Scientific Retards

That has never stopped him before - he barely even notices

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, is all that just another way of saying "appearances can be deceptive"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the most scientific claim I've seen you make thus far.

 

least edison knew when to steal a good idea.

 

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.

 

Thank you - are we ever going to see one from you?

 

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:

Ignoring basic geology and fluid dynamics he claims:

Life did not begin until the cambrian era:

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:

And finally my personal favourite:

Pot? Kettle? Black?

 

Yeah: you're an idiot. How about that?

 

LOL @ U. I never said that. You're the only moron who has said that.

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

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.

 

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

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 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.

 

Which as you have already admitted neither disproves a biogenic origin nor proves an abiotic origic.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1881526&postcount=83

Are you going to take my challenge?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1888186&postcount=193

 

You still haven't taken my challenge to show oil cannot be found below 15,000 feet TVD.

 

so if I do that will you take mine?

 

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.

 

I would say you're obligated to grow a brain cell but that's never gonna happen.

 

Then it should be easy to meet the challenge

or you could just keep squirming


wriggle wriggle wriggle little boy!