Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience

[Trader666]

YOU have been outed in this thread and others for your colossal ignorance and STUpidity and here's proof:

Here you showed you know less about the universe than most grade schoolers do by getting the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513

Here you "thought" you "reasoned away" the existence of God with your laughably moronic, self-contradictory drivel. STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions.
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231

Here you contradicted yourself twice, one time in each of two back to back sentences. This is an astounding feat of STUpidity, even for you
It [the Christian God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

Here you dazzled us with yet another of your STUpendous brain farts. News flash: It's "blindingly obvious" that an infinite number of things CAN be reasoned out of existence that cannot be reasoned in.
blindingly obviously then:
You can't reason something out of existence that cannot be reasoned in.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3277977#post3277977

Here you spouted nonsense about something (the fine-structure constant) that you couldn't even get the name right for, let alone the facts.
Recent observations evidence a fundamental physical constant, known as the fine structure alpha constant, the electromagnetic force, varying throughout the universe.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338075&#post3338075

Here you tried to support your claim that "extremeophiles [sic] live in environments that are present on other planets and in outer space" by STUpidly stating that the temperature of the universe 13+ billion years ago, at which some forms of matter can't even exist let alone life, is a better starting point for where extremophiles can live now, than the current temperature of the universe.
A starting point, if anything, would be the temperature calculated at the beginning of the universe, as almost immeasurably hot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3303006&#post3303006

Quote from stu:

You have been outed in this thread and others...

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

YOU have been outed in this thread and others for your colossal ignorance and STUpidity and here's proof:

Here you showed you know less about the universe than most grade schoolers do by getting the 96% / 4% split of dark matter & dark energy versus everything else BACKWARDS.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513

Here you "thought" you "reasoned away" the existence of God with your laughably moronic, self-contradictory drivel. STUpid assumptions + STUpid "logic" = STUpid conclusions.
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231

Here you contradicted yourself twice, one time in each of two back to back sentences. This is an astounding feat of STUpidity, even for you
It [the Christian God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482

Here you dazzled us with yet another of your STUpendous brain farts. News flash: It's "blindingly obvious" that an infinite number of things CAN be reasoned out of existence that cannot be reasoned in.
blindingly obviously then:
You can't reason something out of existence that cannot be reasoned in.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3277977#post3277977

Here you spouted nonsense about something (the fine-structure constant) that you couldn't even get the name right for, let alone the facts.
Recent observations evidence a fundamental physical constant, known as the fine structure alpha constant, the electromagnetic force, varying throughout the universe.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338075&#post3338075

Here you tried to support your claim that "extremeophiles [sic] live in environments that are present on other planets and in outer space" by STUpidly stating that the temperature of the universe 13+ billion years ago, at which some forms of matter can't even exist let alone life, is a better starting point for where extremophiles can live now, than the current temperature of the universe.
A starting point, if anything, would be the temperature calculated at the beginning of the universe, as almost immeasurably hot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3303006&#post3303006

Your big problem is you haven't been able substantiate any of those pathetic assertions . All you can do is keep repeating them like a broken record.

Fabricating false statements as a form of argument really doesn't wash.

Funny how you haven't realized that. Still, trying to insert an imaginary god into everything can feck the thinking process, as you and your No Clue Club pal Jem have so well demonstrated.

 

[Trader666]

ROFL. Your big problem is, you're not only incredibly ignorant and STUpid -- you're also a compulsive barefaced liar as anyone who checks the six examples I gave will see.

The only thing that's unsubstantiated and fabricated is your feeble attempt to lie your way out of your blunders with zero-content nonsense.

Funny how you haven't realized that you're not fooling anyone.

Quote from stu:

Your big problem is you haven't been able substantiate any of those pathetic assertions . All you can do is keep repeating them like a broken record.

Fabricating false statements as a form of argument really doesn't wash.

Funny how you haven't realized that. Still, trying to insert an imaginary god into everything can feck the thinking process, as you and your No Clue Club pal Jem have so well demonstrated.

 

[jem]

Stu --you are such a piece of shit liar. I have presented videos..
and this..

a paper from hawking... not just a quote or a cite... but the paper..

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.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

ROFL. Your big problem is, you're not only incredibly ignorant and STUpid -- you're also a compulsive barefaced liar as anyone who checks the six examples I gave will see.

The only thing that's unsubstantiated and fabricated is your feeble attempt to lie your way out of your blunders with zero-content nonsense.

Funny how you haven't realized that you're not fooling anyone.

As I say, like a broken record.
Non of the posts you keep linking to confirm any of the groundless assertions you've made about them. Just because you think they do doesn't mean they actually do.

And no I'm not fooling anyone nor am I attempting to, but you clearly are desperately trying to, including making one of yourself.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu --you are such a piece of shit liar. I have presented videos..
and this..

a paper from hawking... not just a quote or a cite... but the paper..

Does all your profanity make you feel clever or something ?

And I've already asked why have you selected in isolation his explanation of a bottom up approach which he does not prefer.
All you can think of is to repost the same thing.
Laughable.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Does all your profanity make you feel clever or something ?

And I've already asked why have you selected in isolation his explanation of a bottom up approach which he does not prefer.
All you can think of is to repost the same thing.
Laughable.

1. So we agree my quote was not out of context.
2. I do not recall you ever asking... but in case you did I will explain. Since I have have done so many times. I have told you dozens of times... hawking states you can conclude design or multiverse.

The "traditional bottom up approach" yields a conclusion of a. careful fine tuning... or b. to speculation that the "appearance" of fine tuning is made possible by the hope there are almost infinite other universes or a multiverse.

3. Hawking does not seem to like the bottom up multiverse approach because it does not allow any scientific "work" because somewhere out there everything is possible in some kind of universe or another.

So he and his co author take the completely speculative guess of a multiverse and adds one more layer of guesswork... he suggests that if you take a top down view of cosmology... you can explain that the question or the idea causes the path of the universe. That is why he argues that gravity causes the universe... if you are looking from a universe with gravity... you can say the gravity selected its path to your universe.

In conclusion the only think which is not theory... is the conclusion our universe looks carefully designed... the multiverse and top down cosmology are unproven, so far untestable ideas.

 

[Trader666]

You are like a broken record with your compulsive lying and childish denial.

Hey -- here's one I forgot to add to the list

Quote from stu:

As I say, like a broken record.
Non of the posts you keep linking to confirm any of the groundless assertions you've made about them. Just because you think they do doesn't mean they actually do.

And no I'm not fooling anyone nor am I attempting to, but you clearly are desperately trying to, including making one of yourself.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
1. So we agree my quote was not out of context.

Your quote was out of context. It is clear why. I explained why.
You also seem to think lifting sentences by itself is ok simply because they were in a paper.

Quote from jem:
2. I do not recall you ever asking... but in case you did I will explain. Since I have have done so many times. I have told you dozens of times... hawking states you can conclude design or multiverse.
The "traditional bottom up approach" yields a conclusion of a. careful fine tuning... or b. to speculation that the "appearance" of fine tuning is made possible by the hope there are almost infinite other universes or a multiverse.

You do not recall me ever asking a question I've only just recently asked? Then why don't you pay more attention.

If you have told me dozens of times then you have been wrong dozens of times, because in another misleading quote you gave, you make so many, Hawking states it is possible values are set within a single universe.

YOU posted the quote where that devastating information against your -false choice multiverse assertion- had been edited out.

Quote from jem:
3. Hawking does not seem to like the bottom up multiverse approach because it does not allow any scientific "work" because somewhere out there everything is possible in some kind of universe or another.

What a coincidence that in the recent post I made which you can't recall, I explained how Hawking did not prefer the bottom up approach, and asked why are you quoting what he does not like, as support for fine tuning.

I know why. It'll be like I said, because you don't have a clue, saw the words 'fine tuning' and fell straight in.

Quote from jem:
So he and his co author take the completely speculative guess of a multiverse and adds one more layer of guesswork... he suggests that if you take a top down view of cosmology... you can explain that the question or the idea causes the path of the universe. That is why he argues that gravity causes the universe... if you are looking from a universe with gravity... you can say the gravity selected its path to your universe.

Except the person calling it guesswork is you. One minute you hang on Hawking's quotes, the next you dismiss them as guesswork.

Quote from jem:

In conclusion the only think which is not theory... is the conclusion our universe looks carefully designed... the multiverse and top down cosmology are unproven, so far untestable ideas.

In your flawed conclusion maybe, but Hawking clearly states otherwise, that it is the laws of physics, not what you call 'design' but mean to be god, as he explains in the many quotes of his you have not edited, misrepresented or misquoted.

I suppose I should feel flattered now that I am in the august company of having my own quotes misquoted in a similar way you do with Stephen Hawking's and the rest, but in my case by your fellow No Clue Club member who takes pics of himself wearing a dunce's hat.

Weird the things that religion makes you two goofs do and say.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Your quote was out of context. It is clear why. I explained why.
You also seem to think lifting sentences by itself is ok simply because they were in a paper.


You do not recall me ever asking a question I've only just recently asked? Then why don't you pay more attention.

If you have told me dozens of times then you have been wrong dozens of times, because in another misleading quote you gave, you make so many, Hawking states it is possible values are set within a single universe.

YOU posted the quote where that devastating information against your -false choice multiverse assertion- had been edited out.


What a coincidence that in the recent post I made which you can't recall, I explained how Hawking did not prefer the bottom up approach, and asked why are you quoting what he does not like, as support for fine tuning.

I know why. It'll be like I said, because you don't have a clue, saw the words 'fine tuning' and fell straight in.


Except the person calling it guesswork is you. One minute you hang on Hawking's quotes, the next you dismiss them as guesswork.


In your flawed conclusion maybe, but Hawking clearly states otherwise, that it is the laws of physics, not what you call 'design' but mean to be god, as he explains in the many quotes of his you have not edited, misrepresented or misquoted.

I suppose I should feel flattered now that I am in the august company of having my own quotes misquoted in a similar way you do with Stephen Hawking's and the rest, but in my case by your fellow No Clue Club member who takes pics of himself wearing a dunce's hat.

Weird the things that religion makes you two goofs do and say.

fuck you... I have not taken anything out of context. I cited his 2006 paper which he clearly states according to the traditional approach our universe looks designed or you can suggest multiverse to explain the careful fine tunings.


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 or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see.

and I have given you videos and quotes over and over again.
Are you that stupid? or just a fraud.

Here is another quote about the physics consistent with the one above from Hawking...


"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.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137