Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

Quote from jem:

You are a fool and a troll.

1. your statement does not mean anything but that Hawking speculates the constants could change in 1988.. now cite me to the page so I can look it up.

But the real question still is... does science have any proof the cosmological constant changes in our universe... or say any of the other constants mentioned by Rees? No... you are citing speculation to combat the conclusion of fine tuning.

Plus and this is really the point.....

2. I just gave you Hawkings writing from 2006. I not only cited to the paper... I linked to it. That is not cut and paste... that is the paper itself --- you lying troll. Try being truthful for once.


That is the science from the scientist. He tells you plainly our universe appears finely tuned. He speculates it could appear that way because of a multiverse. That is the bottom line. If you wish to call him religious be my guest.
Hawking writes a paragraph in his book. You copy part of it from a religious website and that is Hawking telling everyone how it is. The science from the scientist as you so ludicrously put it.

But the part of the paragraph which inconveniently messes up the misdirection of the edit all of a sudden does not mean anything. No longer science from the scientist because of what he says..

Cite you to the page!!? Lol YOU gave the edited quote, the publisher and the page number. duh.

You quoted Stephen Hawking suggesting something he doesn't, by copying selectively edited words that theist websites lifted from a paragraph in his book.

You have form for doing these things from all over the place. You even deny the spoken words in videos that you post .
That is sufficient reason to exhibit how nothing you post is reliable.

Taking Stephen Hawkings words as unquestionable when they fit with your false choice between so called fine tuning or multiverse, ignoring every other physicist, the science itself, and Stephen Hawking too when they don't fit, is no more than the brainless theistic pick and choose way to ignorance.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

No thanks, I'm married.
Don't get your hopes up , it wasn't a question.
See if your wife will maybe oblige. You never know until you ask him.
 
You creationist types are just plain weird.
You see a question where there isn't one, you want a number for no valid reason, and you want science to say what you think it should.

So yeah, you'd believe anything, really.
Except reasonable.
Quote from Lucrum:

Oh yeah, like anyone is going to believe that.
 
Quote from stu:

Hawking writes a paragraph in his book. You copy part of it from a religious website and that is Hawking telling everyone how it is. The science from the scientist as you so ludicrously put it.

But the part of the paragraph which inconveniently messes up the misdirection of the edit all of a sudden does not mean anything. No longer science from the scientist because of what he says..

Cite you to the page!!? Lol YOU gave the edited quote, the publisher and the page number. duh.

You quoted Stephen Hawking suggesting something he doesn't, by copying selectively edited words that theist websites lifted from a paragraph in his book.

You have form for doing these things from all over the place. You even deny the spoken words in videos that you post .
That is sufficient reason to exhibit how nothing you post is reliable.

Taking Stephen Hawkings words as unquestionable when they fit with your false choice between so called fine tuning or multiverse, ignoring every other physicist, the science itself, and Stephen Hawking too when they don't fit, is no more than the brainless theistic pick and choose way to ignorance.

you are really stooping low... what a crock of shit.
Have you dignity...no spine... no honesty?

It was not from a website... it was from his paper.

I read his paper, excerpted a quote (completely in context) and gave you a link to the paper. Then later I used a quote from his book which supported the paper.

The quote from the book is obviously in context... because that is the premise of the the entire book... THE GRAND DESIGN. The premise of his paper and the book is that top down cosmology coupled with the multiverse explains why our universe seems so incredibly fine tuned.

For proof I will post the quote below...

You can lead an ET atheist to science but you can't make him think.
 
Quote from jem:

This is in context from the horses mouth. Hawking and Hertog's paper.


If you read this it says... we looked very fine tuned... but multiverse and top down view of cosmology in which the question causes the answer may be an explanation.

If you really understand this... you will now understand why hawking states gravity causes the universe. In a way it sort of does if you think you are selecting among almost infinite choices.

Its pretty interesting thinking-- which almost all star trek fans have considered .. but all premised on using string theory to postulate there are almost infinite universes.

Which seems far more complicated (and contrived) then suggesting the answer to the fine tunings is a Tuner.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

"But cosmology poses questions of a very different character. In our past there
is an epoch of the early universe when quantum gravity was important. The remnants of this early phase are all around us. The central problem in cosmology is to
understand why these remnants are what they are, and how the distinctive features
of our universe emerged from the big bang. Clearly it is not an S-matrix that is the
relevant observable
3
for these predictions, since we live in the middle of this particular
experiment. Furthermore, we have no control over the initial state of the universe,
and there is certainly no opportunity for observing multiple copies of the universe.
In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency
3
See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes.
1- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one
from predicting what a typical observer would see.
Here we put forward a different approach to cosmology in the string landscape,
based not on the classical idea of a single history for the universe but on the quantum
sum over histories [12]. We argue that the quantum origin of the universe naturally
leads to a framework for cosmology where amplitudes for alternative histories of the
universe are computed with boundary conditions at late times only. We thus envision
a set of alternative universes in the landscape, with amplitudes given by the no
boundary path integral [13]."
---
Its funny you 2 elitetrader atheist clowns are being defeated by science and the internet every time.

you can lead and et atheist to science but you can't make him think.
 
Quote from jem:

you are really stooping low... what a crock of shit.
Have you dignity...no spine... no honesty?

It was not from a website... it was from his paper.

I read his paper, excerpted a quote (completely in context) and gave you a link to the paper. Then later I used a quote from his book which supported the paper.

The quote from the book is obviously in context... because that is the premise of the the entire book... THE GRAND DESIGN. The premise of his paper and the book is that top down cosmology coupled with the multiverse explains why our universe seems so incredibly fine tuned.

For proof I will post the quote below...

You can lead an ET atheist to science but you can't make him think.

The quote you gave from Hawkings book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED to mislead..sheesh what would it take for you to see the light of day?
Jumping into another quotes fest to make more of your wild assertions will not change that fact.

As long as you can't understand you have been actually altering the words said in the vids you have posted for Dawkins, and Susskind in other threads, and the quotes you are cutting and pasting from bible sites are EDITED to give the wrong impression of what is really being said, the less your pathetic unfounded insults and denials mean.

All you are doing is trolling pseudoscience and baseless assertion as science.

And yeah ok , you’ve really overworked the taking to science but can’t make them think thing.
Especially considering you misspelt theist as atheist.
 
Quote from stu:

The quote you gave from Hawkings book 'A Brief History Of Time' WAS EDITED to mislead..sheesh what would it take for you to see the light of day?
Jumping into another quotes fest to make more of your wild assertions will not change that fact.

As long as you can't understand you have been actually altering the words said in the vids you have posted for Dawkins, and Susskind in other threads, and the quotes you are cutting and pasting from bible sites are EDITED to give the wrong impression of what is really being said, the less your pathetic unfounded insults and denials mean.

All you are doing is trolling pseudoscience and baseless assertion as science.

And yeah ok , you’ve really overworked the taking to science but can’t make them think thing.
Especially considering you misspelt theist as atheist.


You are a lying full of shit troll and you keep lying to avoid the issue.
You want to blame the messenger and make up shit against the messenger instead of critiquing the science...
What you are doing is being an intellectual fraud and liar.
Address the science.

Argue with Hawking.

Here he is in this famous paper... telling you are universe appears carefully fine tuned... you alternative is to speculate there is a multiverse.

That is the science... argue with the scientist.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

"In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned - as if prescribed by an outside agency..."
 
Hey troll show us how this hawking quote from wikipedia and quoted widely on the net is out of context. Cite the page and explain why it is out of context. Especially in light of the 2006 paper I presented.




Quote from jem:

How many times do you have to be hit in the head with the science before you stop being a troll. Weinberg Rees and Penrose are prize winning scientists. Dismissing their arguments but calling them religious nuts is really strange (its really sad to say that about weinberg and rees...I do not know about penrose) ... even for a troll.

Rees, the astronomer royal wrote a book about how six of the constants are so finely tuned.
Weinberg a nobel prize winner explains that the cosmological constant is so finely tuned it amazes him.

These constants are so finely tuned it could not have happened by random chance. It requires an explanation. An explanation which you obviously can't grasp and scientists who are atheists are still search for.
----
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Now Hawkins promotes the multiverse idea to explain the fine tunings..

As do -
Rees
Dawkins and
Susskind.

Any non troll would realize that the multiverse requires just as much faith as faith in a Tuner.
 
Back
Top