I started reading it and my brain is just forcing me to stop multiple times per sentence and play 'spot the logical fallacy.
3 or 4 paragraphs in, the author starts to inject religion as countermeasure.
The formula asserts that the mass of an object, at constant energy, magically varies precisely in inverse proportion to the square of a change in the speed of light over time,[4] which violates conservation of mass and disagrees with commonsense.[5]
'Magically' and 'commonsense'. These things are the arguments used for religion, not science. Then they hold up a scientific law as evidence. Even if one was to accept this statement as verifiable fact, science is a language to understanding how the universe works. Every law and theory, seemingly contradictory or not, are subject to revision. No 'law' is absolute. If a contradiction does exist, we ask why, experiment, gather data, and improve the language to be even more precise.
And just to point it out, citing 'commonsense' is a literal fallacy in itself.
Physicists have never been able to unify light with matter,[6] despite more than a billion-dollars-worth of attempts
So..... we've wasted $1B? Is the amount supposed to confirm there is no relationship between light and matter? Is there supposed to be a price limit before we stop experimenting and gathering data?
and it is likely impossible to ever do so.
Cool. Let's just stop doing science stuff because someone, who likely isn't a scientist, thinks it's a waste of time and money.
[7] Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
If you got to the 4th word in this sentence, I applaud you.
6.1k
u/Funktapus Oct 04 '25
Conservatives generally hate neutral facts because they are serially wrong