Why Evangelicals Are Fooled Into Accepting Pseudoscience
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
No lie on my behalf. Perhaps you need more definitions to begin to understand?
You misquoted me. You gave an incorrect quote. You quoted incorrectly
In a similar way Jem does with scientists. Misquoting, taking only part of a sentence to distort or put out of context what is actually said or meant.
Funny thing is, you didn't even succeed with the misquote. The statement is still correct.
Never mind at least you'll out do Jem in the No Clue Club for Loyal Order of The Absolutely No Idea.
Tut tut...fuck you? If you are so sure you are right - why the insults every post, how come you can't address the things where I point out you are wrong ?
Again, and putting it politely, your quote was 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.
He clearly states no such thing.
He doesn't mention the word 'designed'. So how come you did?
He says .... or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation.
That is not a multiverse. So how come YOU make the false choice between fine tuning or multiverse ?
Unless you are a complete retard (hmmm), you must know that Hawkings has stated categorically - no need for a God as 'designer'.
It follows for anyone to notice except for the most ardent religionist like yourself, no 'designer' , then no 'design'.
You are grasping at the idea that if you misunderstand Hawking by misreading, misquoting and misunderstanding what he says by simplistically reading your own pre-conclusions into it all, including the term fine tuning, you can make him say what you want.
Well.... you can't.
Then repeating for the umpteenth time a bible thumper's philosophical review about what Bernard Carr is supposed to have said - still isn't science, and it still won't make the science which requires one or many universes for physical constant values to be explained, change either....
however much you must so desperately wish the 'fuck you' it would.
Wrong again STUpid lying troll. But keep digging because you make yourself look like more of a fool with every post 
Removing a parenthetical phrase for brevity that doesn't affect overall meaning and replacing it with an ellipsis that indicates the intentional omission is not a misquote.
BTW... your full quote makes you look even more STUpid... it was just too verbose.
How I quoted you:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics... is not proving a negative
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3355231#post3355231
What you wrote:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics, which you gave as an example for Proving a negative, is not Proving a negative, is therefore a wrong example, and is ignorant.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338079&#post3338079
P.S. Proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative and in fact, proofs of impossibility are also called negative proofs. What kind of dumbass world do you live in?
Removing a parenthetical phrase for brevity that doesn't affect overall meaning and replacing it with an ellipsis that indicates the intentional omission is not a misquote.
BTW... your full quote makes you look even more STUpid... it was just too verbose.
How I quoted you:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics... is not proving a negative
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3355231#post3355231
What you wrote:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics, which you gave as an example for Proving a negative, is not Proving a negative, is therefore a wrong example, and is ignorant.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338079&#post3338079
P.S. Proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative and in fact, proofs of impossibility are also called negative proofs. What kind of dumbass world do you live in?
Quote from Trader666:
Wrong again STUpid lying troll. But keep digging because you make yourself look like more of a fool with every post
Removing a parenthetical phrase for brevity that doesn't affect overall meaning and replacing it with an ellipsis that indicates the intentional omission is not a misquote.
BTW... your full quote makes you look even more STUpid... it was just too verbose.
How I quoted you:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics... is not proving a negative
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3355231#post3355231
What you wrote:
Proof of impossibility in mathematics, which you gave as an example for Proving a negative, is not Proving a negative, is therefore a wrong example, and is ignorant.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3338079&#post3338079
P.S. Proving one can't square the circle is absolutely proving a negative and in fact, proofs of impossibility are also called negative proofs. What kind of dumbass world do you live in?
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.
Don't be so pathetic. Designed? What's that? You mean intelligently designed.
Tuned? designed? You throw those words about as if they can mean anything you want them to.
Stephen Hawking and others who you misquote so much, explain how it is possible the physical constants are tuned by the laws of physics and are designed naturally.
You on the other hand like a mindless gawp, want tuned to mean must be intelligently designed and designed to mean tuned and God to mean whatever you want.
As if that nonsense explains anything at all, except an infantile waste of human rationality.
How is he not a bible thumper.
The article is an essay by a theologian who used to be a priest , now openly described as a Christian journalist . You lifted it off of a philosophical website.
His remarks are his own conclusions not based on science itself but on supposed remarks from other people he has selected and then commented upon.
1. I see you punted on trying to explain how tuned or designed is different for our purposes... you are such a weak piece of intellectual fraud.
2. off course Hawking and others state it is possible the fine tunings are natural... that is the whole point of the speculations about the multiverse. Exactly. They could be natural they could be the work of a tuner or designer.
Once again you lied about the quote being from a bible thumper... now dispute the content of the quote you fraud.
3. He has degrees in physics theology and philosophy... and is no longer a priest in England... so I wonder where you got the bible thumper shit.
"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: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât 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.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât 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 âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât 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
Yes you are a fraud , but certainly not intellectual.
Of course the use of words tuned and designed are different for these purposes. They don't mean something they don't mean just because you want them to.
Using the word designed in place of intelligently designed is deceitful.
Tuned by nature is not the same as designed by your fantasized so called intelligent designer.
How many times? You changing what they say, does not mean they say what YOU changed it to.
Hawking has just stated very clearly and very publicly there is no need for any work from your make-believe so called tuner or designer. That is merely some uninformed conclusion arrived at by your own wilfull ignorance.
They don't state the universe IS fine tuned. They say physical constants only appear fine tuned, however any appearance of fine tuning ,they state, is explained by the laws of physics anyway.
Multiverse is not the only way Stephen Hawking and others explain the constants. Back in his 1988 book, which you have already tried to misrepresent, he stated arriving at the values for the constants is possible in one universe. So how does that one universe fit with your no clue idea of what a multiverse might be?
He also stated the bottom up approach which he doesn't prefer, does not require a multiverse. Many possible universes formed through vast numbers of black holes within a single historical universe like this one which is known to exist, would be a multiverse.
Hawking and many other of your 'top Nobel Prize winning scientists', some of whom actually do have prizes unlike the ones you said did , explain how a multiverse does not need a tuner or a designer other than the laws of physics and nature themselves.
To suggest otherwise is what religionists like yourself untruthfully choose to do.
The way you respond gets more and more retarded each time.
He declares himself as a Christian writer/journalist. He is a bible thumper.
His essay is a philosophical ramble toward the make a gap for god geeks like you. It's not scientific comment. Picking a few scientists' partial quotes out of thin air is not science.
You keep posting it like a moron , constantly trying to pass it off as something it is't.