Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

No STUpid liar, YOU got the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513

Tell us another

You imagine I have something backward. You imagine mathematical proofs are other than what they are. You imagine logical unfalsifiability must be wrong. You imagine repeatedly linking to your own blinding errors somehow seems an intelligent thing to do.
The only valid link in all this as far as you are concerned is just a word and it begins with the letter i. Apart from the word knobhead in the way applies to you.

True to form and only because your imaginary friend cuts no ice with me, you imagine wrong must be right.
The word delusional on the other hand doesn't really do you justice.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
For starters try debunking what Penrose just explained in the video... or what weinberg explains abut the fine tuning of the cosmological constant.

Already done on both counts. You took no notice before, why would you now.
And for your information I don't debunk what Penrose says, I debunked what you groundlessly and ignorantly assert from what he says.

Quote from jem:
The fine tunings are real... the explanation of multiverse is the unverified unobserved speculation.

What you are calling fine-tunings are not real, anymore than what you are calling "design" is real.

A universe that can only exist if values fall within a range needed for it to exist, is no more speculative than observing how everything exists, including No Clue Club members like yourself, only because they all fall within certain parameters needed for them to exist - otherwise they simply don't exist.

Obvious really, until you attach a load of religious woo onto everything.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Already done on both counts. You took no notice before, why would you now.
And for your information I don't debunk what Penrose says, I debunked what you groundlessly and ignorantly assert from what he says.


What you are calling fine-tunings are not real, anymore than what you are calling "design" is real.

A universe that can only exist if values fall within a range needed for it to exist, is no more speculative than observing how everything exists, including No Clue Club members like yourself, only because they all fall within certain parameters needed for them to exist - otherwise they simply don't exist.

Obvious really, until you attach a load of religious woo onto everything.

You are so ignorant of the science... you actually make up bullshit which manifests your ignorance.


In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

 

[jem]

by the way the above came from here.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx

And stu - no I don't give a shit if the website's author is Jewish... he is also and MIT trained physicist.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You are so ignorant of the science... you actually make up bullshit which manifests your ignorance.


In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

So what?

He goes on to explain "remarkable" is all down to the laws of physics.

I repeat.
Vast numbers of universes popping into and out of existence due only to the laws of physics within a historical universe such as this one, that can only exist if values fall within a range needed for it to exist, is no more speculative than observing how every other thing exists, only because everything including unverses fall within certain parameters needed for them to exist - otherwise they simply don't exist.

There's no God in it, so why not just try dealing with that.

Quote from jem:
You are so ignorant of the science... you actually make up bullshit which manifests your ignorance.

Yes you do and you are .
You're still struggling with that "How Introspection Works" course I see

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

by the way the above came from here.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx

And stu - no I don't give a shit if the website's author is Jewish... he is also and MIT trained physicist.

Again , so what?

Seriously, what are you trying to suggest, as if I didn't know.

Those excerpts from your Jewish MIT dude, demand scientific answers. They don't require pointless religious infantile assumptions of God'n'stuff in daft response.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

So what?

He goes on to explain "remarkable" is all down to the laws of physics.

I repeat.
Vast numbers of universes popping into and out of existence due only to the laws of physics within a historical universe such as this one, that can only exist if values fall within a range needed for it to exist, is no more speculative than observing how every other thing exists, only because everything including unverses fall within certain parameters needed for them to exist - otherwise they simply don't exist.

There's no God in it, so why not just try dealing with that.




Yes you do and you are .
You're still struggling with that "How Introspection Works" course I see

Could you be more dense.

To explain Hawking's quote about the existence of fine tunings... You just quoted....

"Vast numbers of universes popping into and out of existence.... ."

Would you just think for one minute. Take yourself of your self imposed atheisitic stupidity and read.

"VAST NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES"


Have you seen any of these vast numbers of universes?

Has any scientist proven they exist.
Of course not you dipshit. Hawking a assumes a level of education which actually includes reading comprehension at a level beyond yours.

Do you not understand that by speculating there could be almost infinite number of universe... you can explain anything - even the incredible fine tuning in our universe.

 

[Trader666]

No, your childish compulsive lying in the face of proof of your STUpidity only shows you're a world class loser

Quote from stu:

You imagine I have something backward. You imagine mathematical proofs are other than what they are. You imagine logical unfalsifiability must be wrong. You imagine repeatedly linking to your own blinding errors somehow seems an intelligent thing to do.
The only valid link in all this as far as you are concerned is just a word and it begins with the letter i. Apart from the word knobhead in the way applies to you.

True to form and only because your imaginary friend cuts no ice with me, you imagine wrong must be right.
The word delusional on the other hand doesn't really do you justice.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

No, your childish compulsive lying in the face of proof of your STUpidity only shows you're a world class loser

I said I know... you have no argument. You really don't need to keep proving it.
At least in your ignorance that has been one proof you managed more than you imagined you could do with pseudo-math and a negative.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Do you not understand that by speculating there could be almost infinite number of universe... you can explain anything - even the incredible fine tuning in our universe.

Which you obviously can't comprehend is infinitely more than can be done speculating about an imaginary deity.