Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

I see you've taken the opportunity to humiliate yourself yet again.

Your posts are a monument to STUpidity and your desperate compulsion to try and lie your way out of your idiotic brain farts is probably the only way someone as STUpid as you can survive.

No misquote, no different impression, no taking anything out of context. You're as ignorant of English as you are of math and science. Speaking of which... proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative. As is any proof of impossibility. What part of proving that no possibility exists = proving a negative doesn't your STUpid little pea brain understand?

So keep your dunce cap on, STUpid. Your tiny fisted fits and lies only show that you still haven't learned your lesson.

attachment.php

Quote from stu:

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 then stuck the misquote on a picture you took of yourself wearing a dunce's hat. Which clearly unknowingly to yourself, merely demonstrates you to be a real ugly looking bastid too.


You should take more care than using a wiki disambiguation page for information, especially when you generally don't have a clue.
Be more careful as well where you use the words negative proof and absolutely, in math especially.

In math, proof a circle can't be squared is done by proving a logical impossibility. Mathematically that is not proving a negative.
Negative proof in math is not the same as proving a negative. A mathematical result does not prove negative but proves true, in such a manner as could not be otherwise.

Now go stand back in the corner and don't take that pointy hat off.
 

Attachments

Quote from stu:

Charming!
You are really rattled by this aren't you.
Having no real argument you constantly resort to vulgar profanity and name calling. So that's what religion does for you.

1. I have explained .
You've ignored it.

Here's just one difference, again.
If the universe is tuned entirely by the laws of physics, which Stephen Hawking states is all that's needed, it isn't going to be what you call (intelligently) designed.


2. Yes that is exactly what you do ...use sentences out of context and leave out the meaning.

I have both explained and put what Stephen Hawking said in 1988 in context.
Whereas you've explained zilch and put everything out of context.

Nothing Stephen Hawking said in 1988 about any appearance of tuning has been overthrown in any way by what he has said in 2006 or later. Whatever scientific method preferred, he made it abundantly clear as recetly as last year, what you are calling design is not necessry, as the laws of physics alone can create a universe or a multiverse.


3. I already have explained what the writer of the article has done.

He has only selected partial quotes he attributes to scientists to skew toward the prospect of fine tuning , where actually there is no science whatsoever that establishes any fine tuning at all.

To compound the fact that therefore non of it is actually science - which you claim it is, he includes in it a religious comment too.
It is both a distorted and a distorting viewpoint.

Not science, at best a disputable philosophical ramble.

4. Get a clue.

you just lied about virtually everthing... but lets start with one thing.

Explain how this quote is out of context... you fraudulent troll.

Show us links to science... in context in the last 20 years.

"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”


http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

jezus jem this isnt sunday school class. how low will you stoop? at least do a little research outside of the creationist websites before you post so you wont look so dishonest and silly:

.Lying for Jesus? By RICHARD DAWKINS

I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

exactly...
dawkins states

The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

--
Exactly. You just made my argument troll.

"Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! "........
......

Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.


--

In summary...

We had limited time
Organized complexity did not come in til late in the universe.
Since directed pan spermia is possible, we know science has no proof of life evolving from non life here on earth.
Even if life was seeded - the question of who seeded the seed in our universe has to stop as you get further back in time. Since, life (organized complexity) did not spontaneously create itself in our universe.
--
Are you starting to see the point yet no thinker?
Do you still think science has proof life evolved from non life?
Do you think science is concerned there was a limited amount of time for life to evolve from non life... since it had to come in late?

are you beginning to understand the quotes from the MIT paper?

or are you still ignorant of the science.
 
Quote from jem:

exactly...
dawkins states

The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

--
Exactly. You just made my argument troll.

"Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! "........
......

Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.


--

In summary...

We had limited time
Organized complexity did not come in til late in the universe.
Since directed pan spermia is possible, we know science has no proof of life evolving from non life here on earth.
Even if life was seeded - the question of who seeded the seed in our universe has to stop as you get further back in time. Since, life (organized complexity) did not spontaneously create itself in our universe.
--
Are you starting to see the point yet no thinker?

seriously,are you that dense of are there real mental problems with you?

"I constructed a science fiction scenario."






still waiting for the answer:

"what the point of making shit up about dawkins or hawking or susskind? i am sure you could go to answers in genesis or the discovery institute and find people who claim to be scientists that really do say they believe the univese was designed by biblegod. whats the point of lying about these three. do you feel you gain some credibility by dropping their names even if it is a lie?"
 
Think about what you just read you two et trolls.
The pied piper of atheism... the guy who writes the books.

Think what he just said with a straight face.

1. He knows organized complexity had to come in late.
2. Science has no proof how life came into being from non life.
3. It is so vexing for them... (because it appears there was not enough time for life to evolve on non life here on earth).. that a noble prize winner (crick) proposed in a peer reviewed paper aliens could have seeded life on earth.
4. Dawkins has to admit that aliens are is a possible answer because he does not have the true answer.
5. He realizes the alien seeder answer sucks because the regress of who seeded the seeder has to end in a finite time period inside our universe.

yet dawkins still is adamant that there is no God.
wtf... there could be aliens who seeded the planet but he knows there is no God.

What a bigot... what a marketing plan. Feeding red meat to fools like no thinker.
 
Quote from jem:

Think about what you just read you two et trolls.
The pied piper of atheism... the guy who writes the books.

Think what he just said with a straight face.

1. He knows organized complexity had to come in late.
2. Science has no proof how life came into being from non life.
3. It is so vexing for them... (because it appears there was not enough time for life to evolve on non life here on earth).. that a noble prize winner (crick) proposed in a peer reviewed paper aliens could have seeded life on earth.
4. Dawkins has to admit that aliens are is a possible answer because he does not have the true answer.
5. He realizes the alien seeder answer sucks because the regress of who seeded the seeder has to end in a finite time period inside our universe.

yet dawkins still is adamant that there is no God.
wtf... there could be aliens who seeded the planet but he knows there is no God.

What a bigot... what a marketing plan. Feeding red meat to fools like no thinker.
seriously jem you need help. something is not right upstaires:

Dawkins"I constructed a science fiction scenario."
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

seriously jem you need help. something is not right upstaires:

Dawkins"I constructed a science fiction scenario."

you need an education.

he has no known answers for how life evolved from non life.

and incidently... it is the scenario proposed by the noble prize winner Crick.
 
Quote from Free Thinker:

seriously,are you that dense of are there real mental problems with you?

"I constructed a science fiction scenario."






still waiting for the answer:

"what the point of making shit up about dawkins or hawking or susskind? i am sure you could go to answers in genesis or the discovery institute and find people who claim to be scientists that really do say they believe the univese was designed by biblegod. whats the point of lying about these three. do you feel you gain some credibility by dropping their names even if it is a lie?"

I have not made up one quote... and I have presented papers and videos from the top scientists.

Show me where I made up a quote you piece of shit liar.
 
Quote from Trader666:

I see you've taken the opportunity to humiliate yourself yet again.

Your posts are a monument to STUpidity and your desperate compulsion to try and lie your way out of your idiotic brain farts is probably the only way someone as STUpid as you can survive.

No misquote, no different impression, no taking anything out of context. You're as ignorant of English as you are of math and science. Speaking of which... proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative. As is any proof of impossibility. What part of proving that no possibility exists = proving a negative doesn't your STUpid little pea brain understand?

So keep your dunce cap on, STUpid. Your tiny fisted fits and lies only show that you still haven't learned your lesson.

attachment.php
My you're an ugly mother. Could you pull that hat over your face?

"proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative"

Not in math it isn't. Go get some education .


It's funny, though sad for humanity, watching you and Jem getting more and more angry as you both try to use *wrong* as a form of argument.
How the hell did you two manage to figure how to breathe?
 
Stomping your little feet and trying to project your picture and inadequacies on me only makes you look more foolish.

As usual you have nothing but content-free STUpidity, lying and trolling.

Are you really so STUpid that you "think" proving there exists NO solution isn't proving a negative?
Quote from stu:

My you're an ugly mother. Could you pull that hat over your face?

"proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative"

Not in math it isn't. Go get some education .


It's funny, though sad for humanity, watching you and Jem getting more and more angry as you both try to use *wrong* as a form of argument.
How the hell did you two manage to figure how to breathe?
 
Back
Top