[D-fendr]

First, you disagree with this:

Consistent reproducible experiments are part of scientific proof whether you wish it or not.

And now you disagree with it's converse:

Inconsistent non-reproducible experiments are the scientific way to prove hypotheses.

Consistency is helpful also in debate.

It seems now we are off on arguments about arguments. My interest in this is not sufficient to participate, particularly when your ad hominems continue.

Thanks for your replies, and adios, amigo...

[Kevmo]

Yes, I disagree with both. Consistency isn’t a necessity for scientific proof. Dolly the sheep was proof enough of cloning. And “Inconsistent non-reproducible experiments” isn’t even a converse. It is a straw puppet. It is saying that Dolly the Sheep happened only once, ever. The Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event has been reproduced 14000 times, even though it is still inconsistent.

Glad to see you go. Maybe you should take a critical thinking class.