View Single Post
Old 02-13-2013, 06:53 PM   #108
orangeatheist
Champion of the Godless
 
orangeatheist's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I've been trying to bring you guys along one step at a time. But Lord knows, you can bring a horse to water -- but you can't make him drink.
Unfortunately for you, you have been unable to establish that what you want us to drink really is water. Maybe it's just someone's runny diarrhea. I told you, bring some expert, independent witness to your assertions (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles regarding McCanney's model) then we can talk. Why don't you understand that simple request? Or, could it be that there IS no independent, peer-reviewed support of McCanney's model, you know this, and so just keep repeating the same mantra and laying the blame for your failure at our feet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I said from the start that Venus was only part of it -- that the real issue was much bigger -- and has to do with making the shift to the next paradigm.
A shift you've been unable to substantiate with any independent support. Again, I ask you, why should anyone take McCanney's model as gospel just because he self-published his work on his website without any independently confirmed support over past 32 years since its invention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
I believe that the top tier of scientists today understand that the Big bang and the ice comet model are dead.
Doesn't matter what you "believe." Provide peer-reviewed support that McCanney's model is the correct one so that it lays the foundation for your further discussion regarding Venus. You can't even get your horse out of the gate much less into the first turn. This is really sad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The problem is that these scientists - work for the federal government, or for large corporations, or they are dependent for their funding on the federal government. Many of them work on secret projects -- and all of them have signed security oaths not to talk about what they do -- or know.
Yes. When you can't substantiate your position, say it's because of a conspiracy. Creationists pushing for a 6,000 year old earth and intelligent design have been doing that for years. It's the tactic of losers in a debate who can't win in the competition of ideas. What it really means is your particular idea is a failure, not that everyone's against you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
These three categories cover almost all top scientists working today.
Non sequitur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
The remaining scientists -- second and third tier scientists -- are not privy to the leading edge of research in the black world -- and continue to promote obsolete science.
I feel the car quickly careening toward a steep cliff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
We need a new policy of glasnost - openness. The government must open up and share the advanced technologies and knowledge on the cutting edge.

I don't expect it to happen -- unless a tidal wave of indignant citizens demand it.
And there it goes.............

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Now...on to Venus...
No; what you mean to say is, "Now...on to more unsupported assertions." Right? I hope not. Maybe you've learned your lesson, but I doubt it.
orangeatheist is offline   Reply With Quote