything about science. Math is not evidence. Observations are evidence. Math is simply a language.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This simply demonstrates your complete ignorance of what science is and what math tells us about science.Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
And you are still as wrong as the first time you said it. The idea that the universe is older than 10,000 years has been scientifically tested, and scientifically validated, repeatedly.
Mathematics are not observations, dumbass. Holy shit you're stupid.The two theories are mathematically indistinguishable.
Which is creationist code for: I can't argue against the evidence.Since you can't grasp this simple concept, there's little point in addressing the rest of your tripe, ignorant crap.
Nonsense. A testable hypothesis will have specific predictions, and when you find those predictions to be true the hypothesis is validated.You cannot demonstrate how such a hypothesis could be "validated," because a hypothesis cannot be validated, only invalidated.
You didn't put forth a theory. Regardless, some googling on parallax should supply those readers-along with precisely the evidence you will doubtlessly continue to pretend doesn't exist.However, I would like you to supply a link to one peer-reviewed study supplying empirical evidence which contradicts the 10k theory that I put forth.
In his mind, he's right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.