>>7610755

>It's settled science.

If it's settled, it ain't science. Revelational knowledge from an omniscient Being is settled. Human "science" so-called, never is. If it were the possibility of scientific progress would cease to exist as all contemporaneous "settled science" would negate progress. Only morons bleat "settled science." The rest of us recognise it for the oxymoron it is.

>>7611039

>>>7610983

>

>Semantics argument, not relevant. Try to research the work already done by credible engineers.

Try listening to this credible engineer then, if you're so certain of your owncleverness.