Quote
This forum is not here for the purpose of debating other branches of science such as quantum physics, and I don't have the time to carry on with this when there are other lengthy posts to reply to.
Well, even if you yourself cannot defend the underpinnings of cosmic evolutionism, is it not a bit much to presume none of the other evolutionists cannot either?

Then again, I don't really think anyone can adequately defend it. Maybe you're right.

Quote
I just wonder where such disdain for science came from, CTD.
Funny funny. I have consistently upheld the proper methods of all forms of science. If you could defend the practice of substituting speculation for science, you wouldn't need to resort to this.

Quote
You appear not to want to learn what these things are about;
Not from quacks, no I don't.
Quote
instead you latch on to whatever part of them looks incredulous to you and say, "I don't believe that." For example, it's quite true that if you start at the equator and go in parallel lines toward one of the poles, those lines meet up. Space-time is also curved in this way.
Those lines are not parallel. They have a measurable curvature, although it's too small to be handily perceived if you start close together. However, if one person starts is Africa and one in South America it's very easy to see that they're not parallel.

Besides, the claim is that no parallel lines exist. Even if the example was true, the premise is demonstrated to be false when applied to eastbound or westbound travelers. How much more wrong can it get?

BTW, thank you for confirming that every last time they teach SR & GR, they first teach this lie. Doesn't mean the teacher's a liar - he just got conned by someone else. Even the originator of the story might not have realized it was false (although someone did set up the practice of leading into SR with the lie in order to disorient/confuse students). Had people properly, scientifically examined the story... poof!
Quote
The final thing I'm going to say about this is that it behooves you to actually learn about what you're criticising before you criticise it. I don't think you're making a very convincing case for yourself by declaring people like Einstein to be wrong when you don't understand much about the science in the first place.
More funny funny. You assume I know nothing because you define "knowledgeable" as "agreeing with LindaLou". Observation does not support this hypothesis.

Quote
Like I said, you can go tell all the physicists who have been using his ideas for decades that he's wrong, and collect your Nobel Prize.
I'll stick to truth, and collect my reward(s) at my Creator's pleasure. I understand the committee isn't to keen on creationists. The inventor of the MRI machine was "overlooked" & they awarded two of his colleagues, you know.

Quote
I'm sure that my sister-in-law, who is a professor of geology, will also appreciate being told by you that she is a liar and she makes stuff up. All that time she's spent in Iceland studying glaciers must just be a front for spending a holiday in a remote place, cooking up conspiracy theories.
I don't believe I've had the pleasure.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson