No, He’s not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.
F= M whatever is a freakin’ formula, not a theory.. TTOE is a theory, not science.
And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.
Been through that argument before as well.
Posting biased crap will not help you there either.
No, He’s not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.
And the scientific community? Your personal "definition" supercedes the one that scientists themselves actually use. How "special" of you. I'm sure you consider your definition of a scientific term to be somehow "better" than that used by scientists, but hey, you're entitled to think whatever you like, no matter how ludicrous it might be.
F= M whatever is a freakin’ formula, not a theory..
"F= M whatever"? ROFL! Can't even remember one of the most elementary and foundational equations of physics, eh? No wonder you're out of your depth on these science discussions.
And why are you misrepresenting what freedumb2003 actually wrote? Besides the obvious motive, I mean... What he actually said was, "And, to some degree F=ma is a theory (using the lay definition)". He was clearly *NOT* claiming that it was a theory in the scientific sense. Why are you now attempting to claim that he did? Please explain your actions.
TTOE is a theory, not science.
Now you're just being goofy (or very confused). Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them. Theories are the very heart of science. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this? Do you think it's advancing your cause any, or helping to bolster your credibility on this subject? If so, you're very mistaken. Quite the contrary, in fact.
TTOE is indeed a theory, and it is indeed science. Deal with it, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to clumsily split semantic hairs.
And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.
No, you are not, and repeating the false claim only digs you deeper.
It speaks volumes that you YET AGAIN FAIL TO MAKE EVEN A TOKEN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM when challenged, even when you could make an easy $1000 if you could.
You clearly can't, and what's worse, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T. Yet you persist in blustering and repeating the claim. Why do you do this? Do you really think this is acceptable behavior for one who is trying to present himself as on the side of righteousness?
Been through that argument before as well.
Yes, and you failed before as well. You've been playing these games here for years.
Posting biased crap will not help you there either.
If you can point out where I have actually posted any "biased crap", I'll be more than glad to retract it and apologize. Unlike yourself.
Now let's cut to the chase again. You very falsely claimed that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." This is very, very wrong. You've been challenged to support this false claim, or to retract it and apologize. You could even earn $1000 for demonstrating that it's true, not to mention demonstrating a fact that, if true, really *would* be a big blow against current theories evolutionary origins. And yet you run away from the challenge, you don't even make a token attempt to support it. This is, unfortunately, typical anti-evolutionist behavior. Do you think this is helping your case, or helping your credilibity? I'd really like an answer to this question.
Not only do you fail to support your false claim when (repeatedly) asked to do so, you actually brashly *repeat* and *broaden* the false claim. This, too, is unfortunately typical anti-evolutionist behavior -- trying to "win" an argument by bluffing so doggedly that their opponents just give up due to the futility of trying to get the anti-evo to debate honorably. Do you really think this is helping your case, or your credibility?
One more time, Nathan: Support or retract your false claim that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." Your credibility is on the line. Show us that an anti-evo can actually be honorable for a change, instead of gameplaying and evading. It would be refreshing.