| Line 495: |
Line 495: |
| | | | |
| | :Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST) | | :Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST) |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Done. And what I see is cherry-picking. I see excerpts from the Bible that are factually accurate, but none of those that aren't. This is a classic example of ''confirmation bias'' in action.
| |
| | | | |
| | I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST) | | I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST) |
| Line 510: |
Line 508: |
| | I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site. | | I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site. |
| | :All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST) | | :All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST) |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Karajou - Interesting how you deleted the link to RationalWiki. That says a lot. So does the utter denial of basic science. Example: 31. The Twin Paradox. A paradox that does not exist, has not existed for nearly 100 years (since GR was published), which is covered in every first-course in Relativity and has been repeatedly debunked over what looks like more than 2 years. Yet, it remains on the list. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest to pretend that this is somehow a failure of Relativity.
| |
| | | | |
| | :User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST) | | :User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST) |
| − |
| |
| − | Andy: You ding me for an ad homenim attack. I just looked at the home page, and I see "Did God create the universe or is an atheist nerd correct that nothing conjured up the whole universe?" An atheist ''nerd''? I think I made a mistake in not taking a look at this site ''as a whole'' before posting to this counterexamples page. After looking at CP I have to ask - Is it supposed to be serious or is it a parody of some type?
| |