Science
Science
Out of context: Reply #301
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- Morning_star0
That article admits that there is something happening in the data that is anomalous and warrants further investigation. He quite fairly criticises Radin for overreaching in his conclusions. That doesn't make the results invalid.
Yet again you ignore the evidence and concentrate on the people, why? You generalise about everything based on second hand opinions, readily admitting to putting your faith in, what is essentially, hearsay. You 'believe' you understand what the truth is, you don't 'know'. How is that any difference to a belief in a religion.