Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
what would you know about intellectual honesty? you make a career of twisting what scientists plainly say to make it fit what you believe.
how about a few more nobel prize winning scientists who say the universe is designed?
you have no shame. even so far as lying about richard dawkins trying to make it look like he supports your design fantasy. i suppose you get away with that kind of stuff all the time in sunday school. its not working so good here where thinking adults can call you on your bs.
perfect example of your dishonesty.
twist this troll... your guy... the top pied piper of sciences and atheism explaining to you that to physicists our universe looks designed and he then runs down the possible explanations.
don't forget... you quoted him. he tells you our universe appears finely tuned. yet you keep lying your ass off.
I just re listened.
He actually says some physicists say the constants of our universe are fine tuned... Not even "appears" but are.
so dude you can stfu about intellectual honesty.
Here is what dawkins is telling you...
Some physicists state our constants are fine tuned.
twist this troll... your guy... the top pied piper of sciences and atheism explaining to you that to physicists our universe looks designed and he then runs down the possible explanations.
don't forget... you quoted him. he tells you our universe appears finely tuned. yet you keep lying your ass off.
I just re listened.
He actually says some physicists say the constants of our universe are fine tuned... Not even "appears" but are.
so dude you can stfu about intellectual honesty.
Here is what dawkins is telling you...
Some physicists state our constants are fine tuned.
lol. poor jem. he just cant understand why educated thinkers on et dont just shout AMEN to his bs like they do in sunday school class.
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
[St. Augustine],
Just a note of warning to all, but according to terror management theory observations, for all of you who read my replies in here and thought about your own death, even momentarily, there is an increased chance for anger, aggressiveness, and more fervent clinging to your most cherished worldviews.
Peace. : )
Peace. : )
What you call papers from MIT was a flawed philosophical argument in which the opening premise didn't even stand up.
What you call quotes from multiple Nobel (not noble!) prize winners were either misrepresentations or partial quotes meant to purposely give a wrong impression.
What you call Dawkins admitting to scientists having problems explaining fine tuning, is like saying scientists are having problems explaining something which isn't even recognized as scientific.
The idea that constants are subject to any Fine tuning is nothing more than a speculative assertion. Certain values are what they are is a rational explanation using evidence to suggest constants would be how they are, otherwise no universe, until another event eventually produces them; rather than suggesting an invisible imaginary magic man fine tuned some mystery buttons.
Observing a constant changing. Apparently it is so. I gave an example.
Yes really.
Yes, so now isn't that your cue to regurgitate the same old what you call MIT paper, mined quotes, partial excerpts, and explanations on videos yet again that don't ever say what you state they do.
Yes you are wrong.
Like you are wrong calling everyone and anyone a troll who doesn't fall for the utter bollocks you troll around with.
But then acting as a creationist wannabe, you've learned how to glorify in being wrong.
Why not!?
You won the lottery of life against infinitesimal odds, gained consciousness when uncountable numbers of others did not but who just as well could have done in your place. You get the chance to dodge a bullet, avoid heart attacks, or not, as the case may be. You won the chance!
You get to experience life as a fact, to observe the universe, learn and understand it for a short while , tantalizingly if you choose to, with the same rationality that confirms your existence as a fact.
So youâre suggesting it is better not to find that to be the most meaningful and wonderful thing there could be for its own sake, and that because one day it will stop, you should in place of it live a lie, create some delusion ?
Against the principle that it is better to live and then die than never to have lived at all, you think it is better and there is no other way than to live amongst a bunch of deceptive emotions about life and death?
Well, no thanks Ricter. I'd rather rejoice in the very fact of life itself and the living of it. There, surely, stands purpose and reason enough.