I disagree. It is very pertinent IMV.
Then please explain why and how.
I disagree… It is very relevant.
Oh.. it was a great response, but as you showed, you didn’t like it so you labelled it “Irrelevant”. But it is still science no matter how “irrelevant” you want to paint it.
Please explain why and how.
I’m not refuting science… you are.
But your statement is commonly used when one lacks a good response. Just blame it on the other person and bow out.
This was in response to,
"I think we're done here. I can't have a discussion with a person who refuses to accept reality and claims that there is a heartbeat when there is no heart present. Sorry but it's just inane."
You're not only refuting science, you're refuting basic common sense - without a heart, you can't have a heartbeat.
Sorry, them's the brakes.
I accept your surrender.
Now, don’t do a backstroke and start responding again.
I can only repeat the same thing so many times only to have you deny basic common sense and reality over and over. Why waste my time doing that? You're just going to keep telling me that there can be heartbeats when there are no hearts.
Try making sense and I'll have something to say.
EDITED:
I though I would add this since you don’t believe in science
Says the guy who thinks there can be heartbeat when there is no heart present.
Do you also think we can hear footsteps when nobody is walking? Do trees that
don't fall down in the woods make a sound?
Please, tell us more!