you "tinks" wrong.
You are so sure of your own biases and assumptions, you fail to see a person who genuinely is eclectic and syncretic, and will read new references, if they are provided.
as all you did here was use words to disguise your intent
So now you're a mind-reader too, eh? You don't know my intent. I speak plainly. My intent is to challenge what I perceive to be (so far) insubstantial evidence for a poorly defined theory.
I'm asking for references because if it is substantiated and well-defined, then I'd like to read about it, as it sounds like it could be interesting.
have you don't any homework to see how the concept of entropy and planck are foolish
I only can sort of understand this sentence as it's garbled. What I'm asking you for is references for your ideas. As in- authors and titles. What built you toward your current ideas, and what you have written about your current ideas. It doesn't have to be published. Some longer discussion would be fine, with references to the background of your ideas. Some sort of research paper or something?
With nothing to read, and nothing to refer to, then how can I possibly evaluate, probe, discuss, respond?
did you see the embryo's and count the tail bones? Did not take a moment and realize you were observing evolution in a hurry?
I've observed evolution in many ways, but what is the point?
so basically you are not trying to do something of quality or trying to understand knowledge and how it will all combine.
Or, I do this differently from you, from a different perspective and field. You seem to imply only your ways are valid, only your ideas are true.
That is a surefire way to halt the progress of science. Science requires openness to change, to being wrong, to learning. This is the beauty of it.
you've been looking for flaws trying to make yourself feel good and make sense that you are doing it as anyone would........
And now we're back to the mind-reading. Lovely. I guess you can tell me all about myself, because you have that privileged knowledge, despite not knowing me at all.
I'm looking for flaws because this is the science section and a post on scientific topics. Scientists look for flaws and weaknesses in all arguments, and in so doing, they strengthen each other and the progress of theory. If Darwin did not look for flaws in his contemporaries' thinking, we would not have his theory. If others did not look for flaws in his theories, evolutionary theory would have stagnated.
If you cannot see the value scientifically of looking for flaws, of challenging everything, I cannot state it more clearly.
You attach emotions to me that do not exist and you presuppose my motives are personal rather than in any interest in actual science and learning. That only shows that you externalize your perceived negative expectations about others, as you do not know me, so you cannot know my intentions or my emotions.
If you have a question about my intent or emotions, try asking me. I am not hiding. I'm not the one getting upset and swearing and making personal attacks.
Debate is not the same as attack.
