Religion

I think you are having an argument with yourself here, because it really goes off track from what I said. Way off. I never insinuated that Evolution being a theory, (which it still is no matter what you are doing here) and that referring to it in any way demotes it or equates it with creationism, which I have not even mentioned nor do I imply? Where are you getting that stuff in my comments?

I am wondering if you know the difference between belief, speculation, hypothesis, theory and fact, because your standardized response, (I have seen it over and over, so you could have just said refer to the standard response) seems to suggest that, but you sound like you just came across a theist or saw a ghost, or both. I will definitely deny your rude and crude attempts at that. You can go duke it out with a creationist or espousing intelligent design and maybe don't look for something that is not there.

Do you often read into something like that and then expect somebody to pick it apart for you?

Thanks for your insinuations, but you are really off base. You are actually skilled at reiterating a common set of response, but what it has to do with my points really relies on your false assumptions and so a rather militant response is usual.

No, really, do you expect me to backtrack and respond to all when you can go so far out like that? I mean, save us the effort.

Thanks for your views on it, no matter what. That's typical and you can't even see that I wasn't discrediting science, so being so myopic does not help your contentions here.

Here is a litmus test. If I say that--based on discussion now in the field about problems with post-empiricism--the Many Worlds Theory is potentially the equivalent of a pseudoscience and there are sound reasons for that, what do you say? Why would I even suggest that? I could say the same about String Theory. Is that absurd or do you understand the how and why and that this is not merely my opinion? I will consider that an indicator. If I said that there are no actual, consensual and agreed upon criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience or just plain bullshit, what is your response? These questions have NOTHING to do with your response, my previous comments, or making an argument concerning them. It is more about where you are coming from scientifically.

I made my points clearly. If you missed them or misunderstood them, well, then so be it.