“Well, then you are a true scientist. Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion.”
You misunderstood my point—perhaps that was my fault. Your post impugned science on the basis of the fact that mistakes are possible at all, i.e., that errors, misinterpretations CAN happen. That it is not as perfect as creation rationalization in which contrary evidence is banned. Don’t worry—despite that, science remains quite accurate in its predictions and conclusions, the global warming red harring notwithstanding.
Sorry—I don’t get your multi-trillion dollar hole rant. Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate?
So, as you can see, I don’t lose. In fact, I win.
“Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate?”
Why do you keep calling me this? I have no such belief and nowhere have I said as much. Go back and look. You are unhinged on this subject.
“Sorry—I don’t get your multi-trillion dollar hole rant. Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate? So, as you can see, I don’t lose. In fact, I win.”
Oh. You brush aside the point I make and declare victory over me based on refuting a point I did not make. VERY scientific.