Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe

Trader666 · Sep 11, 2010

That's rich!!!! LOLOL!!!

What's really pseudo-science is when libtarded zealots try to twist and distort anything that goes against their bias. Such as, ice core samples are the gold standard and they clearly show these cycles have been happening long before humans could affect them and CO2 increases lag temperature increases by roughly 800 years but what does that prove? ROTFLMO!!!!

Now it seems the ice caps are melting at half the rate previously thought. We know you can't think for yourself so can you find a libtarded science "god" to dispute that Gayfly?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=206448

Quote from Gayfly1:

It's astonishing how you pseudo-science guys know absolutely everything there is to know about everything.

Quote from Gayfly1:

It really shouldn't come as a surprise. With few exceptions, climate change deniers are creationists.

Eight · Sep 11, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

No. You don't. I answered the question that you had posed by finding a credible site that addresses the common fallacy to which you have succumbed. I will not debate the science that neither of us has the proper grounding to understand in full, your pocketful of talking points notwithstanding.

It's astonishing how you pseudo-science guys know absolutely everything there is to know about everything. You think you know more than all of the leading scientists in all fields of study. And all this by just being armed with talking points and questionable references stemming from Right-Wing-motivated anti-climate-change, creationist, and other agenda-driven web sites. Such rugged individualists and renaissance men.

good arguments have good assumptions and good logic... we show you examples of bad logic [circular reasoning used to support age of earth hypothesis], bad assumptions ["I don't know how the universe started but I know that God didn't do it"] all the time... these same people with the assumptions from hell and logic that would get an F in Philosophy 101 will get really mad if we try to get past the "we're science and you are blind faith" part of the argument that is their mainstay... we are subject to so much SHIT from people claiming to be "science" that we can't get the windshield clean long enough to even get a good laugh out of them, let alone get some reasoned arguments...

If people want to have a world view, a belief system if you will, based on science they are going to have to admit that they have conjecture with the trappings of science for the most part at some point before they can move on to reasoned arguments... getting to that stage of intellectual development is a step towards being able to actually think for themselves... some make it, some never do...

"Science" can't tell us why water is the only element that can exist in three states! They can't explain how rock can hold the pressure of natural gas and oil!! It should not be able to do that for more than a few thousand years but they keep repeating "millions of years" like it was a fact! Did you know that they are that lame, after all the trillions in expenditures to date? I'm stunned at what they think they know and further stunned at what they don't know...

jem · Sep 11, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

I think you missed this part in the text:

Does this prove that CO2 doesnât cause global warming? The answer is no.

This is, after all, the issue with which you are in dispute, is it not? And so, I will concede that one of us is a pinhead.

You are the pinhead jerkoff who brought up global warming in an attempt to insult me.

It turns out that I am right to not take a stance on the what causes warming..... Don't try to pin your stupidity on me. You took the stance.

You should have kept your poor logic to yourself and stayed out of it.

Gabfly1 · Sep 11, 2010

Quote from jem:

You are the pinhead jerkoff who brought up global warming in an attempt to insult me...

Only to illustrate your uniform density. You find yourself on the wrong side of just about every argument in which you participate. Say hi to your D-List science pals for me.

jem · Sep 11, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

Only to illustrate your uniform density. You find yourself on the wrong side of just about every argument in which you participate. Say hi to your D-List science pals for me.

I reference Hawking, Susskind and Dawkins. I noted you referenced Dawkins as one of your science pals.

here is you great atheist science pal
Dawkins admitting there could be an intelligent designer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9M_ZF8r5e7w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9M_ZF8r5e7w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I also note that I saw him admit that our universe looks designed but he has hope that there will be an explanation.

So.

1. your scientists - prove warming preceeds CO2 accumulation
2. Your scientists agree the universe we live in and the only one we have proof of, looks designed.

Perhaps you should recalibrate your world view.

stu · Sep 12, 2010

Quote from Trader666:

Of course you answered NONE of my questions which I conveniently marked for you. Because you can't.

As already mentioned, those "questions" which you say you conveniently marked, are versions of some pseudo-science misunderstood assumptions about gravity and dark matter, bludgeoned further by your own particular brand of contorted reasoning.
They're not science or physics, nor are they how physics explains stuff.

So why would anyone want to answer those absurd - red-herring in the shape of straw-men - questions of yours?

Quote from Trader666:

âbecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."

I'd argue that this is no more plausible than the existence of God.

So your argument IS the laws of physics are no more plausible than the existence of God.

Quote from Trader666:

That's not what I'm arguing dumbass.

Apparently you don't even understand what you're arguing.
You did nevertheless make the argument.

So here again is the answer.
There's no contest. Laws of physics are indubitability more plausible.

Gabfly1 · Sep 12, 2010

Quote from jem:

I reference Hawking, Susskind and Dawkins. I noted you referenced Dawkins as one of your science pals.

here is you great atheist science pal
Dawkins admitting there could be an intelligent designer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9M_ZF8r5e7w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9M_ZF8r5e7w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I also note that I saw him admit that our universe looks designed but he has hope that there will be an explanation.

So.

1. your scientists - prove warming preceeds CO2 accumulation
2. Your scientists agree the universe we live in and the only one we have proof of, looks designed.

Perhaps you should recalibrate your world view.

If you were to read the man's book(s) rather than resort to sound bites, carefully selected excerpts and so on, then maybe you would be in a position to comment on matters upon which you are not in a position to comment.

As for the climate change issue, which I initially only raised in passing and upon which you are now harping, did you not read the explanation as to why your C02 argument is illusory?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Or did you choose to go selective on that one as well? Did you check out the scientific explanations to all of your other fallacies?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

I'm guessing you didn't.

Carry on.

jem · Sep 12, 2010

Quote from Gabfly1:

If you were to read the man's book(s) rather than resort to sound bites, carefully selected excerpts and so on, then maybe you would be in a position to comment on matters upon which you are not in a position to comment.

As for the climate change issue, which I initially only raised in passing and upon which you are now harping, did you not read the explanation as to why your C02 argument is illusory?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Or did you choose to go selective on that one as well? Did you check out the scientific explanations to all of your other fallacies?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

I'm guessing you didn't.

Carry on.

you do not get what you read hear or see
Dawkins is the pied piper of pseudo intellectuals.

He gets paid on the lecture circuit, gets quoted in the media as the great atheist scientist --- but in the end he admits that our universe looks designed and he can't rule out a designer.

If you have quotes from his book to the contray.... bring em out. They do not exist.

As far a global warming you again a tricked by the media.
You do not even read your own quotes.

You raised the global warming idea not in passing but as a jerkoff making an insult.

Let me provide you a quote from your link above.

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Do you even read your links?

"All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming......"

Gabfly1 · Sep 12, 2010

Jem, jem, jem. True to form, you quote passages, from both Dawkins and the climate science site, and then use them as ammunition to draw your narrative conclusions even though the experts explain how the narrative conclusions which you seek to draw are flawed. And they explain why your narrative conclusions are flawed, but you manage to skip over that part.

Oh, and Dawkins is a pseudo-scientist? Kenn Miller, too? And Hawking? And all the top climate scientists? I guess that would make you the go-to guy for all things science. You and Trader666, among a few others here, should form an alliance and take over the world with all that collective and overflowing IQ.

Trader666 · Sep 12, 2010

ROTFLMAO!!!! You still haven't answered any of my questions because you can't... you can huff and puff all you want but it doesn't obfuscate your ignorance and stupidity.

Show where I wrote something incorrect about dark energy or dark matter, moron.

Speaking of bogus arguments, you're too dense (like your buddy Gayfly) to understand that you can't prove shit about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a teapot.

Quote from stu:

As already mentioned, those "questions" which you say you conveniently marked, are versions of some pseudo-science misunderstood assumptions about gravity and dark matter, bludgeoned further by your own particular brand of contorted reasoning.
They're not science or physics, nor are they how physics explains stuff.

So why would anyone want to answer those absurd - red-herring in the shape of straw-men - questions of yours?

Wrong. Don't try to twist what I wrote. Or are you too stupid to understand the difference? I said that Hawking's statement is no more plausible than the existence of God. For all Hawking knows, our universe is a glorified petri dish.

Quote from stu:

So your argument IS the laws of physics are no more plausible than the existence of God.

Apparently you don't even understand what you're arguing.
You did nevertheless make the argument.

So here again is the answer.
There's no contest. Laws of physics are indubitability more plausible.