Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No, I was illustrating the idea that you don't need to have seen something first hand to prove itYou think solving a case for a jury is the same a proving a case scientifically? No wonder you are so confused.
Do you think that nothing in science can be proven without seeing it firsthand first?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htmNo. You are lying when you say this.
Are you saying the only thing that proves the theory of evolution is that we don't have anything better?All the scant evidence points to Evolutionary process in species and selection, etc. And there is no other evidence at
present to say, this is not the way it is.
That's the opposite of ACC?That is the opposite of AGW and though I explain it chapter and verse, it is obvious already embrace the Lie and are blind.
OK, so what are they?Credentials? A lot more than your none. And that is the Fact.