millions and millions of brain-dead science groupies, like yourself

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 9:01:08 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 8:31:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 at 7:46:10 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote:
> >> >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 7:36:38 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 10:52:05 AM UTC-8, claudi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > LOL!!! So, let me get this straight. Your whole argument can be parsed down to: Orthodox theories are correct by default. Right?
> >> >> >> No, not right. Orthodox theories are considered to be the best model until evidence shows a different model is superior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong. Only a nonscientist would make such an obviously non-scientific
> >> >> > assertion. The best model is the one that best matches the evidence.
> >> >> And that best model is called the orthodox model, blithering idiot.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip remaining reposted babble>
> >> >
> >> > This is how retards do science. Orthodoxy is not a sign of anything
> >> > other than orthodoxy. Orthodoxy IS NOT A CRITERIA OF SCEINTIFIC
> >> > VALIDITY, YOU MOTHER FUCKING STUPID SON OF A BITCH.
> >> As usual the delusional twit shows his illiteracy in not knowing the
> >> definition of orthodox.
> >>
> >> Scientific validity is the criterion for calling something orthodox.
> >>
> >> Something is not called orthodox until it has been shown to be the best
> >> explaination that matches the evidence.
> >
> > No, you are describing the problem that scientific methods were
> > created IN ORDER TO PREVENT.
> Nope, you are just showing once again that you are illiterate and do not
> understand the definition of the word orthodox as used in science.
>
> By definition "orthodox science" means that science that has been
> validated by the scientific method and has been shown to be the current
> best possible explaination of the evidence.

Fucking moron. There is a huge difference between saying a model/theory is orthodox and saying it is scientifically correct BECAUSE it is orthodox. The former is standard rhetoric. The latter exemplifies the stupidity of the millions and millions of brain-dead science groupies, like yourself.

[Jim Pennino]

And yet again in this repost you still have it wrong.

Science is called orthodox AFTER it has first been shown to be
scientifically correct and no one other than you is saying anything else.

<snip reposted babble>

[Solving Tornadoes]

You got nothing you fucking slimey piece of shit.

[Jim Pennino]

And one more time...

FIRST the science is proven to be valid.

THEN AND ONLY THEN is the science called orthodox.

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

Everybody knows what orthodox means you fuckhead. Show us the experimental evidence and otherwise shut your fucking trap.

James McGinn / Genius

[Jim Pennino]

There is no such thing as an experiment to prove a definition, you
delusional half wit.

> James McGinn / Claudius Denk / Free range mental patient

[Solving Tornadoes]

LOL. You got nothing

[Jim Pennino]

Oh no, not the dreaded and often repeated "You got nothing!!!" when
McGinn/Denk/Delusional is backed into a corner by facts.

[James McGinn]

[Solving Tornadoes]

LOL You are so fucking stupid. You can't "show" a model to be scientifically correct, you fucking illiterate moron.

What the fuck are you doing in a scientific forum?

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]