OK...simply describe the
mechanism involved that would make this correlation possible and I'll be more than happy to take Mr. Tulip's "ideas" seriously.
The problem is that Mr. Tulip reaches conclusions without the benefit of any evidence that would
lead to those conclusions. He attempts to pigeonhole/cheery pick observations which would "seem" to agree with his conclusion.
That's not science...heck, that's doing science
backwards.
But who knows....even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a nut, but from what I've seen of Mr. Tulips "work", I certainly wouldn't "bet the farm" on his ideas.
edit to add....my basic "gripe" is that Mr. Tulip is allowed to present (IMO) the same argument for astrology
again, and again, and again. That is specifically against the rules of this board.
...but as I said in my other post, if the mods don't see it that way, then they don't see it that way...
But that's not going to stop me from speaking out about it...call it a character flaw.
