Wow, umm where do I start... Is computing a biology degree? No. Is astrophysics a physics degree? Yes. Considering her background, she is more than qualified to make a statement about it than your idiotic theories. You are basically arguing against what she said, so it's pretty pathetic that you see right through that. And you think my logic is "nutjob"?
So you are saying that I said "everything is false until proven true"? I said those exact words, verbatim, right?
LOL, this is so sad.
You are the one claiming that someone without a degree in a specific degree is more qualified than someone with a specific degree. Not me. That's your logic. Is she more qualified than me. Yes. Is she more qualified than the people who's job it is to research this stuff, no. But according to you, she is even though she doesn't have the same experience. Double standard to prove a point?
You said, word for word, "things like this are false until proven otherwise." You then said you never said that even though that was even you quoting a previous post which means you said it twice, not just once. You then said that the word otherwise does not mean true. There is no in between. Something is either true or false. It may be either or, but it is always one or the other. Your statement either means, "things like this are false until proven false." or "things like this are false until proven true." You tell us since your the one rewriting the scientific method here.
You are right that it is sad. How can someone claim something is impossible without proof. That is pure foolishness. You are resorting to the same logic that was used to prove that Earth was flat because there is no proof that it was round at the time, so it isn't possible for it to be round.