You have all the signs of worshiping a false god. The models are nonsense, not because the elements included are fabricated (although some are), but because vast known variables of unknown magnitude are discounted, not because they aren't important, but simply because they can't be quantified. Additionally, fudge numbers must always be inputted into the models to get them to properly predict the known past. The fudge numbers aren't scientific, they are simply the margin of error.
I know unscientific nonsense when I see it, and I'm not impressed with PhDs that like to play make-believe.
No proof huh? I'll bite, when the available evidence is concrete and not conjecture, and when that evidence can produce the same predictable outcome every single time that its tried, I call that proof. You can call it strong evidence if you wish. In fact, get scientists to do just that, and I'll be happy.
There is a great deal of difference between blindly reaching into a box of unknown size and contents, pulling out two matching pieces and pronouncing "all evidence shows", and inventorying all pieces in a box of known size and pronouncing "all evidence shows".
yeah... sure.
"...when that evidence can produce the same predictable outcome every single time that its tried,I call that proof.
Since when does evidence predict? A proof is a logical construction, which shows that all other possibilities are impossible. Evidence is simply the result of observation, that supports some mathematical description of physical reality. Evidence does not ever exclude other possibilities. As the strength of evidence increases, the probability of other possibilities decreases.
"There is a great deal of difference between blindly reaching into a box of unknown size and contents, pulling out two matching pieces and pronouncing "all evidence shows", and inventorying all pieces in a box of known size and pronouncing "all evidence shows"."
Grasping for straws?