Search results

Yes you are a fraud , but certainly not intellectual. Of course the use of words tuned and designed are different for these purposes. They don't mean something they don't mean just because you want them to. Using the word designed in place of intelligently designed is deceitful. Tuned by...

Don't be so pathetic. Designed? What's that? You mean intelligently designed. Tuned? designed? You throw those words about as if they can mean anything you want them to. Stephen Hawking and others who you misquote so much, explain how it is possible the physical constants are tuned by the...

Removing part of a quote inserting an ellipsis to give a different impression of its context is a misquote. Omitting the comment which mentioned your uninformed example puts the quote as an explanation out of context. Either to show how serious you were, or how dumb you really are, you...

Tut tut...fuck you? If you are so sure you are right - why the insults every post, how come you can't address the things where I point out you are wrong ? Again, and putting it politely, your quote was out of context. I cited his 2006 paper which he clearly states according to the...

No lie on my behalf. Perhaps you need more definitions to begin to understand? You misquoted me. You gave an incorrect quote. You quoted incorrectly In a similar way Jem does with scientists. Misquoting, taking only part of a sentence to distort or put out of context what is actually said or...

Your quote was out of context. It is clear why. I explained why. You also seem to think lifting sentences by itself is ok simply because they were in a paper. You do not recall me ever asking a question I've only just recently asked? Then why don't you pay more attention. If you have told...

Does all your profanity make you feel clever or something ? And I've already asked why have you selected in isolation his explanation of a bottom up approach which he does not prefer. All you can think of is to repost the same thing. Laughable.

As I say, like a broken record. Non of the posts you keep linking to confirm any of the groundless assertions you've made about them. Just because you think they do doesn't mean they actually do. And no I'm not fooling anyone nor am I attempting to, but you clearly are desperately trying...

Your big problem is you haven't been able substantiate any of those pathetic assertions . All you can do is keep repeating them like a broken record. Fabricating false statements as a form of argument really doesn't wash. Funny how you haven't realized that. Still, trying to insert an...

You have been outed in this thread and others , copying and pasting misquotes usually from religious websites, misrepresenting science with pseudoscience , jumping from one ridiculous bible thumping review to the next, and actually changing words said in videos YOU posted. As if you can get...

You copy and paste misquotes, change words and deal in downright dishonesty. They are pointed out to you time after time but you grind on blindly repeating the same deceit. You do that as do other nutty religionists because there is no science anywhere that says what you want it to. What...

Couldn't make that kind of crazy up. One must have to be Evangelical not to be able to appreciate the sheer abject self-contradictory nonsense of it.

Since when did penrose, rees and weinberg or any science anywhere say numbers however extraordinary, exclude a natural event, like a universe.

"Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience" classic.

Talking about yourself again like Jem does. By now you two will be entitled to group membership in the no clue club.

Each time you do "personally review" a cherry picked selection of what Hawking says, it obviously doesn't stop you misquoting or changing the words that he and others do actually say, to make a false choice out of the deceit. In any case Stephen Hawking says no tuner , so if you are going...

More false accusation and infantile petty insult. Par for the course.

Go on then, address and argue. You'll be the one with all the work to do making up unsubstantiated assertions from misrepresenting what he says. What's your point anyway, as if you ever had one, in choosing his criticisms of a bottom up approach when he prefers top down? Did you just...

Hey thickhead, already done.

It's ok, it's already been established you can't hold a conversation. Making silly false comments and infantile petty insult is not generally considered a form of argument as you obviously imagine it is.