Dear Baldeee, it has been explained to you before, but let me explain it to you again – why you are utterly in over your head.
Regardless of what you think of me, the flaws in your "proof" remain, as explained numerous times.
And those flaws remain unaddressed by you.
Please try to respond to the flaws, rather than avoid by arguing against the person.
Your assumption was, still is, and will indubitably remain – that you are talking to some incompetent delusional religious crank.
It never started as an assumption, and has not since become one.
It is unfortunately an undeniable conclusion of your posting history: you categorically, demonstrably, and factually,
are a
dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
You are certainly incompetent when it comes to addressing the flaws and issues that people have raised with your "proof".
Or maybe your gross dishonesty is preventing you from displaying the necessary competence.
As to the religious part, I couldn't care less about that, and don't give it a moment's thought.
And since it is quite obvious that your favorite sport is heckling delusional cranks – you are maniacally at work attacking Hammond.
I've already posted countless issues with your "proof", that remain unaddressed by you.
I raise comment against your character because it speaks to your continued refusal and/or inability to address them.
Note that at no point do I try to address your "proof" by reference to your character.
You, however, claim I have no credentials (still unproven by you) and use that to avoid addressing those issues.
You are the one committing the ad hominem fallacy, Mr. Hammond, although I am certainly concluding you to be a
dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
Address the issues that have been raised, Mr. Hammond.
It is the honest thing for you to do.
The problem is that you do not have scientific ability via academic credentials in SCIENCE to tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience.
Firstly, ability does not come from credentials.
Credentials
can come from a demonstration of ability, but they don't always.
Secondly, you are the only one who claims I have no academic credentials, as you are the only one here who is appealing to authority.
You do so to try to avoid having to face the issues that have been raised.
Issues that will remain as written, because it is what has been written that matters, not the credentials of the writer.
So you got caught napping with your favorite (aberrant) sport – you got caught in the act as it were when you inadvertently began heckling a REAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY.
The only person napping, I'm afraid, Mr. Hammond, was you in thinking that this site would give you an easy time to post and run, and not identify you as the
dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank that you clearly are.
Most reputable sites have never given you the time of day.
For good reason.
We, however, tend not to ignore the delusional cranks the way we really should.
Probably a result of this site not having too much on-going discussion, so when the trolls, the cranks, the delusional raise their heads, they get the attention they crave.
But none of that helps you with your "proof", alas.
It remains the garbage it was when posted in post #1, and all the flaws, issues, challenges, remain unanswered by you.
Because you lack the ability, and the honesty, to do so.
Of course it is enjoyable to see a malevolent ad hominem ranter hoisted on his own petard, but that's the ultimate dénouement of such malevolent motivation in the first place.
While my comments as to your character are certainly
ad hominem in as much as they are aimed at you, they are not raised in lieu of argument against your "proof".
Your "proof" has been assessed, has been found to be garbage, and many of the reasons why (I'm sure there are far more issues with it than have been raised here) have been adequately documented across the past 60 or so pages.
All unanswered by you, who instead opts to ignore the challenges due to matters of the person (an appeal to authority on your part, but also a genuine ad hominem fallacy - arguing against the person rather than what they have said).
Rather ironic, don't you think?
I suspect you're ranting condition to continue until the bitter end – as it usually does with such objectionable pastimes – but watching the crumbling
fall of Baldeee's ranting obsession in the face of cold scientific fact, has always been quite inevitable.
There has been no ranting, Mr. Hammond.
Just clear dismantling of your "proof", that you clearly have no answer to.
Hence your continued avoidance.
I look forward to the day that you present a proof absent of such basic logical flaws that your current "proof" contains in abundance.
I only wish you were a worthy opponent like Richard Dawkins perhaps, rather than a run-of-the-mill anonymous Internet clown.
Given that you can't address the issues raised by such as myself, what do you think that says about your "proof", and your ability (and character) to be able to defend it, let alone from someone who you might consider a "worthy opponent".
Unfortunately you have become a laughing stock, Mr. Hammond.
Over the past few pages almost a caricature of even yourself.
You are, and will always be, a dishonest, delusional, narcissistic crank.
