Scientific Retards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pandaemoni said:
If you assume that motion is relative in the way you do, then your revolving in place is the equivalent of that galaxy revolving around you...but that would mean that the galaxy completed a trek of 2 * pi * r (with "r" being 10 billion light years) in one second, well faster than the speed of light by a factor of something like ... carry the trillion ... a whole lot.
So, is all that just another way of saying "appearances can be deceptive"?
 
So, is all that just another way of saying "appearances can be deceptive"?

All that was really a way of taking a proposition that I suspect s/he could agree with (nothing can accelerate to faster than the speed of light), then using it to show that, if one accepts the proposition, accelerated motions are cannot be relative.

It's certainly true that appearances can be deceptive, but this isn't about that so much as it is demonstrating that there are certain preferred descriptions of movement in some cases.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to make a deal. You're the one with incentive bias not me. I wouldn't care if you rode a bicycle the rest of your life.


Truly the stuff of an inventive mind. If only all posters followed your practice of clear, concise explanations, we'd all be a lot better off. Don't waste your precious time here. There must be other places where your wisdom will be appreciated.
 
Getting into the spirit of the thread I have found a wonderful example of someone so retarded scientifically he probably couldn't even find his arse with a map:

Ignoring both the basic chemistry of respiration (i.e citric acid/krebs cycle) and lipid synthesis he claims this:
All hydrocarbons are abiotic just as all water is abiotic.

Ignoring basic geology and fluid dynamics he claims:
Oil migrates up not down.

Life did not begin until the cambrian era:
Oil has been found in precambrian sediments which means some oil is older than life itself.

Nothing lives within the earth's crust -and even if it did it would not be able to synthesize lipids like every other organism on the planet:
There has never been a single instance of an organic organism somehow miraculously generating hydrocarbons in the Earth's crust.

And finally my personal favourite:
no animal has ever evolved into a another animal through natural selection. DNA prevents that from ever happening.

Pot? Kettle? Black?
 
Life did not begin until the cambrian era
LOL @ U. I never said that. You're the only moron who has said that.

http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil

In fact, the bulk of current production comes from just two epochs of extreme global warming, 90 and 150 million years ago, when algae proliferated
Unfortunately for "complete fucking idiots" like you and Colin Campbell petroleum has been found in precambrian sediments.

"In Precambrian rock, it's not intuitively obvious where these hydrocarbons come from," a biogenic cultist named Sherwood Lollar said.
 
Last edited:
LOL @ U. I never said that.

Your memory is very poor for a teenager - Would you like a link to the post where you said it?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1876779&postcount=352

Unfortunately for "complete fucking idiots" like you and Colin Campbell petroleum has been found in precambrian sediments.

Neither myself nor Colin Campbell have disputed that - he merely states that most of the biological material that makes up the crude oil we extract today came from algae 150 and 90 mya.

Not only have you yet to provide a single shed of evidence that refutes this, you also demonstrate quite clearly that you have trouble with comprehending the meaning of simple a word like "most"

Your interpretation of that statement to mean that - and again I quote you directly - "Colin Campbell, would claim hydrocarbons were only formed twice in the history of the universe."
( said here http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1888790&postcount=197 ) is a de-facto admission of your status as a scientific retard of the highest order.

case closed - check mate
 
"In Precambrian rock, it's not intuitively obvious where these hydrocarbons come from," a biogenic cultist named Sherwood Lollar said.

In other words there's no evidence for an abiogenic origin

why do you continue to make it so fucking easy for me to make a fool of you?
 
Unfortunately for you "most" petroleum has not been found in Jurrasic and Cretaceous sediments. If that were the case we would look to find "fossil fuels" wherever there are dinosaurs. "Most" petroleum today is found in igneous rock.
 
Yeah. Once you prove to me that algae forms diamonds and helium I'll jump off a cliff.

That prediction was never made - you just didn't understand it - you are now obliged to take my challenge - or fuck it - jump off a cliff if you like - both will be hilarious to watch.

Ps - I love making you squirm - look at how when pressured to take on a challenge for abiotic proof, you offer one condition - then when asked if you will take the challenge if that condition is met you then add another condition. You'll just keep doing that ad infinitum because you know that you are not even close to being a match for me.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top