i have proof!

[Omnibus]

He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly. However, if he shows internal contradictions he will not be in error in using the word 'coherent' which he used first, you criticized him for that but, given that he can prove internal contradictions, the usage of that word was  just right. So, if he shows internal contradictions you should be the one to applogize for bugging him about insubstantial issues, being wrong at that.

[WilbyInebriated]

He was in obvious error requiring that a theory should not contradict what is already known. That's not a logical error, however, as you're pushing but is some kind of general misunderstanding of what a theory really is or he just didn't express himself correctly.

so now you concede that he was in obvious error... tu stultus es... q.e.d.
you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on? for the record, i never pushed his asinine definition as a logical error. if you think i did, please quote the post that supports your asinine position.

the logical errors all belong to you omni...

[Omnibus]

What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel Koala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.

[WilbyInebriated]

What I'm really interested in is what the internal contradictions are in the "theory" under discussion which @Tinsel akoala alluded to. That's the issue, not your nitpicking about details, obviously having nothing else to do.

again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

what you're "interested in" isn't the issue... the issue i have (with tinselkoala) is clearly defined in my first reply in this thread (to tinselkoala). no one cares what you're interested in... mint?  good grief! you're certifiable.

[Omnibus]

On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)