Didn't read past the ad hom.
If you have a valid point, you should be able to express it without flinging poo.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but in this thread I have made every attempt to be respectful of the people, even if I disagree with their claims. And I plan to be to you too.
Dave, one of the points that kwilborn and I have been attempting to make is that the requirements of "repeatabilty" and "predictability" for irregular or unpredictable events is inadequate.
The scientific process obviously has to be fairly rigid but it must also accommodate that which can not fall with in that rigidity.
Dialetic example:
me: "a fly landed on my shoulder yesterday"
scientists: "can you prove this to be true."
me: no
scientist: then the fly didn't land on your shoulder yesterday.
Obviously according to the above example, to state that just because an event can not conform to the scientific method is false is in itself a false statement.
How many events of an unpredicatable nature are unable to conform with the scientific process....?
The key here is predictability... and to state that if it is unpredictable it is false is ludicrous....
It is akin to stating that if you can not predict the moment a fly is to land on your shoulder the fly will not land on your shoulder....
Do you have a contra arguement to offer?