Dan Rowden wrote:Ah, right. My bad. So Einstein was in fact involved in the Big Bang Theory (and made errors therein) and Newton was the first person to use Math in Science. Sorry, you're right, I must have mis-read you.Pincho Paxton wrote:My errors are never pointed out. What happens is that somebody has misread what I actually wrote, so they point something out. I would have to re-write the same post in different words to answer them, which is a waste of my time. So I don't bother. I expect people to use their own brains to figure out what I posted.Dan Rowden wrote:Much like your entire ontology, but hey, I'm actually impressed you didn't take the bait. I'll respond to one of your posts in this thread piece by piece tomorrow. Hopefully it will highlight how meaningless your statements really are.
It's worth mentioning that you never, ever respond when your glaring errors of scientific history are pointed out to you. Wonder what that's about...
This...
Does not work with this...It's worth mentioning that you never, ever respond when your glaring errors of scientific history are pointed out to you. Wonder what that's about...
Because a response is required for corrections. No corrections are required for historic accuracy, because the subject matter was about science, and not history. What response would you expect from me in history? It's not relevant. How does enlightenment relate to history?Ah, right. My bad. So Einstein was in fact involved in the Big Bang Theory (and made errors therein) and Newton was the first person to use Math in Science. Sorry, you're right, I must have mis-read you.
No, what you are trying to achieve is an artificial win situation based on the wrong rules. Change the rules to history, and try to sneak a win in there. It doesn't work, and shows low self esteem.
None of my theory is based on Newton, or Einstein, so to use them as examples of where I have got facts wrong doesn't help your case.