Dissent is a healthy aspect of science . . . so is admitting when you are wrong.

When = past perfect in this sentence, this means that thinking "retro viruses caused cancer" was thought in the past.



Not a straw man, you really are just this bad at this kind of stuff. You misrepresent either the science, or what you meant, and instead of retracting or correcting the statement, its me who is straw manning you. Same kind of dishonest approach that plagues your interactions here.

Most cancer isn't caused by retroviruses. Most research into cancer no longer looks into retroviruses. I admit that my post wasn't crystal clear, but you made a leap of logic, which wasn't justified.

I did what you do. Not very fair is it? Wouldn't have been nice if I asked what you meant instead of jumping to the conclusion? Remember the other threads? You dont care do you . . .

You should know something. I don't really respect your opinions. I am not impressed with your reasoning, I am disgusted by your obvious bias, so these little digs are wasted on me. If you still want to write them, please be my guest. I just thought you should know that your flaccid barbs aren't going to do any damage.

EDIT: Added your new full quote, since you changed it moments after posting.

I also am unimpressed with your tit-for-tat attempt. When you claimed matter/energy were eternal, you didn't mean virtual matter and you and I both know that. You meant eternal in the traditional sense, that matter and usuable energy were eternal and I showed how wrong you are on that. It must be humiliating to be corrected on science by someone who is so obviously mentally inferior to you. You should think about that, it might lead you to the great revelation that faith != stupid.

I am pointing out your hypocrisy. Its funny you call me biased, but cannot show a single belief of mine that is not based in mountains of factual evidence supported by a vast array of professionals. << the very antithesis of bias . . .

The reality is I am far more objective and far more willing to engage with the science than you are, and it offends you, and your response is to lash out irrationally. Post pictures which taunt, and engage in false accusations of fallacy at every turn.



This actually proves my point, you are more interested in what you believe others mean, than engaging honestly asking questions and allowing them to openly share there meaning. You place meaning on the words and then readily attack that meaning even after it has been clarified. << definition of straw man.

Read that thread again, immediately I told you that you were misrepresenting my meaning, you didn't care.

How many of the rebuttals written by Professor Duesberg have you read? Have you read any of his research proposals? I bet you haven't. You didn't know that he was world famous for discovering the first oncogene. You didn't know that his specialty was retroviruses. You have only read one side of the subject. I've read both sides. As I've said, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've seen honest sources (not aidstruth.org, but honest sources) admit that Duesberg raises questions, which science cannot answer. He has found holes in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis that can't be filled with the current theory.

Here is another thing you do. You loose a point, and immediately ignore that fact and move on to parroting the same old thing over and over. Saying the same things a thousand times does not make them true.

Duesberg is wrong. To be seen as an honest person he needs to admit it. The same goes for you.

You were clearly not talking about new matter (virtual matter created by quantum fluctuations), you were talking about existing energy being converted into matter. And to be even more ludicrous, you were suggesting that entropy can be converted into matter.

You were wrong then and you are narrow minded now.

It's clearly the same point. You haven't read anything by Duesberg, you take the mockery of his scientific papers by "aidstruth.org" to be fact. You don't know if he has a point, you don't even know what his arguments are (see your previous assertion that Professor Duesberg thinks AIDS is caused by sin).

The real problem with the approach Duesberg takes, and the approach most cranks take is that they ignore what science is really about.

Its funny I owe you some credit Spider. I recently downloaded from the kindle store the book by one of my favorite physicists Laurence Krauss becuase you brought to my attention that video.

Laurence explains that these are the key principles to science.

If you had actually read any of Professor Duesberg's papers, you would see no conflicts with that statement. What you would find is him poking holes in studies that are accepted by the HIV=AIDS community. If you would read a couple of his papers, you would understand what I'm talking about. Is that what scares you so much about this subject? That I'm right and you might have to agree with me?

It is Duesberg that has ignored the research, every claim he has made has been demolished.

Go ahead we can keep playing this game. Name a claim, Ill then cite the debunking/criticisms of his approach.

What I wont be doing is all the hard work for you. Deniers always want us skeptics to do all the hard work, and then they cherry pick anything they can easily disagree with. Sound familiar?

The entirety of his claims are dependent on ignoring research, ignoring FACTS, and favoring his pet theories despite the evidence. ALL three of the tenets are broken by Duesberg, time and time again, both with HIV, and his Cancer research.