Oh look, more bollocks to deal with …
Apparently you failed to recognise the elementary concept, that if there ever had existed an observation unequivocally pointing to the existence of a cartoon magic man, this would now be a part of our body of mainstream knowledge and no one would be arguing about this.
Funny how such elementary concepts appear to be too hard for Mr Trained Theoretical Physicist™ to understand …
Do stop peddling this apologetic bullshit. Oh wait, what part of "when multiple observers observe the same entities and interactions and do so reliably and repeatably, we’re no longer dealing with the “subjective” do you continue to pretend dishonestly doesn’t apply?
If 50,000 people look at a tree, and all say “this is a tree”, what fucking “personal interpretation” is involved?
I don’t, this is another ex recto apologetic fabrication of yours. What I do claim instead, is that I’ve exercised diligence with respect to determining the best explanation for those observations, by referring to the work of people who spent decades researching the subject.
But of course, I don’t expect you to understand this elementary concept either.
No, I’m just providing you with the baby steps because you obviously need them, otherwise your wouldn’t post the utter shite that you do.
Nothing more than hubristic self-aggrandisement …
Funny how I’ve been above to present papers on cosmological physics here without exhibiting any of your fictitious “lack of understanding” …
I’ll be patient, and wait for the right opportunity to expose you as a blowhard on this matter.
Once again, pointing out that you have manifestly lied isn’t “name calling”. Grow up and grow a pair.
Oh, we’re a long way past basic honest error with you.
No, it’s manifestly a deliberate part of your apologetics. Others have noted this as well.
And another irony meter bites the dust …
Anticipating the obvious apologetics in 3 … 2 … 1 …
I don’t care about pandering to your synthetic indignation, I care about facts. Which you manifestly don’t.
No kidding? You mean the way you tried to deceive in the past, by pointing to a known liar and charlatan whose assertions happened to be consonant with your biases, while refusing point blank to even acknowledge the existence of the research refuting those assertions, let alone read the papers in question?
I’m going to make sure that one haunts you constantly here.
Indeed. This is an elementary mistake I see from so many mythology fanboys. Along with the duplicitous attempts to have their cake and eat it simultaneously of course, in which they want their cartoon magic man to be both a weaver of spectacularly observable “miracles” and an ineffable “mystery”.