Steve Shaw
Now how on earth do you know that I don't know about Popper or don't look up your links?! That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.
I said "You don't SEEM to have heard of Popper or falsifiability." I don't know whether you have or not or whether you look up my links. Let's just say that there is very little evidence that you do. I have done a search through this thread and a previous one where Popper was first mentioned (not by me). Before yesterday you had never mentioned Popper in one of your postings and falsifiability only once (and got it wrong).

Actually, had Popper still been around I think he'd be mortally embarrassed at the certainty of ideas you endow him with.

Now how on earth do you know what Popper would have thought? That is ludicrously pompous and arrogant.

His falsifiability notion, much-vaunted by you ad nauseam, came in for so much criticism that he had to acknowledge his own reservations about it, especially with regard to evolution theory.

Funny that you've never mentioned this before, preferring to demonstrate the depth of your research and grasp of the subject with lines like "OK, Slimetrail, I see you're going back to twathood.". Could you give me a reference to him acknowledging his own reservations about falsifiability? I can't find anything that says that. He didn't have any problem with evolution but he did, initially, dismiss natural selection (which is not the same thing) as non-scientific by his criteria. It's a problem that is still discussed. "Survival of the fittest" is tautological because the only measure of fitness is survival. He listened to wiser counsel and changed his mind although I must admit that I find the reasons why a trifle vague.

And, from the exchanges of recent weeks, you must be utterly cuckoo if you think that I've been "reasoning" with Guffers and Brainless Pete. If anything I've demonstrated that they are, in turns, no more than entertaining and completely stupid.

You are quite right of course; you never actually "reason" with anybody but you have put considerable time and energy into hurling abuse at them.

And I do not doubt your esteemed qualifications, though I do wonder why you see the need to parade yours while I can happily keep mine to myself (and I do have some, and could probably give you chapter and verse on a damn sight more ferns than yer Barnsley one, if pushed).

But you have cast doubt on my qualifications several times Steve. It is one of your favourite ways of avoiding actually addressing the arguments put up against you. For instance in the Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd... thread you said of a passage about falsifiability I had quoted - "If I thought for one minute that Snail understood a word of this, I'd take him up on it." which I think is code for "I don't understand it so I'll just brush it aside.". yes, Steve, I did understand it because I have studied the subject at University. You continued with one of your usual diatribes in which you excelled yourself with expressions like "utterly risible" "a load of pretentious old bollocks" "crock of shite" and ended with " I challenge Snail to pick out and précis the aforementioned words of wisdom in plain English.". I did so shortly afterwards. You ignored me. So, yes, you make it necessary for me to spell out my credentials.

You may not like my somewhat abrupt manner with those I consider to be incorrigibly foolish, but I dislike your misrepresentation of me even more (possibly, though I lack the evidence).

You do not have an "abrupt manner" Steve. You are gratuitously abusive. The people you "consider to be incorrigibly foolish" are anybody who disagrees with you ranging from the intelligent and educated such as TIA and Bill D to the hapless pete. You treat us all the same.

In my previous post I asked "So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion?". Any chance of an answer?

P.S. I defer to your superior knowledge of ferns.